Theologian Says Controlled Demolition is Now a Fact, Not a Theory

[Critter]

Interesting stuff, but I'm afraid there are a few things I don't understand.

If this is all true, (and it does make a certain amount of sense) and it was actually a government plan to demolish the WTC, was it nothing more than an excuse to go to war and avenge Dubya's vendetta against Saddam? And planes DID fly into the WTC, so who was flying the planes? Was it a collaboration between our government and Al-Quaida, or did the government simply hire someone (or force someone) to fly these planes on a suicide mission and then claim Al-Quaida did it?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Critter who was flying the planes?

Remote control technology has been available for decades. The crews and passengers may have been gassed and the planes flown by remote control into the buildings. I don't have any positive evidence of such, but it is certainly a possibility.
http://www.rense.com/general63/remo.htm

[bishop]

it's reasonable to question/distrust the government.. but when you believe that everything the government says is a lie, then you're no better than those who believe everything the government says. just a different side of the same coin.

and citing polls like this one to bolster your case doesn't carry much weight: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

just how credible are the opinions in majority?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...oll-iraq_x.htm

arguing that because a majority believes something to be true does not make it true.

everybody and their mother thinks that they're the know it all with the best, most convincing conspiracy theory ever. and the amazing this is that when people put in the effort to challenge those nutty theories, it goes in one ear and out the other (assuming that the conspiracy theories even bother to look at the opposing arguments in the first place).

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/
http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm


*gets his voodoo bones out to see what the future holds*

[Son of Belial]

Quote by: Critter If this is all true, (and it does make a certain amount of sense) and it was actually a government plan to demolish the WTC, was it nothing more than an excuse to go to war and avenge Dubya's vendetta against Saddam?

A little. More of it was as an excuse to pass things like the Patriot Act. 9/11 = the Reichstag fire. We get scared, the government says "we can protect you, IF you give up more of your rights" and the sheep say "Okay, do what you want, just protect us!" They're doing the same thing with Katrina. Every disaster, every attack, is an excuse to chip away at our rights, until we have a police state.

Quote by: Patrick Henry Remote control technology has been available for decades. The crews and passengers may have been gassed and the planes flown by remote control into the buildings. I don't have any positive evidence of such, but it is certainly a possibility.

I don't see any reason to believe nobody was flying the plane. I just don't believe it was militant Muslim extremists that were flying it, and there are professional, ex-military airline pilots that have said the same thing. One such person was the teacher of one of the terrorists, and he said the guy was useless and kept failing the tests over and over again. He said there was no way this person piloted that plane.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Son of Belial I don't see any reason to believe nobody was flying the plane. I just don't believe it was militant Muslim extremists that were flying it

Who would be willing to suicide except possibly jihadis?

[Sonart]

Quote by: bar Belial They've already tried doing it before. Again, it was in the newspapers, back in the early 90s.

The very example that proves what I'm talking about. They drove a truck full of explosives into the basement parking lot and set it off... a fairly traditional and hard-to-spot-if-you're-not-looking-for-it scenerio. A panel truck in a parking lot... what's to be suspicious? Plus there was only one bomb, plus it did absolutely diddly squat to the towers, other than punching a big hole through several floors of the lot.

What Patrick is talking about is the idea that the towers were brought down AFTER the plane strikes, that when we saw them begin to collapse on TV, and the force of the interior air being compressed downward forced flames and smoke out the floor that initially collapsed... that THAT was actually demolition charges going off. All conveniently and craftily hidden from the hundreds of workers at exactly the floors that would be struck??????? Puh-LEEEAAZZE!

Quote by: MacBelial Why? No steel building in history has ever been brought down by fire before.

No steel building in history has been rammed headon by fully fueled 757 jetliners, either. Just because it seems improbable to you, you'll accept something even vastly less probable?

Quote by: bin Belial Not to mention, as already stated, that people working there HEARD the explosions in the basement and were pulling burn victims from down there, when there wasn't any fire at that level... supposedly.

So??? Burning jet fuel was pouring down the elevator shafts. Many eyewitness accounts of that, too. And the buildings were NOT brought down from explosions in the basements. The video record is absolutely unequivical. Entire sections of the top floors collapsed, and then cascaded downward. Survivors could hear the thud, thud, thud of each successive floor collapsing from the top down.

Quote by: O'Belial So suddenly the government admits it has this grainy footage that they LIED and said they did not possess. They release it and, damndest thing, there isn't even a plane anywhere in the footage, nor is there room for a plane in that shot.

Oh, so now it gets even MORE complex??? Dood, there were hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw a plane hit the pentagon. There are photos of indentifiable aircraft depris. You guys are latching on to minute indiscrepencies while ignoring the totally obvious and simply trying WAAAY too hard.

Quote by: von Belial How? (is it downright impossible)

It is downright impossible for someone to sneak into both the Twin Towers undetected and plant enough explosives to blowout all the steel supports necessary to collapse the towers, all without any of the thousands of workers being aware of a single thing, even later - there are no witnesses to anything suspicious like that - and to do all this, in BOTH towers, at EXACTLY the floors into which two fully laden airliners, in full view of the entire world, would later slam into the two buildings... buildings, mind you, which were designed to look indescript, meaning you would have a very difficult time counting floors from an aircraft flying in at 400 mph. AND, that these demolition charges would all survive the plane strikes and the ensuing fires, to be detonated at .... what?... some time an hour later determined for maximum... uh, what? TV prime time? To get the most firefighters on to the upper floors?

NO ONE IN THE WORLD is that good, Belial. No one.

Quote by: von Belial Well, I don't call them incompetant. Sometimes an appearance of incompetance, however, allows them to let disasters happen that could have been averted... but they had no wish to avert them.

I see. So their record of marginal competence or occassional incompetence was all a ruse, practiced over the years so that when the big day came, we'd all be fooled by the most intricate and inexplicable plot of all time?

At what point does any of this begin sounding utterly absurd to you?

Quote by: Belial I know you're talking to Patrick here, but personally, no. However, I think the evidence speaks for itself, and people are too scared to be called "conspiracy theorists" so they dismiss it all.

What evidence????? Circumstantial nonsense that's been debunked repeatedly to anyone willing to look?

It's exactly like I said, Belial... you people are so focused on seeing a conspiracy that you miss - or simply refuse to see - the completely obvious staring you in the face. You're so willing to believe that you suspend all disbelief. I don't have to believe that government is my best friend and would never hurt me to NOT believe this utter garbage. In fact it's the other way around... you're so ready to believe the government IS willing to hurt us... hurt it's own people on an unimaginable scale... that you simply suspend all reason and all logic and all evidence to the contrary just to continue believing.

Quote by: Patrick Henry Remote control technology has been available for decades. The crews and passengers may have been gassed and the planes flown by remote control into the buildings.

Oh dear Lord... and the plot thickens. :rolleyes:

I have to wonder if this isn't just a big troll, and Patrick's actually rolling on the floor laughing his ass off with glee as he invents even more absurd plot twists.

.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Sonart impossible for someone to sneak into both the Twin Towers undetected

Daytime maybe. At night? How many people are around?

Quote by: Sonart there are no witnesses to anything suspicious like that

I believe you are mistaken.

And Sonart, the explosive demolition charges weren't placed exactly on the floors hit by planes, but were placed throughout the buildings with radio detonators controllable remotely.

Quote by: Sonart their record of marginal competence or occassional incompetence was all a ruse,

What is harder to believe: that men with box cutters were able to demolish skyscrapers or that a deadly regime with deep connections to terror were able to bring about mass collapses with elaborate plans? After all, one of the demolished skyscrapers wasn't even hit with a plane...

And you call me a troll, Sonart? You are the troll who supports US Empire. To my knowledge you are a supporter of US military interference in Kuwait, 1991 and Afghanistan, 2001. Why don't you just go all the way and support the BushMonster...

9/11 was an inside job...

[bishop]

heh.. how about this one?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...5/ixworld.html

Oliver Poole reports from Berkeley, California, the counter-culture centre of America, on some offbeat analyses of what really happened on September 11 "After Flight 93 came down in Pennsylvania, they saw a craft buzzing around. Now what was that? All earth air traffic had been grounded. And in the World Trade Centre, where are all the bodies? They were transported out first to be experimented on. Listen to me now, September 11 was all caused by aliens." It was certainly a fresh view of the events of a year ago but then again the person propagating it was wearing a T-shirt bearing the slogan: "Beam Me Up, Jesus".

[Jack]

No one has addressed the motive. What motive would the U.S. government have to destroy the World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon and kill thousands of its own citizens?
Second thought; with all the people who would have to be involved in that, even at the risk of losing their own lives, how would it have remained a secret so long?

[Son of Belial]

Quote by: Isherwood No one has addressed the motive. What motive would the U.S. government have to destroy the World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon and kill thousands of its own citizens? Second thought; with all the people who would have to be involved in that, even at the risk of losing their own lives, how would it have remained a secret so long?

If nobody explained a motive, I guess I never wrote this:

Quote by: Son of Belial More of it was as an excuse to pass things like the Patriot Act. 9/11 = the Reichstag fire. We get scared, the government says "we can protect you, IF you give up more of your rights" and the sheep say "Okay, do what you want, just protect us!" They're doing the same thing with Katrina. Every disaster, every attack, is an excuse to chip away at our rights, until we have a police state.

[Jack]

I read that, Son of Belial, but forgot. OK, that would make a decent motive. But as a means to that end, wasn't 9/11 a bit over the top? It's like blowing up your house to get rid of the cockroaches. Certainly the government has more subtitle ways to enact restrictions on our liberties than that. Convincing the public that we needed to defend ourselves against outside threats by becoming a de facto police state could have been achieved without so many American deaths and the destruction of those buildings.
Further, this would have had to be planned by minds far more complex than Bush's. True deviousness requires intelligence, something he and his cronies are in short supply of.

[Son of Belial]

Quote by: Isherwood I read that, Son of Belial, but forgot. OK, that would make a decent motive. But as a means to that end, wasn't 9/11 a bit over the top? It's like blowing up your house to get rid of the cockroaches. Certainly the government has more subtitle ways to enact restrictions on our liberties than that. Convincing the public that we needed to defend ourselves against outside threats by becoming a de facto police state could have been achieved without so many American deaths and the destruction of those buildings. Further, this would have had to be planned by minds far more complex than Bush's. True deviousness requires intelligence, something he and his cronies are in short supply of.

How much damage did the Reichstag fire do? Serious question, I'm not sure the extent of it personally.

In any event, there are a few things to consider:

1) The bigger the disaster, the quicker people will hand over their liberties. Again, as in Nazi Germany, people's liberties aren't stolen. They hand them over. They exchange them for "protection," "security," etc. Which, in general, they don't actually recieve.

2) One of the goals here is to unite people. A massive "attack" like this achieved something very important - people began waving flags and acting like patriots again. The government needed that. They need people who will blindly follow them, thinking "patriotism" is synonymous with doing whatever they say unquestioningly, when patriotism, by our Constitution, is the opposite.

3) We're given a common enemy, the Moslems. Now, we know not all Moslems are militant terrorists, but this gives us the excuse to invade other countries - and let's be honest, war, in the long run, can be good for the economy, especially if we get oil out of it - and an enemy to blame things on, ala 1984.

4) I never believed for a second Bush was behind it. From the dumbfounded look on his face when he heard of the attack while he was reading bedtime stories to the kids, I'd wager that he might not have known exactly what was happening. I've seen some evidence that he did - or at least, that he knew something was going to happen - but he's hardly the mastermind behind it. Considering the original attempted attack on the WTC happened before he was in office, along with Oklahoma City, etc, Bush is not a mastermind behind anything, just a pawn from the ranks of the Skull and Bones.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Patrick Henry Daytime maybe. At night? How many people are around?

C'mon, Patrick. This isn't the local mall we're talking about. This was the World Trade Center, the beating heart of a global economy that never sleeps, in the city that never sleeps, with a capacity of 50,000 people. There must have been thousands of people there on any given midnight, not to mention maintainence staff. You're talking about a crew of probably hundreds bringing in tons of explosives and installing them so cleverly - on multiple floors yet - that no one would notice that night or the next day.

Quote by: Patrick Henry And Sonart, the explosive demolition charges weren't placed exactly on the floors hit by planes, but were placed throughout the buildings with radio detonators controllable remotely.

So now you're saying they rigged, what? -- fifty potential floors of two 110 story buildings... just in case???? Right... by invisible martians. :rolleyes:

Quote by: Patrick Henry What is harder to believe: that men with box cutters were able to demolish skyscrapers or that a deadly regime with deep connections to terror were able to bring about mass collapses with elaborate plans?

That men with box cutters AND with deep connections to terror were able to bring about the collapses with elaborate plans... elaborate, meaning 5 years to plan the hijacking of multiple airliners. That's an elaborate plan. Your conspiracy is elaborate beyond all human capacity. Remote control airliners?????????

Quote by: Patrick Henry More of it was as an excuse to pass things like the Patriot Act. 9/11 = the Reichstag fire. We get scared, the government says "we can protect you, IF you give up more of your rights" and the sheep say "Okay, do what you want, just protect us!" They're doing the same thing with Katrina. Every disaster, every attack, is an excuse to chip away at our rights, until we have a police state.

:eek: Belial, in the short time you've been here I've really come to enjoy your posts, and Patrick Henry knows I've been a big fan of his for a long time.

But this stuff really spooks me... this is paranoia bordering on psychosis. I've always known that Patrick was a devout Libertarian with a bit of a conspiracy belief underneath but I always thought it was from well thought out beliefs, not from paranoid delusions that the government was actually out to get us by any means necessary, including the destruction of the two most significant buildings in American history, by means of a plot so convoluted, so monumentally complex and impossible as to defy belief, and all just to increase the administration's political power? The Reichstag fire is one thing... that's a cinch, something that was easily blamable on one man, and Hitler had the luxary of being able to engineer a show trial. But THIS!!! Under the noses of the entire American media???? Not a hint of a whistleblower in sight???? I'm sorry, no.

Patrick, you KNOW that I am absolutely no fan whatsoever of this administration. This has nothing to do with me thinking that government is "my best friend". That's silly. And so is this conspiracy nonsense. If you guys really believe this, then I'm sorry, but you need to talk to someone. You're creating delusional nonsense to justify your pre-existing paranoia.

Either that or busting a gut having a huge joke on all of us.

.

[Son of Belial]

Not a hint of a whistleblower in sight???? I'm sorry, no.

There were whistleblowers, as I said. They rarely get media attention, and are often frightened off of speaking out too openly.

[Critter]

I don't think these questions will ever get fully answered.

[Son of Belial]

No steel building in history has been rammed headon by fully fueled 757 jetliners, either. Just because it seems improbable to you, you'll accept something even vastly less probable?

As I mentioned, building 7 wasn't hit by a plane and it collapsed. Remember? It was "so damaged by fire" that it had to be pulled. If they had time to rig that building, there was time to rig the others also. And, as I also stated before, it takes days to rig a building that size for demolition.

Other buildings in the WTC complex were closer to the twin towers and they didn't collapse. Why not? The common factor between the twin towers and building seven is the owner, Larry Silverstein. So basically the main three that collapsed were owned by the same person. Also, there are articles talking about power being cut over the weekend before 9/11.

There are photos of indentifiable aircraft depris. You guys are latching on to minute indiscrepencies while ignoring the totally obvious and simply trying WAAAY too hard.

So, one photo of one scrap of debris. Let's ignore that fact that pilots and professionals have said that some of the scraps they found were clearly not from a 757. Moving on from that, where are the engines? More to the point, where are the passengers? Why couldn't the corpse sniffing dogs find anything? Also note the time stamp on those 5 frames of video is wrong - the video the government claimed didn't exist.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Sonart . If you guys really believe this, then I'm sorry, but you need to talk to someone. You're creating delusional nonsense to justify your pre-existing paranoia. Either that or busting a gut having a huge joke on all of us.

OK, man. We can just agree to disagree. You think this is nutz, but to me it makes more sense than all the inconsistencies in the Official Story. I don't hear voices, I am able to conduct business efficiently, I love my wife and kids, go to church on Sunday (well, maybe some think THAT'S nutty!), pay my bills on time, write with decent grammar and spelling, exhibit no other delusional tendencies. Do you really think I need therapy? Or maybe there is something here YOU haven't looked at. Be that as it may, I understand America's tendency to avoid the gaze into the heart of darkness. It is difficult to conceive of people so heartless that they would mass murder their fellow Americans for ulterior goals.

But consider: Who killed the Kennedys? Lone nuts? Or a shadowy network of government-connected killers who profited immensely by the VietNam conflict?

How about the high-school story of Pearl Harbor, 12/7/1941 that we were told? It turns out to be a big fat lie. And thousands of Americans died needlessly that day. For an ulterior purpose by the political elite. I am not trying to untrack the topic here, but rather get you to see that hidden agendas do play out and often remain concealed in America. Who presently acknowledges these "anomalies?" Many historians and indeed many ordinary citizens, even those who aren't students of history.

I wish I could get the intelligent believers to become more skeptical of government lies. There are many like you and Rick who find the government full of profiteers and power hungry jackals, but still believe the lie of 9/11...

[RickSp]

Quote by: PatrickHenry <snip> But consider: Who killed the Kennedys? Lone nuts? Or a shadowy network of government-connected killers who profited immensely by the VietNam conflict? <snip> I wish I could get the intelligent believers to become more skeptical of government lies. There are many like you and Rick who find the government full of profiteers and power hungry jackals, but still believe the lie of 9/11...

Ah yes, the return of the grassy knoll. I know it well. I grew up in Dallas and saw the parade of conspiratorialists come to town like the traveling carnival - full of clowns and sideshow barkers.

The issue is skepticism. I know the government lies but that doesn't make every half-baked theory, for which there is usually zero evidence, something that I am willing to believe. I enjoy the carnival. I just don't take it as reality.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Belial There were whistleblowers, as I said. They rarely get media attention, and are often frightened off of speaking out too openly.

Regarding the biggest man-made disaster in American history? Any serious wistleblower - with proof! - would be perfectly safe, by shere force of the celebrity the media sensation would bring.

Quote by: Belial As I mentioned, building 7 wasn't hit by a plane and it collapsed. Remember? It was "so damaged by fire" that it had to be pulled. If they had time to rig that building, there was time to rig the others also. And, as I also stated before, it takes days to rig a building that size for demolition.

Think about what you're saying... "it was so damaged by fire that it had to be pulled." And it wasn't even hit. Why wouldn't the two buildings that actually were hit be so damaged they'd come down? They also had time to evacuate the building... plus people have actually conceded that it was dropped, and offered rational explanations. You guys are saying the Twin Towers were rigged BEFOREHAND.

Quote by: Belial So, one photo of one scrap of debris.

You're not even trying to pay attention, are you? This is all identifiable as 767 debris.

Quote by: Patrick Henry OK, man. We can just agree to disagree. You think this is nutz, but to me it makes more sense than all the inconsistencies in the Official Story.

No it doesn't, Patrick. :eek: Like I said, I don't slavishly accept what government tells me just because they tell me... there's many conspiracies I believe. I believe the CIA and our government were directly involved in the coup toppling Savador Allende, and supporting Pinochet. I believe the Nixon's "3rd rate burglery" was just the tip of the iceberg of his abuses. I believe the Iran-Contra affair represented a convoluted plot to circumvent U.S. law and dealt with any number of ner'do'wells. Because they all fall within the realm of conceivability. In fact, while I don't believe it, I'll accept as plausible the idea of more than one shooter in the Kennedy assissination, if for no other reason than I'll accept that the single shooter achieved a very difficult task.

But 9/11?? Absolutely not. It is ENTIRELY plausible to me, beyond any doubt, that a group of terrorists put together a bold, imaginative and complex plan, had luck on their side in not getting caught, and carried it out with devastating affect.

What you're suggesting is entirely IMPLAUSIBLE, and simply paranoia... there ARE no inconsistancies that can't be reasonably answered, except in your mind. Because you;re so focused on your paranoia of our own government, you're suggesting is that if something could have happened, even if it took the most convoluted, Mission-Impossible plot, carried out by Americans against Americans, then it must have happened, even if the official version is vastly simpler and makes vastly more sense, carried out by people highly motivated to do so and even if all evidence points to the contrary.

We can agree to disagree on the existance of God or what the 2nd Amendment means. This is just absurd, and if it came from any of the various known crackpots that inhabit this site, I'd be laughing hysterically. I not laughing.
.

[Son of Belial]

Think about what you're saying... "it was so damaged by fire that it had to be pulled." And it wasn't even hit. Why wouldn't the two buildings that actually were hit be so damaged they'd come down? They also had time to evacuate the building... plus people have actually conceded that it was dropped, and offered rational explanations.

Yes, they conceded that a building that takes DAYS OR WEEKS TO RIG WAS RIGGED IN A MATTER OF HOURS. You don't understand what that implies? Why was it that the only three buildings to fall were the ones owned by Larry Silverstein? And Building 7 just HAPPENED to be rigged to be pulled days or weeks in advance?

You're not even trying to pay attention, are you? This is all identifiable as 767 debris.

A 757 has about 60 tons of aluminum, plus many strong alloy components throughout the plane, including in the wings and tail.

No photos show seats, bodies, luggage, large aircraft parts.

I STILL have not been told WHY THE CORPSE SNIFFING DOGS DIDN'T FIND BODIES!

Military website describes piece as "believed to be a piece of the aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon."

Note vague legalistic language: "believed to be the aircraft that crashed."
Such language gives the authors deniability. By not claiming to know that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon nor even that whatever hit it was an aircraft, they avoid implicating themselves in a cover-up.

But 9/11?? Absolutely not. It is ENTIRELY plausible to me, beyond any doubt, that a group of terrorists put together a bold, imaginative and complex plan, had luck on their side in not getting caught, and carried it out with devastating affect.

Even though the teacher of one of the terrorists said that he had no skill in flight, and the 757 happened to hit the hardest part of the Pentagon to strike, which just happened to be the part of the Pentagon that had no people in it.


Let someone explain:

* Why the 757 hit a difficult, almost impossible to hit part of the Pentagon, instead of aiming for the middle or an easier section
* Why it happened to hit the ONE section being redone to increase structural integrity, thus empty of people
* Why the corpse-sniffing dogs didn't find any bodies
* Why there are no corpses or luggage in the photos
* Why the rest of the 60 tons of aluminum plus alloy components are not in any photos. Where are the bodies? The luggage? the engines?
* Why large tarps were thrown over certain bits of luggage and hauled away by several men, the parts being light enough for them to hold over their heads(yet a good 10' long)
* Why the government said they had no video footage, then released five grainy frames of footage that show something hitting the Pentagon that ISN'T BIG ENOUGH TO BE A 757, and has a dark contrail(which a 757 does NOT have and WOULD NOT have at that altitude).
* Why the only three buildings to fall were the three owned by the same person
* Why Building 7 was already rigged to be pulled in advance
* Why they keep changing their story about why the WTC collapsed. First because the hot jet fuel melted the steel for the first time in history; then a 'pancake effect' made one floor crash down onto the next; then they claim 'inadequate fireproofing.' The firefighter tapes released to the New York Times clearly indicate that right before the towers collapsed the fires were minimal and under control.


When someone can explain those, I will be somewhat impressed. So far, nobody has.