[QUOTE=JethroTheCunt;36565288]money.
By initiating a false flag attack and going to war many american companies stood to profit highly from it. including members of the previous administration, as well as their family and friends.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, look how that turned out. It's really a "money making machine" at this point, isn't it? With the falling oil-prices and financial crisis.
I don't know if it's occurred to anybody yet, but politicians are people too. They DO have feelings other than money.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36579579]Actually yeah it would, because when you say that the plane did not actually crash into the pentagon/tower/field you do then have to explain both A: What did cause those blasts, and B: What happened to the planes. Because if they didn't hit where they officially (actually) hit then they just disappeared off the face of the earth. To prove the pentagon was not hit by a plane would require you find proof the plane that hit it was elsewhere at the time.[/QUOTE]
It would be pretty easy to dispose of or hide a plane that took off with enough fuel to fly 3000+ miles. I'm not saying that happened, but it is plainly unreasonable to demand a complete explanation from anyone who rejects your understanding of the events of that day. I will try to make my point more clear for you and others like you who seem to have a loose understanding of how logic works.
If there is evidence that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, the validity of that evidence is not logically dependent on an alternate explanation of what happened to the plane that reportedly did hit the Pentagon. Of course, it would be much easier to prove that the plane in question didn't hit the Pentagon if it could be proven that the plane landed somewhere else or crashed into the ocean, but this is not logically necessary. It doesn't work both ways. A lack of evidence that something happened does not constitute evidence that it didn't, unless there are no plausible alternatives. In this case, it's perfectly plausible that the plane crashed or landed somewhere else. It is very difficult to prove that a suspect committed murder when the body of the victim cannot be found, but it is not impossible. Bodies can be disposed of. So can airplanes. Further, I'm talking about the legal standard of proof for criminal proceedings which is a much tougher standard than you should expect from strangers on the internet, or anyone who is not a juror in a criminal trial.
[QUOTE=Unfrozen;36583401]It would be pretty easy to dispose of or hide a plane that took off with enough fuel to fly 3000+ miles. I'm not saying that happened, but it is plainly unreasonable to demand a complete explanation from anyone who rejects your understanding of the events of that day. I will try to make my point more clear for you and others like you who seem to have a loose understanding of how logic works.
If there is evidence that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon, the validity of that evidence is not logically dependent on an alternate explanation of what happened to the plane that reportedly did hit the Pentagon. Of course, it would be much easier to prove that the plane in question didn't hit the Pentagon if it could be proven that the plane landed somewhere else or crashed into the ocean, but this is not logically necessary. It doesn't work both ways. A lack of evidence that something happened does not constitute evidence that it didn't, unless there are no plausible alternatives. In this case, it's perfectly plausible that the plane crashed or landed somewhere else. It is very difficult to prove that a suspect committed murder when the body of the victim cannot be found, but it is not impossible. Bodies can be disposed of. So can airplanes. Further, I'm talking about the legal standard of proof for criminal proceedings which is a much tougher standard than you should expect from strangers on the internet, or anyone who is not a juror in a criminal trial.[/QUOTE]
I'd say the one lacking a clear understanding of logic is you. I never said it's impossible to prove that something other than a plane hit the pentagon solely because you can't place the plane anywhere else (not to say it is possible to prove something other than a plane hit the pentagon). Just saying it makes it a lot easier, the way I'm looking at it the plane is the suspect, not the body, and probably the best way to prove someone didn't do something is to prove they weren't there when it happened. Also: since you've raised the subject: what "evidence" is there that it wasn't a plane other than that you think a 757 is easy to hide.
[QUOTE=Unfrozen;36583401]It would be pretty easy to dispose of or hide a plane that took off with enough fuel to fly 3000+ miles.-snip-.[/QUOTE]
Then all those 9/11 families whose relatives were on the plane are just faking that their relatives are dead. That's the biggest problem with that.
Also I read the rest of your post, just wanted to respond to that bit.
here's a question:
why would the government spend the time and money to put explosives in the tower and bring a controlled demolition
when they could just fly a plane into it and have an (apparently) much more convincing attack
[QUOTE=supersnail11;36593831]here's a question:
why would the government spend the time and money to put explosives in the tower and bring a controlled demolition
when they could just fly a plane into it and have an (apparently) much more convincing attack[/QUOTE]
A few of the conspiracy theories say that they really did use planes, those same theories also state that the people who say there were no planes are a government plot to discredit them.
Also another question, this one relating to the Pentagon: is there anything [i]at all[/i] that even suggests it was a missile strike? The only "evidence" I've seen were two edited recordings of witnesses.
I heard a conspiracy theory that said they were tomahawk missiles with a plane hologram over them.
These people say the darnedest things.
[QUOTE=OvB;36599291]I heard a conspiracy theory that said they were tomahawk missiles with a plane hologram over them.
These people say the darnedest things.[/QUOTE]
The things people make up...
Honestly, who can be dumb enough to even CONSIDER having it be a hologram? Wouldn't the planes be transparent, leaving the missile visible?
It all lends to the notion that the US Government probably didn't perpetrate this. Even assuming they did, all the technology and materials they would have needed to put this plan to action would have been really damned expensive. If we suppose that 9/11 was done to get involved in the Middle East and make a profit selling weapons (which is a stupid notion by itself), wouldn't there have been a much easier and less expensive way to get involved in a war?
If anyone is interested in watching interesting conspiracy theories (even though I know all of you believe that for absolutely no reason our government would do anything like that), and you have Netflix, go on there and search Zeitgeist the Movie
it's really interesting. the first bit of the movie is about religion, skip it if you want to.
Government did it on purpose to impose Nazi like control on immigration / the skies over America, mission accomplished
[QUOTE=zydos;36615913]Government did it on purpose to impose Nazi like control on immigration / the skies over America, mission accomplished[/QUOTE]
Bit of a contradiction here: most conspiracy theorists state that the growing illegal immigration problem (as in the lack of control on it) is also a government conspiracy.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36616285]Bit of a contradiction here: most conspiracy theorists state that the growing illegal immigration problem (as in the lack of control on it) is also a government conspiracy.[/QUOTE]
this is the 9/11 thread not the immigration thread
I'm from Canada and trying to fly out of Seattle is a nightmare. Just because my last name isn't English sounding, they feel the need to interrogate me
[editline]4th July 2012[/editline]
and I'm reaaaally white too
Huge surge in put orders on all companies effected by 911 days before the disaster. Citations on the site.
[url]http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html#ref11[/url]
[quote]The Bloomberg News reported that put options on the airlines surged to the phenomenal high of 285 times their average.
Over three days before terrorists flattened the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, there was more than 25 times the previous daily average trading in a Morgan Stanley "put" option that makes money when shares fall below $45. Trading in similar AMR and UAL put options, which make money when their stocks fall below $30 apiece, surged to as much as 285 times the average trading up to that time.[/quote]
naaaah man thats just a coincidence
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36622111]Huge surge in put orders on all companies effected by 911 days before the disaster. Citations on the site.
[url]http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html#ref11[/url]
naaaah man thats just a coincidence[/QUOTE]
I don't see how that has anything to do with a government conspiracy to destroy the world trade center.
Not to mention that AA's stocks actually went UP after Oct 2001, and not down. Or that the stocks were already on their way down.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/uMXi4.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36622111]Huge surge in put orders on all companies effected by 911 days before the disaster. Citations on the site.
[url]http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html#ref11[/url][/QUOTE]
3 days after 911 my TEETH started HURTING
coincidence? I think not
checkmate shepple
naaaah man thats just a coincidence
[quote]Trading in shares of Munich Re was almost double its normal level on September 6, and 7, and trading in shares of Swiss Re was more than double its normal level on September 7.[/quote]
[quote]Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. and Merrill Lynch & Co. were both headquartered in lower Manhattan at the time of the attack. Morgan Stanley occupied 22 floors of the North Tower and Merrill Lynch had headquarters near the Twin Towers. Morgan Stanley, which saw an average of 27 put options on its stock bought per day before September 6, saw 2,157 put options bought in the three trading days before the attack. Merrill Lynch, which saw an average of 252 put options on its stock bought per day before September 5, saw 12,215 put options bought in the four trading days before the attack. Morgan Stanley's stock dropped 13% and Merrill Lynch's stock dropped 11.5% when the market reopened.[/quote]
[quote]Computer systems in the World Trade Center processed an unusual volume of credit card transactions in the minutes before the planes crashed into the towers on 9/11/01. The computer systems were destroyed in the subsequent collapses of the towers. Although details of the surge remain unknown, reports speculate that the transactions may have amounted to more than $100 million in value, with both the volume and sizes of transactions surging.[/quote]
ok
what does that have to do with a conspiracy.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36627388]
Computer systems in the World Trade Center processed an unusual volume of credit card transactions in the minutes before the planes crashed into the towers on 9/11/01. The computer systems were destroyed in the subsequent collapses of the towers. Although details of the surge remain unknown, reports speculate that the transactions may have amounted to more than $100 million in value, with both the volume and sizes of transactions surging.
[/QUOTE]
So what the fuck does this have to do with anything?
Are you fucking capable of making up coherent points instead of posting random shit and going "ISN'T IT OBVIOUS" when it really fucking isn't.
Sorry, didn't post all of it.
[quote]Computer systems in the World Trade Center processed an unusual volume of credit card transactions in the minutes before the planes crashed into the towers on 9/11/01. The computer systems were destroyed in the subsequent collapses of the towers. Although details of the surge remain unknown, reports speculate that the transactions may have amounted to more than $100 million in value, with both the volume and sizes of transactions surging.
In December of 2001, press reports noted that Convar Systeme Deutschland GmbH was working on recovering data from some hard drives extracted from the destroyed computer systems. Unlike conventional data recovery efforts, the German company used laser scanning to read drive surfaces in order to create virtual disks. These virtual disks were then read to recover data. As of December 20th, 2001, Convar had completed processing 39 out of 81 drives, and expected to receive 20 more drives in January. These reports do not indicate how many drives were believed lost or destroyed in the collapses. Companies paid Convar between $20,000 and $30,000 per drive for the work.[/quote]
[editline]4th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=supersnail11;36627686]ok
what does that have to do with a conspiracy.[/QUOTE]
Almost all businesses negatively impacted by 911 having a influx of put orders indicates prior knowledge of the attack you thick fuck.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36628409]Sorry, didn't post all of it.
[editline]4th July 2012[/editline]
Almost all businesses negatively impacted by 911 having a influx of put orders indicates prior knowledge of the attack you thick fuck.[/QUOTE]
And how is that evidence?
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36628490]And how is that evidence?[/QUOTE]
What do you consider evidence?
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36628585]What do you consider evidence?[/QUOTE]
Something that's actually relevant?
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36628590]Something that's actually relevant?[/QUOTE]
No, answer me, what, specifically, could I provide for you that you would consider evidence. It doesn't have to exist, I'm just curious.
Irrelevant:
[quote]Five Israelis are arrested for "puzzling behavior" related to the WTC attacks. They are arrested around 4:30 P.M. after having filmed the burning WTC from the roof of their company's building near Liberty State Park, then shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery. They were spotted by a neighbor who called the police and the FBI. The police tracked them down in a van with the words "Urban Moving Systems" written on the side. [ Bergen Record, 9/12/01, Ha'aretz, 9/17/01] One man was found with $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock, another had two passports on him, and a box cutter was found in the van. [ ABC News, 6/21/02] Investigators say that "There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted... It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen." [ Bergen Record, 9/12/01] One of these Israelis later says, "Our purpose was to document the event." [ ABC News, 6/21/02] The FBI later concludes at least two are Mossad agents and that all were on a Mossad surveillance mission. The FBI interrogates them for weeks. [ Forward, 3/15/02] They are held on immigration violation charges and released 71 days later. [ ABC News, 6/21/02] Their names are later identified as Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner, Omer Marmari and Yaron Shmuel. [ Forward, 3/15/02] [/quote]
[quote]
Computer systems in the World Trade Center processed an unusual volume of credit card transactions in the minutes before the planes crashed into the towers on 9/11/01. The computer systems were destroyed in the subsequent collapses of the towers. Although details of the surge remain unknown, reports speculate that the transactions may have amounted to more than $100 million in value, with both the volume and sizes of transactions surging.
[/quote]
The [B]World Trade Center[/B] processing large amounts of credit card transactions as they opened? How is it surprising that one of the most important economic buildings in arguably the most important economic center in the [I]United States[/I] (a nation with a GDP well into the double digit trillions) had a high amount of money transfers going through it on a work day?
Also, could you please post the links you're using to draw this evidence from?
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;36628655]The [B]World Trade Center[/B] processing large amounts of credit card transactions as they opened? How is it surprising that one of the most important economic buildings in arguably the most important economic center in the [I]United States[/I] had a high amount of money transfers going through it on a work day?
Also, could you please post the links you're using to draw this evidence from?[/QUOTE]
Unusual, minutes.
More irrelevance:
[quote]On September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for. Rumsfeld stated: "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." According to a report by the Inspector General, the Pentagon cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends. 1 2
Such a disclosure normally might have sparked a huge scandal. However, the commencement of the attack on New York City and Washington in the morning would assure that the story remained buried. To the trillions already missing from the coffers, an obedient Congress terrorized by anthrax attacks would add billions more in appropriations to fight the "War on Terror." [/quote]
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36628627]No, answer me, what, specifically, could I provide for you that you would consider evidence. It doesn't have to exist, I'm just curious.
Irrelevant:[/QUOTE]
I'd consider any relevant information from a reliable source that supports either side of the argument as evidence. Something you have yet to provide.
Also: what's the source on that quote?
Also: unusual doesn't mean things like that never happen, just not always.
[QUOTE=Fenderson;36628667]Unusual, minutes.
More irrelevance:[/QUOTE]
Could you perhaps post the link where you're getting this? 2.3 trillion, even for the post-Iraq invasion Defense Budget, is a horribly large number. Sounds more like he's talking about money over the course of years, rather then something that occurred right then and there.
[url]http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/foreknowledge.html[/url]
cached citations errywher
from mainstream news organizations, too
lol people are still responding to fenderson
[quote]Look, 911 was not a big deal at all but you cannot say that. So what 3,000 people died, 400,000 people die a year due to cigarettes. [/quote]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
