9/11 -conspiracy theory or not?

[malvachat]

We all know the debate.
Lets cut to the chase.
What the f..k does this all mean.
Where's the f..king theory here.
Please somebody give a me differant explaination.

Two Questions want answering.
Any takers?
Anybody care to try.
You've got two weeks.
I'll be back.

http://tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_-_al..._you_need.html

1. THE COVER UP

Someone had foreknowledge of the attacks. In the weeks leading up to 9/11 someone made a series of investments that would have paid off in huge profits because of the attacks. This is well documented and undisputed. This person specifically invested in the two airliners used in the attacks, anticipating windfall profits from any drop in the stock prices of these companies. This is solid evidence that at least one person in the United States had detailed information that something bad was going to happen to the specific airlines that were to be used in the attack.

We have been told that the person who made these investments never claimed the profits. We are expected to believe that this explains why his or her identity is unavailable. This is absolutely untrue. This is not an instance in which someone was waiting to pick up a package at an airport locker. This is a case of a financial institution processing an investment transaction for an individual. This CAN NOT BE PERFORMED ANONYMOUSLY! The identity of this person who had foreknowledge of the attack is know and this person’s identity is being protected by our government and this is a fact! Period, end of story.

WHO MADE THE INVESTMENT? Identify this person and you have someone who very probably had detailed foreknowledge of the events. The fact that the profits were never collected is even more suspicious and incriminating. The fact that the identity of this person remains unknown is even more suspicious. The only possible conclusion is that this person is known to the government and that his or her identity is being protected.

There has been a clear and concerted cover up regarding the person who tried to profit from events he or she knew were coming. The people who could easily clear this up, but who chose to close any further investigation into the matter are not underlings. They are officials who answer directly to the President of the United States. Check.

2. BUILDING 7

On September 11th, Towers One and Two collapsed after suffering direct hits by airliners. Building 7 was neither hit by an airliner nor damaged severely by flying debris, but at 5:20 p.m. it collapsed in the exact same accordion style of the other two towers. The official explanation by FEMA investigators claimed that WTC 7 fell as a result of burning for 7 hours.

Several weeks after the events of 9/11, Larry Silverstein, the new owner of the WTC was interviewed on TV. At this time he openly acknowledged the decision to pull Building 7. This was a public statement in which the owner of the WTC agreed to the destruction of the building.

This decision was never explained and was never questioned by the Kean Commission. The conflicting report of the FEMA investigators was also never explained. Pulling a building requires weeks, if not months of preparation. Explosives have to be carefully and strategically placed and wired. How was it possible to pull a building without first preparing for its demolition?

Larry Silverstein invested $386 million in WTC 7. On 9/11, by his own admission, Larry Silverstein ordered the demolition of his building. In February of 2002, his company won a settlement of $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers. Do the math. No one investigated. This is a confession to the demolition of Building 7. Let me repeat that, THIS IS A CONFESSION! Checkmate.

Until these questions are answered there is no need to establish more doubt. What we have here is solid undisputed evidence that we were never told the truth. We have solid evidence that the official investigation stopped short of delving into questions that could have supplied answers. We have solid proof that something is very, very wrong.

There is a mountain of unanswered questions concerning the events surrounding the 9/11 attacks. Anyone willing to listen or look at the inconsistencies would have to draw an obvious conclusion: the official explanation of the events of 9/11 is nothing more than a desperate attempt to distract the American people from investigating the truth. There can be no denying that there are a number of strange and puzzling occurrences that have never been, and seemingly cannot be explained.

Perhaps the abundance of startling and damning information is too incredible to be accepted easily by the millions of Americans who have bought into the corporate media's version of the events. So many people in this country can not deal with, or accept any real challenge to the official explanation that allows for no foreknowledge or cover up by their government. Even if most Americans were to be presented with clearly corroborated facts or cold evidence, they would probably refuse to even consider the involvement of their elected leaders in a tragedy of such huge proportions.

The official story, however, collapses after an examination of the two questions just raised. Very simply put, case closed. We do not need to pull an OJ here and bury the obvious under more evidence than the jury can handle. Show the Bronco chase and the blood evidence, and rest the prosecution. Otherwise we risk badly confusing a jury of the uninformed.

It is vital that the evidence based community encourage the American public to question the events for themselves. Two questions of this magnitude are enough to raise reasonable doubt. Two such questions that have gone uninvestigated and unexplained are enough to arouse curiosity,

We’re in a very dangerous game, here, and all of us are players. Much of what happened on September 11th remains at best unclear, and at worst terribly suspicious. The reality that the President of the United States spent more than 18 months resisting an official investigation into the most devastating tragedy in our history is in itself an outrage. But the reality that there is no official body still seeking answers to vital questions is an even greater outrage.

And if that remains the case, we all will have been checkmated, en masse.

Editor's NOTE: People might comment on this article by calling it a conspiracy theory. This is their usual way of dismissing the facts. I ask you, where exactly is there “theory” on this page? What elements of this article are in dispute? This is not a theory, this article poses questions that have not been answered and the people who call the results of the independent 9/11 research community “conspiracy theories” have yet to qualify their assertion. You can not simply call something a “theory” just because you have not looked closely enough to see the facts that have been presented. If you call this a theory you are in denial. Very simply put, you can not debate this issue. Many people will dismiss this, as they do all evidence that goes against what they want to believe, yet when asked what their criteria is for discerning between theory and fact, they will not have a logical answer. This is not theory and neither are the facts that have been brought to light by the many people involved in the legitimate independent 9/11 research community.

[malvachat]

And something else for you all to look at

http://www.rense.com/general63/TWIN.HTM

It sure beats any gob shite f..king reports by any
goverment lackeys.

[naz]

dude, rense posts ufo stories

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by naz

dude, rense posts ufo stories

Well spoted my good man.
That's the point.
I know that.
UFO reports are more believable that the government reports.

[malvachat]

Just as I thought.
When it comes right down to it,the subject is boring.
All those people die and no ones cares enough to find out the truth.
Whatever it may be.
Calling people names is more fun.
How very sad.

[Sinner]

pppfffttt - nice try but no-one is buying your bullshit. This topic has been done to death, read the other 20 or so threads on this subject.

[Nicobie]

Dis ain't chat...

or is it just makebelieve?

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by Nicobie

Dis ain't chat...

or is it just makebelieve?

As usual Nic on the money.
Follow the money.
Sound like something you heard before?
He was one of them guys you love so much.
Government worker.


Is it a quiz?
I guess make somebody believe.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by malvachat

As usual Nic on the money.
Follow the money.
Sound like something you heard before?
He was one of them guys you love so much.
Government worker.


Is it a quiz?
I guess make somebody believe.

Larry Silverstein ordered the building Demolished??? That is 100% fact you say?? That is what you get out of his conversation with a fire fighter saying and I quote----The firefighter said to Larry that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and Larry said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Could the expression simply refer to the decision to pull firefighting operations out of the building? -- Is that at all possible? But that would not fit into your belief would it...

Follow the money, yes lets, Larry and his investors received approx 5 billion dollars from the insurance companies, the new WTC will cost 9 billion to build, they have also lost so far 4 years of lease income from the businesses which occupied the WTC buildings. He also has been in court three times so far trying to get the insurance companies to pay because there was some dispute over the policies. He lost a 2.3 billion decision already. Their legal cost are high.

I don’t know but it sounds to me he would have been better off if the buildings where still standing. Yes maybe in the long run he will be ahead but he is an old man, time is not on his side.

[multi]

its all a plan to influence other countries to adopt the US date format...insidious propaganda aimed at the way some places dare to put the day before the month
911 this and 911 that...without thinking we start buying into this distortion of time

clearly everone uses in day to day conversation the day befor the month
its always for example...eleventh of sempember not the other way around !

this all has possibly something to do with the number of the beast and/or the aliens that inhabit the bodies of many of the senior bush administration officials...

why did the buildings appear to be flattened by trained demolition experts...because that is of course what happened...hollywood has learned lots about creating
these sorts of scenes..all they needed was a bit of good old fashioned alien technology..ie eloborate means of creating a huge holographic effect that would appear to millions around the globe as airliners hitting the towers..
anyway better not mention any more about this..dangerous stuff
all a bit hush hush you know...

[theknife]

UPI Hears...

By John Daly
UPI International Correspondent

Washington, DC, Jun. 13 (UPI) -- Insider notes from United Press International for June 8

A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."

[miss_silver]

Originally Posted by theknife

UPI Hears...

By John Daly
UPI International Correspondent

Washington, DC, Jun. 13 (UPI) -- Insider notes from United Press International for June 8

A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."

WEeeeeeeeeee, the truth is starting to shine atlast It's obvious it was controlled demolition, how else could 3 buildings fall as flat as a pancake especially building 7 who fell down to the ground several hours later?

[floydian slip]

the unraveling of one of many lies

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by miss_silver

WEeeeeeeeeee, the truth is starting to shine atlast It's obvious it was controlled demolition, how else could 3 buildings fall as flat as a pancake especially building 7 who fell down to the ground several hours later?

Do you think we should get our,
"i told you so smile" ready?.
I suspect when the whole truth comes out,(Whatever that is)
No one will be smiling.

[Sinner]

LOL!!! The FORMER chief economist for the Department of Labor says so hey. Who do you guys get to fix your car when it breaks down, your barber? I personally get a mechanic. Hey what does Bush’s former limo driver think? Maybe someone should find out, he may have info for your conspiracy theory, we need some more expert testimony …..

[multi]

what ever became of that Stanley Hilton guy ?