Zeitgeist, 9/11, and Other Conspiracies

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by transplant99

The bigger question is why would they do it...and you said it was because Silverstein wanted insurance money....OK....but why did he then turn right around and rebuild the damn thing with that money? What was the point and where was the gain?

What has been re-built? Those towers were out dated, and were required by law to do more than 1 billion dollars worth of asbestos removal.
Like I said, I only found it suspicious that he added terrorism insurance just prior to the attacks.

The MAIN reason I believe the attacks were orchestrated was to use terrorism and fear on its citizens to justify their gov. agenda. The war on terror allowed the U.S. to invade Iraq and Afghanistan....so they could "get Al Qaeda and destroy any weapons of mass destruction"..........but that was just a front to get a foot hold in the Middle East to ensure the safety of their oil supply. 9/11 was the excuse.......

They also signed the "Patriot Act"
Do you know how frighteningly similar the Patriot Act is to Hitlers "Enabling Act" passed in 1933? Google it. Hitler passed that act right after an insdie job over there burned down Germany's government buildings.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Azure

It has nothing to do with having blind faith in the government.

My distrust in the government isn't because I think they carry out attacks on their own people, but because they are incapable fools that don't even know now to manage a budget, let alone successfully carry out an attack like this.

George Bush may look like a dummy, but the institutions like the C.I.A. have pulled off some incredibly sneaky operations for the U.S.
Operation Ajax in Iran being just an example.

[Locke]

Wow...some people will believe anything....

I am your supreme ruler!! I am your supreme ruler!! I am your supreme ruler!! I am your supreme ruler!! I am your supreme ruler!! I am your supreme ruler!! I am your supreme ruler!! I am your supreme ruler!! I am your supreme ruler!! I am your supreme ruler!! I am your supreme ruler!! I am your supreme ruler!! I am your supreme ruler!! I am your supreme ruler!! I am your supreme ruler!! I am your supreme ruler!! I am your supreme ruler!!

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

It has been mentioned in this thread before that one does not have to blindly believe in the gov't. Doubts are great. The problem is if you are putting your entire faith in some people who can't research properly. It makes you look gullible, as gullible as those who blindly believe whatever the gov't says.

Like I said numerous times, I haven't put blind faith into the conspiracy. I have seen a few holes myself, and some posts in this thread open up a few more.
I believed in the CNN's version of story, but now I see there is holes on that side too.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Nice..............that was pretty stealthy Locke.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Nice..............that was pretty stealthy Locke.

I actually thought it was pretty obvious, but then again, here are you and I disagreeing about the obvious.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Like I said, I only found it suspicious that he added terrorism insurance just prior to the attacks.

You ever hear of coincidence? There is not one shred of hard evidence Silverstein had prior knowledge of the attacks, all you have is him upgrading his insurance, which he might have done for all kinds of other plausible reasons or no reason at all. Do you know if he upgraded the insurance on his other real estate holdings as well? Do you know if there even was such insurance available until that time? Do you know if there had been an upsurge in phone and/or mail threats to his companies before the upgrade? Do you know if perhaps terrorism coverage came at no extra cost when he renegotiated his insurance? Do you know anything at all, ANYTHING? I'm guessing not, because apparently you think watching a bunch of videos put out by marginalized losers is "research".

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

The MAIN reason I believe the attacks were orchestrated was to use terrorism and fear on its citizens to justify their gov. agenda. The war on terror allowed the U.S. to invade Iraq and Afghanistan....so they could "get Al Qaeda and destroy any weapons of mass destruction"..........but that was just a front to get a foot hold in the Middle East to ensure the safety of their oil supply. 9/11 was the excuse.......

Have you answered the question as to why this war on terror couldn't have been justified by just smashing the planes into the buildings even if it didn't completely destroy them? No, of course not, because there is no credible answer. If the towers hadn't imploded after being struck, they would have been torn down in the end anyway as it's not like you could ever fix the damage, so what is the POINT of this supposed demolition? Do you think the secret masters of the world are stupid, and like to overly complicate things that work much better when kept simple?

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

They also signed the "Patriot Act"
Do you know how frighteningly similar the Patriot Act is to Hitlers "Enabling Act" passed in 1933? Google it. Hitler passed that act right after an insdie job over there burned down Germany's government buildings.

You know what's wierd though, is that last I checked, Bush didn't seize power and proclaim himself Fuhrer. I have to admit, much as I dislike him, I can't pin that one on him.

I have nothing but disdain for the Patriot Act and the other "security" measures taken by the USA and other western governments, but that doesn't mean that its all happening because of the secret agenda of some nebulous conspiracy. The only conspiracy in 9/11 was the one al-Quaeda perpetrated. What happened afterwards was a natural (and regrettable) consequence of the pain and fear caused by that action. Thinking otherwise isn't being "open" or "free-thinking", unless by "open" you mean "unable to pick out good ideas from bad" and by "free-thinking" you mean "the less people that agree with me, the more likely I am to be right".

[transplant99]

What has been re-built?

Ummmm..WTC 7...the same one you claim was brought down with a controlled demolition. Opened 3 years ago.

Like I said, I only found it suspicious that he added terrorism insurance just prior to the attacks.

Simply untrue. Maybe the premium was upped before the attacks, i ahve no idea about that...but insurance companies paid out over a billion dollars in the first terrorist attack on WTC......in 1993.

The MAIN reason I believe the attacks were orchestrated was to use terrorism and fear on its citizens to justify their gov. agenda

You seem to imply 9/11 was the first time a terror attack had taken place against US interests. Which would be patently false. Nevermind that Al-Queda attacked the WTC once before, there was the attacks on the USS Cole, Embassies in Africa, Marine barracks in Lebanon, etc etc.

They also signed the "Patriot Act"

Which is likely to be rescinded by the time 2012 comes around.

George Bush may look like a dummy, but the institutions like the C.I.A. have pulled off some incredibly sneaky operations for the U.S.
Operation Ajax in Iran being just an example.

The CIA had offices in WTC 7 fer chrissakes!! So they blew themselves up? Why???

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

What has been re-built? Those towers were out dated, and were required by law to do more than 1 billion dollars worth of asbestos removal.
Like I said, I only found it suspicious that he added terrorism insurance just prior to the attacks.

Yeah but those facts are incorrect as well. Silverstein did not own the Twin towers in fact he didn't even begin leasing them until a few months before they were destroyed. Thus that's when he bought the insurance policy and get this:

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding. His lenders, led by GMAC, a unit of General Motors (nyse: GM - news - people ), which financed nearly the entire cost of the lease, agreed.

http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_...lverstein.html

He tried to insure it for much less but his lenders disagreed with it. Also, they might have wanted terrorism insurance because it had been hit by terrorists before? Whoever had control before also probably had terrorism insurance as well.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

They also signed the "Patriot Act"
Do you know how frighteningly similar the Patriot Act is to Hitlers "Enabling Act" passed in 1933? Google it. Hitler passed that act right after an insdie job over there burned down Germany's government buildings.

Let's look at the text of the enabling act (which by the way made Hitler a full fledge dictator (really no parallels to the Patriot Act). What it did was give Hitler the power to pass laws without anyone's consent.

The Reichstag has enacted the following law, which is hereby proclaimed with the assent of the Reichsrat, it having been established that the requirements for a constitutional amendment have been fulfilled:
Article 1
In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich. This includes the laws referred to by Articles 85 Paragraph 2 and Article 87 of the constitution.[1]
Article 2
Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.
Article 3
Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich government.[2]
Article 4
Treaties of the Reich with foreign states which affect matters of Reich legislation shall not require the approval of the bodies of the legislature. The government of the Reich shall issue the regulations required for the execution of such treaties.
Article 5
This law takes effect with the day of its proclamation. It loses force on 1 April 1937 or if the present Reich government is replaced by another.

The Patriot Act mainly had to do with increased surveillance. It gave the President no such powers that the enabling act gave Hitler. I am not a fan of the Patriot act, but it had nothing in common with the short succint Enabling Act. I won't post the full text of the bill because it is way to long. If you want to see a bill similar to the enabling act look at the Legislative and Regulatory Reform bill passed in the UK 3 years ago.

[Resolute 14]

I just want to say that Mikey has done a masterful job of trolling this thread.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

George Bush may look like a dummy, but the institutions like the C.I.A. have pulled off some incredibly sneaky operations for the U.S.
Operation Ajax in Iran being just an example.

Yes they have. That is afterall their job.

But to pull of something that would require hundreds of thousands of people to keep quiet about it.....no way.

[Azure]

The beauty of the Patriot Bill(if there is any).....it will eventually be tossed out.

Hopefully sooner than later, but it WILL be done away with.

There was no way any bill that Hitler passed that was similar would ever get tossed out.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Have you wondered why WTC7 was on fire in the first place?..

There were actually two airplanes that were in a crash close to it.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Gozer

There were actually two airplanes that were in a crash close to it.

I think I may have heard something about that...it wouldnt have been sometime in September would it?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

George Bush may look like a dummy, but the institutions like the C.I.A. have pulled off some incredibly sneaky operations for the U.S.
Operation Ajax in Iran being just an example.

Operation AJAX was interesting and an example of a rare CIA plan that actually functioned. But it was nowhere near the scale that would be required to engineer a 9/11. Look at the dismal failures that the CIA has engineered since its founding, look at the leaks that they've never plugged.

The CIA and the American government is nowhere near competant enough to initiate an operation that large.

[CaptainCrunch]

Some information on Nano Thermite and why its probably not what was used to bring down the towers

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Tower

Here is an interesting read. Have no idea of the validity of it.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/403303/The...y-Insider-2005

Just stumbled upon it. Have only read a little bit so far.

Here is another take of the opposite side of the spectrum.

http://home.comcast.net/~readingnews/Hidden_Hand.html

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Tower

Here is another take of the opposite side of the spectrum.

http://home.comcast.net/~readingnews/Hidden_Hand.html

lol such amusing nonsense.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Thor

lol such amusing nonsense.

I'm going to come back to this thread after I read a couple books on the Bilderberg Group. I ordered them yesterday. It is very interesting. And no.......Alex Jones has not written a book on the Bilderberg Group.