Your belief about September, 11th, 2001

[edn88]

Originally Posted by thymebalm

I just knew this topic was too complex for an internet message board. And yet... I tried anyway. It's not like I don't have counter-arguments. It's not like I couldn't go deeper into it.

It's just that I can tell already that everyone is resigned to their beliefs at this point. I could write 1000 pages and not change a single mind. So I'm out. And back to hockey. If I keep going it's far more than "my two cents" anyway.

This topic is far from complex. There is solid scientific evidence that has been provided ad nauseum supporting the argument that islamic fundamentalist flew planes into the WTC and they collapsed as a result.

And I am sure you could write 1000 pages, as the other truthers in this thread have done the equivalent and have really not presented any material that has not been easily disproved via legitimate sources.

Since none of you are going to be convinced, perhaps it would be best if you and your lot would keep your crackpot theories to yourselves, or at least participate in a legitimate debate.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Stimpy

He didn't call anyone stupid, you made that leap all by yourself. What he said was true, this issue can be way too complex for a message board. There are plenty of theories on both sides and many of them are inter-related and require some level of extrapolation. You have to write a lot to make a point on some of the issues involved with the topic. That doesn't translate well to a message board as most posters see something longer than a couple sentences and they zone out and skip past the post. For someone who told him to toughen up, you should take your own advice.

That's BS. It's a message board, people can come on here anytime, day or night to read and respond. Saying he won't post his counter arguments because they're too complex is a lazy, cop out. End of story.

[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

And by all means, if I say something stupid call me on it.

So we should openly mock you any time you say something? After all, how will you ever learn? I mean, especially after this gem.

Originally Posted by CrusaderPi

The hijackers were lizard people. Or under the control of the lizard people. Now you know.

Also, it should be noted that the lizard people actually made clones of the hijackers. These clone hijackers are now living as freemen on the land. Now you know.

Come on, everyone who knows Icke's theories knows that the lizardmen are the apex beings on our planet and control us mere humans to do their bidding. If anything they would have used their mind control abilities to make the hijackers do their bidding. I mean, duh, what are you, uneducated in Ickeian theory or just a little slow?

Now, does that really add much to the conversation? Probably not. If you disagreed with his post argue the content, not hammer the poster because he posted something that contradicts your senitments.

[CrusaderPi]

Meh. If someone says something dumb in real life I'll hammer them and what they say. No reason for it to be different here.

Besides they're arguing about 9/11 here. On the internet. No one is going to add anything of value.

[metallicat]

This is incredible! The truthers are leaving! They are walking out! The truthers have quit! The truthers go home!

[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by flameswin

That's BS. It's a message board, people can come on here anytime, day or night to read and respond. Saying he won't post his counter arguments because they're too complex is a lazy, cop out. End of story.

Yet he posted a complex thought provoking post, to those with an open mind, and then got hammered with insults. Why would anyone want to post anything of substance or nuanced if they are going to be greeted with insults and wise ass comments?

[flylock shox]

I think part of the fuel for the 9/11 conspiracy fire comes from the clear exploitation of 9/11 by the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11.

When people see clearly manipulative and conspiratorial acts from a powerful group of people, they infer such behaviour both preceding and following the acts in question. Part of the suspicion regarding 9/11 flows, IMO, from the government's response to 9/11, and their use of 9/11 as a tool in furthering their own objectives, and the objectives of individuals and bodies close to them.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by thymebalm

These buildings remained uninsured for ~30 years when suddenly, in 2001, the Port Authority sought to lease the buildings to a private entity. Larry Silverstein wound up winning that bid, and went on to insure all of the buildings. For the first time in the history of the buildings, 29 years after they were constructed, and less than 2 months before they fell, they became insured. Silverstein would go on to win billions of dollars in insurances claims, managing to claim "double occurance" on some of the insurance providers. Larry's bid of 3.2 billion which he used to purchase the buildings was covered to the tune of 4.2 billion by said insurance companies.

One has to ask themselves if they can believe the coincidences required for this to have been a fluke. Had the Government not leased this building, they would have lost billions of dollars in the attacks. Instead, not only did they receive the money from the lease, which requires Silverstein to rebuild, but they receive 10 million dollars a month from Silverstein as base rent on the empty site.

I just want to be clear on what you're suggesting here: that the federal government warned the NY Port Authority that the buildings were going to be hit by an attack and that they should sell the buildings, and then advised Sliverstein that he should buy the buildings and insure them for more than he paid, so he could make a quick buck?

Wouldn't it have been simpler for the Federal government to simply lease the trade center and insure it themselves, thus turning more of a profit? Or if they wanted to avoid suspicion, why even sell it at all? The 3.2 billion lost was peanuts compared to the amounts that the various affected government departments earned and spent. And why wouldn't the port authority make sure that their key personnel were not in the building, if they knew the attacks were imminent?

Or do you think that they didn't know? In which case, why would they have put the building up for lease in the first place?

And why would Silverstein agree to a plan that sees him make about a billion dollars short term on the insurance scam, but pay 10 million in rent a month, thus burning through that billion in a scant eight years, with no building to show for it?

Or do you think that Silverstein didn't know? In which case, why did he take out the insurance?

In response to your 'powerful quote', I'll offer you another: the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Bin Laden, despite what you say, had a lot to gain from the events. Certainly far more than Silverstein, who is not really any further ahead right now than he was before 9/11, and certainly more than the port authority, who lost their offices, thousands of their employees, and have spent much of the last ten years working to rebuild their organization.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Stimpy

Yet he posted a complex thought provoking post, to those with an open mind, and then got hammered with insults. Why would anyone want to post anything of substance or nuanced if they are going to be greeted with insults and wise ass comments?

That was complex? I guess if you operate at a 5th grade level that might be considered complex. You've demonstrate that you are beyond that level, and yet you think that was complex? And he didn't get hammered for his initial post, he got hammered because he took the 'I'll take my ball and go home' approach when his 'complex' theory was exposed for exactly what it was. Flabbibulin ripped it to shreds and rather than counter he gave up, and was rightly mocked for the manner in which he did so.

[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by valo403

That was complex? I guess if you operate at a 5th grade level that might be considered complex.

Jealous that he's operating at a couple grade levels beyond you? j/k

You've demonstrate that you are beyond that level, and yet you think that was complex?

He made an effort to link together several issues and concepts, which is beyond most of the efforts in this thread. He actually touched on base motivations and outcomes. That displays that he at least thought through why he believes what he believes. That is greater than the snide comments and admission of swallowing the official story because it was presented first and with most authority. I give him marks for his effort.

And he didn't get hammered for his initial post, he got hammered because he took the 'I'll take my ball and go home' approach when his 'complex' theory was exposed for exactly what it was. Flabbibulin ripped it to shreds and rather than counter he gave up, and was rightly mocked for the manner in which he did so.

I thought Flabbibulin's post was trite and insulting, making juvenile leaps of logic meant to belittle the poster in question. He completely failed to acknowledge the differences in the situations or the scales of magnitude. His predicament was a result of having mandatory insurance, while the WTC situation was a matter of an owner including a multiplier clause in the event of a terrorist attack. In one instance we're talking about having his sh*tbox replaced and the other reaping billions of dollars. I didn't see that as an argument of the posters logic, but a shot at it instead. I've yet to see anyone bother to actually discuss the issue the poster raised, that being the wind fall for many of those who had a vested interest in many related interests.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Stimpy

Jealous that he's operating at a couple grade levels beyond you? j/k




He made an effort to link together several issues and concepts, which is beyond most of the efforts in this thread. He actually touched on base motivations and outcomes. That displays that he at least thought through why he believes what he believes. That is greater than the snide comments and admission of swallowing the official story because it was presented first and with most authority. I give him marks for his effort.



I thought Flabbibulin's post was trite and insulting, making juvenile leaps of logic meant to belittle the poster in question. He completely failed to acknowledge the differences in the situations or the scales of magnitude. His predicament was a result of having mandatory insurance, while the WTC situation was a matter of an owner including a multiplier clause in the event of a terrorist attack. In one instance we're talking about having his sh*tbox replaced and the other reaping billions of dollars. I didn't see that as an argument of the posters logic, but a shot at it instead. I've yet to see anyone bother to actually discuss the issue the poster raised, that being the wind fall for many of those who had a vested interest in many related interests.

Flabibulins post is a direct critique of the method of reasoning utilized, if you can't pick that up there's simply no point in a further discussion with you.

BTW, the insurance policy taken out by Silverstein maybe, just maybe, has something to do with the fact that the WTC had previously been targeted by a terrorist attack, unless of course that attempt is part of the conspiracy as well.

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by Stimpy

I thought Flabbibulin's post was trite and insulting, making juvenile leaps of logic meant to belittle the poster in question. He completely failed to acknowledge the differences in the situations or the scales of magnitude. His predicament was a result of having mandatory insurance, while the WTC situation was a matter of an owner including a multiplier clause in the event of a terrorist attack. In one instance we're talking about having his sh*tbox replaced and the other reaping billions of dollars. I didn't see that as an argument of the posters logic, but a shot at it instead. I've yet to see anyone bother to actually discuss the issue the poster raised, that being the wind fall for many of those who had a vested interest in many related interests.

My post was not meant to be insulting, but rather an analogy using a very ridiculous premise- which is what I feel the "look how the US benefited from 9/11" argument is. With that being said, I haven't attacked anyone for their conspiracy ideas and find the debate to be very entertaining/interesting. Yes, I have made a few jokes in this thread, but its hard not to in a debate that can easily create heated arguments.

edit: and as I mentioned, the post he made is essentially true- some parties did gain from 9/11... the problem is in leaping from "parties gained through 9/11" to "therefore they conspired on 9/11"...

[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by valo403

Flabibulins post is a direct critique of the method of reasoning utilized, if you can't pick that up there's simply no point in a further discussion with you.

A direct critique of the method would have been a direct critique of the method, not a "here's a personal story, follow me on this" type of post. If this was a critique of a method it was was the weakest critique I've seen, to date, and I've seen and written quite a few in my day.

BTW, the insurance policy taken out by Silverstein maybe, just maybe, has something to do with the fact that the WTC had previously been targeted by a terrorist attack, unless of course that attempt is part of the conspiracy as well.

Hey, we agree on something! That is exactly why he would would have the policy written that way which is a hole in the conspiracy theory. What is not explained away is the timing for the changes in the policy. Each side of the argument can continue to punch holes in the other side and what they accept as truth.

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

My post was not meant to be insulting, but rather an analogy using a very ridiculous premise- which is what I feel the "look how the US benefited from 9/11" argument is. With that being said, I haven't attacked anyone for their conspiracy ideas and find the debate to be very entertaining/interesting. Yes, I have made a few jokes in this thread, but its hard not to in a debate that can easily create heated arguments.

edit: and as I mentioned, the post he made is essentially true- some parties did gain from 9/11... the problem is in leaping from "parties gained through 9/11" to "therefore they conspired on 9/11"...

Thank you for the explanation of your motives and the injection of humor. I'm with you. The subject matter is interesting, but can get heated. Humor is good as long as it isn't directed at any given poster or their beliefs. I also agree that the logic leap between benefited from and conspired to is a fine line to be wary of. It is still a good subject to bring up and discuss as it provides motive to a potential crime.

[redgreen 59]

By 2001, the system was on high alert, and any policy maker who cared to look could see the CIA's concern. In February 2001, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet testified publicly that bin Laden and his organization posed 'the most immediate and serious threat; to the United States (Tenet 2001). Senior policy makers from both the Clinton and Bush administrations have testified that Tenet and other CIA officials warned that al Qaeda was planning lethal 'spectaculars' against Americans (Woodward 2002, p34). Louis Freeh, then FBI Director, testified on May 10, 2001 that a primary objective of al Qaeda 'is planning and carrying out large-scale, high-profile, high-casualty terrorist attacks against U.S. interests and citizens and those of our allies, worldwide' (Freeh 2001).

This strong strategic warning, however, was accompanied by a failure to learn clues about the specifics of the attack on the U.S. homeland, which led to a devastating failure of tactical warning. If policy makers listened to intelligence, they would know al Qaeda was coming, but they would not know when, where, or how.

Bryman, Daniel. "Strategic surprise and the September 11 attacks". Annual Review of Political Science. Vol 8 (June 2005): 145-170.

[transplant99]

This strong strategic warning, however, was accompanied by a failure to learn clues about the specifics of the attack on the U.S. homeland, which led to a devastating failure of tactical warning. If policy makers listened to intelligence, they would know al Qaeda was coming, but they would not know when, where, or how.

Sounds like exactly what happened.

I met a high-level intelligence guy a couple years ago who had retired down here from Arlington and became a client of mine briefly. We started talking about that day and how it happened. He was pretty clear that those in the loop at that time were concerned, and had been for a while, that airplanes were definately going to be a delivery system for something. Without getting specific he sort of hinted at a bio-terror possibility but was also very adamant that no one believed/thought the planes themselves would be the weapons. At least not big planes full of fuel which essentially became massive bombs.

Security for getting something deadly on an airliner was actually fairly strong according to him, security for allowing the planes themselves to become deadly simply wasn't a part of things. They had focused a lot on keeping small scale nukes/bio weapons out of the wrong hands, and certainly out of the country. (my interpretation of what he said) it was pretty apparent though that he, and i assume his colleagues, were totally taken by surprise as to how the attacks were carried out. They knew something was going to be attempted, but nothing like what happened.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Stimpy

I thought Flabbibulin's post was trite and insulting, making juvenile leaps of logic meant to belittle the poster in question. He completely failed to acknowledge the differences in the situations or the scales of magnitude. His predicament was a result of having mandatory insurance, while the WTC situation was a matter of an owner including a multiplier clause in the event of a terrorist attack. In one instance we're talking about having his sh*tbox replaced and the other reaping billions of dollars. I didn't see that as an argument of the posters logic, but a shot at it instead. I've yet to see anyone bother to actually discuss the issue the poster raised, that being the wind fall for many of those who had a vested interest in many related interests.

No. It was perfect. If you're using the literal meaning of the story by saying the scale is wrong, perhaps you need to improve your reading comprehension skills.

The point is: Motive/Benefactors is not the same as Conspiracy.

Were you able to get that? Several conspiracy theorists in this thread have already said that it was a great excuse to go to war/other things that happened, which means that it is obvious that it is a conspiracy.

The jump from Benefits -> Conspiracy is the fallacy that mr. thymebalm chose to make, and it was rightfully pointed out. Then he chose to be condescending to all the posters and left.

You say that it is complex because we're trying to tie in socio-economic and geopolitical motives to what happened. However, he only chooses to do so only when it is convenient. For example, why has no conspiracy theorist tied in cost-benefit analysis of killing some 5000 innocents, two of the greatest buildings ever constructed, ridiculous increases in cost for security (across the country), reduction in economic power just for several million barrels of oil a day? Like a cognitive bias regarding the strength of materials (that I helped COGENT realize), a billion dollars is not a lot of money. Neither is one trillion. What happened that day was so obviously a net loss for the states, that anything about insurance winnings is just completely crazy.

How about tying in human nature and wondering how some hundred thousand people has to remain silent about this whole operation over years and years?

Look, you remind me of other posters on this site who attempt to be objective but clearly are defending one point of view (like an unnamed Apple fan). Why don't you give us your full thoughts on the issue, rather than latching onto other people's arguments or giving fence-sitting positions that skew reality under the guise of objectism?

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Sounds like exactly what happened.

I met a high-level intelligence guy a couple years ago who had retired down here from Arlington and became a client of mine briefly. We started talking about that day and how it happened. He was pretty clear that those in the loop at that time were concerned, and had been for a while, that airplanes were definately going to be a delivery system for something. Without getting specific he sort of hinted at a bio-terror possibility but was also very adamant that no one believed/thought the planes themselves would be the weapons. At least not big planes full of fuel which essentially became massive bombs.

Security for getting something deadly on an airliner was actually fairly strong according to him, security for allowing the planes themselves to become deadly simply wasn't a part of things. They had focused a lot on keeping small scale nukes/bio weapons out of the wrong hands, and certainly out of the country. (my interpretation of what he said) it was pretty apparent though that he, and i assume his colleagues, were totally taken by surprise as to how the attacks were carried out. They knew something was going to be attempted, but nothing like what happened.

There was an article in Maxim just months (maybe a year) before the attack that listed a few likely terror scenario's from a "CIA" source. One of the scenario's was hijacking planes and using them as weapons themselves.

[peter12]

In regards to this debate... can there be any more of a tolerant person as someone who is skeptical of 9/11 et al conspiracy theories, yet time and time again, politely sits back and listens to the best arguments of the "truthers" only to interject now and then with a slight issue with one of the many glaring logical problem?

Honestly, I applaud many of you in this thread, I would have taken the ad hominem route on page 1.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Rutuu

There was an article in Maxim just months (maybe a year) before the attack that listed a few likely terror scenario's from a "CIA" source. One of the scenario's was hijacking planes and using them as weapons themselves.

As i stated, they were aware of airborne attacks, but not in the form used. Dispersing chemical agents was a real concern...but that would never have been in the form of commercial airliners. Much moreso it was crop dusters getting filled with whatever, and then flying over populated areas and dispersing....that kind of thing.

[Mirajj]

Originally Posted by peter12

In regards to this debate... can there be any more of a tolerant person as someone who is skeptical of 9/11 et al conspiracy theories, yet time and time again, politely sits back and listens to the best arguments of the "truthers" only to interject now and then with a slight issue with one of the many glaring logical problem?

Honestly, I applaud many of you in this thread, I would have taken the ad hominem route on page 1.

After being around the internet/life for a while, you learn that the vast majority of people just aren't worth arguing with. No matter what you say and how you say it, you will not change their opinions. Their treasured, dear, couldn't-possibly-be-wrong opinions.

So you just sit back and laugh while they spew them out.