Care to enlighten me on what your version of the story is?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
what if jesus really did assend into the sky....
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:
Care to enlighten me on what your version of the story is?
Controlled demolition using the latest greatest technology in that field. This is most obvious. After that one begins to speculate as to who would be involved, and what their motive might be.
As for the new 99 year lease-holder of the whole WTC complex, Larry Silversteen, he had the place insured shortly after he took over, and shortly before the demolitions, making sure they were covered for such a scenario as the official story. Of several motives, one of them could have been that towers one and two (don't know about 7) were built with asbestos, when it was legal. Silversteen was facing the requirement to remove it at great expense. He didn't have anything to lose by insuring them, and letting his friends take them down the way they did. With the OK of Silversteen, whomever pre-wired it had opportunity, and we have reports of unprecedented procedures in the weeks leading up to the demolition, that prevented tenants from accessing power and/or premises at times, notably the weekend prior, when crews went in during a power-down of the top 50% of floors of at least one of the towers. Those crews, whoever they were, could not do anything without the OK of the security company overseeing the complex. A principle in that security company was a close relative - a brother - of the sitting president G.W. Bush.
So that's a start.
Who were Larry Silversteen's friends? What were their motives? They wouldn't do it unless there was also something in it for them.
I want to know what they're putting into the water that's making people believe in conspiracy theories.
Or maybe it's the chem-trails.
Why would otherwise reasonable people believe in crazy shit like 9/11 was an inside job?
It's gotta be the chem-trails.
" trails left by aircraft are actually chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for purposes undisclosed to the general public in clandestine programs directed by government officials.[1] This theory is not accepted by the scientific community, which states that they are just normal contrails, and that there is no scientific evidence supporting the chemtrail theory."
Of course the scientific community doesn't accept it.....they've been hit by them too.
Or maybe it's the chem-trails.
Why would otherwise reasonable people believe in crazy shit like 9/11 was an inside job?
It's gotta be the chem-trails.
" trails left by aircraft are actually chemical or biological agents deliberately sprayed at high altitudes for purposes undisclosed to the general public in clandestine programs directed by government officials.[1] This theory is not accepted by the scientific community, which states that they are just normal contrails, and that there is no scientific evidence supporting the chemtrail theory."
Of course the scientific community doesn't accept it.....they've been hit by them too.
I'd say the probability of that being the truth is about the same as the matrix being a documentary.Quote from Good1:
Controlled demolition using the latest greatest technology in that field. This is most obvious. After that one begins to speculate as to who would be involved, and what their motive might be.
As for the new 99 year lease-holder of the whole WTC complex, Larry Silversteen, he had the place insured shortly after he took over, and shortly before the demolitions, making sure they were covered for such a scenario as the official story. Of several motives, one of them could have been that towers one and two (don't know about 7) were built with asbestos, when it was legal. Silversteen was facing the requirement to remove it at great expense. He didn't have anything to lose by insuring them, and letting his friends take them down the way they did. With the OK of Silversteen, whomever pre-wired it had opportunity, and we have reports of unprecedented procedures in the weeks leading up to the demolition, that prevented tenants from accessing power and/or premises at times, notably the weekend prior, when crews went in during a power-down of the top 50% of floors of at least one of the towers. Those crews, whoever they were, could not do anything without the OK of the security company overseeing the complex. A principle in that security company was a close relative - a brother - of the sitting president G.W. Bush.
So that's a start.
Who were Larry Silversteen's friends? What were their motives? They wouldn't do it unless there was also something in it for them.
not impossible, but pretty damn remote.
Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:
I'd say the probability of that being the truth is about the same as the matrix being a documentary.
not impossible, but pretty damn remote.
What do you mean by "that"? What do you dispute?
Physically, it's possible to blow up buildings to bring them down.
It's the preferred method of professionals.
Evidentially, that's the most likely scenario in these three cases.
The rest is about motive(s), the number of insiders needed, who were they, and how are they able to keep secrets.
Scenarios involving betrayal, deception, profit, conspiracy, (abuse of) chain of command, and secrecy are routine throughout history.
Do you think you know the limits of such scenarios? No one wants to realize they are in some sort of "matrix". But also realize that a mind is capable of denial, when it is afraid. This wish + fear is enough to alter what can be classified as evidence, and whether or not it is authentic + believable.
I've pointed to 911 because no one can accept what i have to say without first looking at the phenomenon of denial. I'm pointing to small examples of deception by comparison. If you are not ready for these, you are not ready for the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
To break it down to the most obvious piece of deception, look closer at what happened with building 7. I'm providing a link that begins to talk about it at the 19:00 mark. Watch it go down as a text-book case of controlled demolition, and then at about 21:10, hear what Larry Silversteen had to say about it. Listen carefully.
911 Confronting the Evidence
And what part of the generally accepted theory do you contest? That planes flew into buildings? That fire weakens steel? That a bunch of Saudis who hated us for having troops on their "holy soil", among other things, piloted these planes?
You know, sometimes the most obvious thing is the truth. It may not be as fun to consider as coming up with more exotic reasons though.
It's really an interesting topic....
"Why do people believe in highly improbable conspiracies? In previous columns I have provided partial answers, citing patternicity (the tendency to find meaningful patterns in random noise) and agenticity (the bent to believe the world is controlled by invisible intentional agents). Conspiracy theories connect the dots of random events into meaningful patterns and then infuse those patterns with intentional agency. Add to those propensities the confirmation bias (which seeks and finds confirmatory evidence for what we already believe) and the hindsight bias (which tailors after-the-fact explanations to what we already know happened), and we have the foundation for conspiratorial cognition."
read more http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-people-believe-in-conspiracies
You know, sometimes the most obvious thing is the truth. It may not be as fun to consider as coming up with more exotic reasons though.
It's really an interesting topic....
"Why do people believe in highly improbable conspiracies? In previous columns I have provided partial answers, citing patternicity (the tendency to find meaningful patterns in random noise) and agenticity (the bent to believe the world is controlled by invisible intentional agents). Conspiracy theories connect the dots of random events into meaningful patterns and then infuse those patterns with intentional agency. Add to those propensities the confirmation bias (which seeks and finds confirmatory evidence for what we already believe) and the hindsight bias (which tailors after-the-fact explanations to what we already know happened), and we have the foundation for conspiratorial cognition."
read more http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-people-believe-in-conspiracies
Quote from futurecurrents:
And what part of the generally accepted theory do you contest? That planes flew into buildings? That fire weakens steel? That a bunch of Saudis who hated us for having troops on their "holy soil", among other things, piloted these planes?
1.) I don't dispute that planes flew into the buildings. I would dispute that they were from any commercial airline.
2.) I don't dispute that fire weakens steel. I dispute that there was enough sustained heat to compromise the structural integrity of the columns and/or beams in these three structures enough to bring them all down in such a short period of time, and in the case of towers one and two, for compression to utterly destroy the core columns the way they were destroyed.
3.) I don't dispute that the USA may be hated by Arabs. I dispute that any of them were capable of piloting these planes, and that any of them even boarded these planes.
Quote from futurecurrents:
You know, sometimes the most obvious thing is the truth. It may not be as fun to consider as coming up with more exotic reasons though.
Please give an example of what your first sentence is talking about.
Meanwhile, can you even tell the difference between a man and a woman? Lot's of people on Maury Povitch thought so. But it was not so obvious.
Quote from futurecurrents:
Add to those propensities the confirmation bias (which seeks and finds confirmatory evidence for what we already believe) and the hindsight bias (which tailors after-the-fact explanations to what we already know happened), and we have the foundation for conspiratorial cognition."[/url]
Note that those who believe in the official story are as susceptible to the quoted tendencies mentioned above as anyone else. Conspiracies are not surprising. After all, what is a war, if not a concerted conspiracy to deceive and destroy an enemy?
What you are doing is classifying between what you consider a probable versus an improbable conspiracy. You think it is improbable that our war machine could be hijacked by insiders high in the chain of command...and used in this way...on this scale. However, there IS precedent, however improbable. But however improbable it may be that disaster strikes...when it strikes...all that is left is to understand the cause. There is precedent for the motives as well, as well as exposure of some of the motives in this case:
CIA Whistleblower EXPOSES Everything!
You are classifying deception as something unlikely or improbable. However, it is common to the human experience, along with conspiracy+secrecy. That, or you are thinking that deception+betrayal+destruction on a grand scale is improbable, and therefore has not been perpetrated.
Bottom line, you don't think you can be deceived whenever you think the truth is obvious.
Is it obvious that the planes that hit the towers were commercial airliners? No, it's not. There is more evidence they weren't than that they were.
Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:
I mean that just a tad bit of rational thinking above moron lets you known the extreme lengths that would be required for it to have been a demolition job make it a silly notion.
The attempt at ridicule is noted. Now...
Professionals pull buildings all the time with explosives. What is so extreme about that?
Later, Larry Silversteen admitted that he gave the OK to "pull" building 7. The question is about who wired it, and when. It's not likely firemen could wire a burning building in a couple hours, what would take professionals a couple of weeks under normal conditions.
So the only extreme aspect of pulling these three buildings is whether they could be wired in secret, during off-hours, or while tenants were evacuated under various pretenses. Is there evidence this was the case? Yes. Was there opportunity? Yes, with the OK of Silversteen and the security company. Alot of work? No, not for professionals who get paid. Was there motive? Yes!
It's not the amount of work involved that's extreme...not for the lease-holder of the entire complex, nor it's security company. It's the size of the secrecy and malignancy of motive that you find hard to believe.
Until you are ready to face it, you will not be ready to face what i have to say about the Truth as a Being, and that which substitutes itself for the truth, and parades in front of your face every day, hiding in broad daylight as "obvious".