I dont know how much any of you know about the in depth things in the 9/11 issue other than what you've seen on videos like loose change and alex jones' marshall law... but also recently there was a French official who was saying that the whole 9/11 operation was ran out of building 7.
This could be another reason why the building was "pulled". Also, I'm surprised none of you are talking about the other things, such as Bush's brother being in charge of the company who had been in charge of security for the WTC.. "coincidentally" 9/11 was the last day of that company's contract. Also, all the stocks bought up in the few weeks leading up to 9/11, the kind that are like a wager that a stock is going to fall.
AND Larry Silverstein's HUGE insurance policy bought in the summer of that year, with terrorists attacks specifically covered.
I worked in insurance for awhile (a brokerage that works on deals between insurance companies and large corporations).
Prior to 9/11, most deals specifically excluded terrorism and companies didn't pay extra for it since the thought of an attack on corporate buildings was so far from people's minds.
Which is why the insurance policy on the WTC with terrorism clauses seems strange to me.
<I><B>"I know this sounds corny, and I might be a little bit drunk, but honest to god, thank you everybody"</B></I>
see, connecting the dots only leads so far. Eventually there comes a point where assumptions have to be made. I think we all know that there is a huge difference between correlation and causation, and so far there is no actual proof this was an inside job. This is basically a bunch of events that correlate with 9/11. I'm as skeptical as the next guy but no one has really come out with proof that this was an inside job and until that happens I have to be skeptical about the conspiracies as well.
I can't wait until the day schools are over-funded and the military is forced to hold bake sales to buy planes.
"It's a great thing when you realize you still have the ability to surprise yourself. Makes you wonder what else you can do that you've forgotten about"
Kathy14 wrote:I worked in insurance for awhile (a brokerage that works on deals between insurance companies and large corporations).
Prior to 9/11, most deals specifically excluded terrorism and companies didn't pay extra for it since the thought of an attack on corporate buildings was so far from people's minds.
Which is why the insurance policy on the WTC with terrorism clauses seems strange to me.
sorry about the double post...
The WTC in particular isn't a typical building. It was probably the most well known pair of buildings in the world and had been a target of terrorism in the past, so I'd imagine that would be why terrorism was included in the deal.
I can't wait until the day schools are over-funded and the military is forced to hold bake sales to buy planes.
"It's a great thing when you realize you still have the ability to surprise yourself. Makes you wonder what else you can do that you've forgotten about"
yeah I realize that. And I'm not saying I buy any conspiracy theories because I definitely see a lot of correlations and no straight proof. But our insurance deals covered most of the largest buildings in North America and terrorism was left off 80% of deals prior to 2001.
Now it costs waaaay more than it did before for terrorism clauses but it's extremely rare for a huge building to exclude it.
<I><B>"I know this sounds corny, and I might be a little bit drunk, but honest to god, thank you everybody"</B></I>
no no, I'm not. I'm just saying that until I see actual proof I'm not jumping on this bandwagon, not that I'm not curious/concerned by the whole series of events and correlations.
<I><B>"I know this sounds corny, and I might be a little bit drunk, but honest to god, thank you everybody"</B></I>
I'm a science and math girl... I don't make decisions on things that are or may be coincidences and correlations. I totally agree with Jim's post above.
Which way would I go? There are holes in both stories so I'm concerned and I question both of them. I can't put myself in either group right now.
<I><B>"I know this sounds corny, and I might be a little bit drunk, but honest to god, thank you everybody"</B></I>
heh, I'm not saying that you have to decide definitively who's responsible. It's just a hypothetical. My point is that based on the information we have, there is more evidence against the government's official story than for it. My post above was intended as a hypothetical question. If you had to choose between a) the official story and b) the conspiracy theory (we'll say for the sake of argument, Loose Change), which would you choose? Let's say that you're the judge right now. You must choose, it is not optional. You are embarked! Which will you choose then?
I'm not 100% for the conspiracy theories either. But they've put forth a lot more evidence, as well as far too many "coincidences" that discount the official story. And I agree that there isn't a definitive link, but my point is that there is even less linking the terrorists to the attack (or, most of what there is linking terrorists to the attack is easily refuted).
I just think that there are too many so-called coincidences to believe the official story. And if I don't believe the official story, I have to question what really happened? And why would the official story be so - seemingly intentionally - off the mark?
all the proof you need is sitting right in front of you
patriot act, the domestic spying , the war in iraq, the oil "situation" ... it's all right there in the open but people wont stand up against it because they think it "keeps us safe from terrorism"
on the general, the american people ( and people in alot of other countries) are so apathetic about it that they almost gladly give up freedoms for what is really a false sense of protection. our country (the US) has become the exact opposite of what our families came here for in the first place. but alas, such is the way with all empires, they eventually crumble under their own greatness. and believe me, it WILL happen.. it's not a question of whether or not the US will fall from being the world super power... its a question of when... and how soon.
ummm Iraq et al doesn't proove that 9/11 was an inside job. That's another inference and you're connecting unproven dots.
What I want before I can believe either side is cold hard evidence about what happened. I want to see files and documents that were made by those involved indicating there was an inside job. Likewise I'd like to see files and whatnot from the terrorists who planned 9/11. To simply say that what has happened post-9/11 is a direct result of 9/11 being an inside job based on what happened after the event is a pretty far reach in my opinion, especially when you consider that all of these events could be the answer any government would have to a large scale terrorist attack.
And before you go saying "here's proof, back in the 60's blah blah blah" I just want to say that Yes I know about Mcnamara and the documents suggesting the staging of an attack to allow for an American offensive, but just because that was considered an option at some point, and produced in a document (that was ultimately turned down by Mcnamara himself) doesn't mean that it is gospel. It simply means that at some point it was an option of many and although I haven't read the document, I'm sure it was probably more extreme than many of the other options.
I can't wait until the day schools are over-funded and the military is forced to hold bake sales to buy planes.
"It's a great thing when you realize you still have the ability to surprise yourself. Makes you wonder what else you can do that you've forgotten about"
It legitimately could be a number of reasons ranging from them being behind it to them not responding properly to a terrorist attack. Ignoring the physics and such that are in "Loose Change" let's say this was completely and undeniably a terrorist attack. How has the Bush administration reacted to other areas of crisis? Pretty poorly I would say. Just look at post-Katrina efforts by the government. It was handled about as poorly as possible.
So let's assume that the government's reaction to Katrina is not much different than how they reacted to 9/11. How many times did the government give false info? how many times were officials quuoted saying things that were out of the ordinary? I would say we could apply these questions to 9/11 and kept up with the same answer. Perhaps this government is just a really poor government that is unable to govern during times of crisis. I really don't know, but I do think that during times of stress and desperation people tend to say and do weird things. Simple slips in speech can be taken out of context, and even then people are misquoted in papers all the time.
From a purely reactionary perspective I think we can say that there wasn't much difference between the way the government handled Katrina and 9/11 and because of that it wouldn't be absurd to say they didn't plan it. Of course this ignores some of the "loose Change" but I think that if you're going to look at motives for why they would be behind 9/11 you have to also look at reasons why they might have reacted the way they did from an innocent perspective.
I can't wait until the day schools are over-funded and the military is forced to hold bake sales to buy planes.
"It's a great thing when you realize you still have the ability to surprise yourself. Makes you wonder what else you can do that you've forgotten about"
I haven't watched the movie, but the main problem I have with this (besides my faith in human-kind) Is that how could they manage to cover up something like that so well?
If this was all a huge cover-up conspiracy-thing, there would have been a heck of a lot of people involved. Virtually anyone who had anything to do with 9/11 would have been bribed or gagged. So how is it that the only people making a fuss over these things are colledge students, and otherwise completely uninvolved film-makers?
How come somebody with any kind of real knowledge hasn't gone "Wait a minute, there's something wrong here!" ?
I just can't see a cover-up being that effective. There would have to be a very large number of people who know real facts about an event this large. If there's something terribly wrong going on, a lot of people would have to notice. And yet, I'm supposed to believe that every single one of them has been effectively silenced?
Maybe I'm too faithful, or too willing to believe what I'm told. But a conspiracy and cover-up this absolute and complete sounds to me more like the plot of a science-fiction movie, than a reality of the world we live in.
-Annie (Whee! boring signature!)
Member of the Pokémon League
Hrm. I just watched it, but I'm not going to believe anything in there until I do some more research. I don't know enough about 9/11, and I don't want to take all my info from one documentary.
It's interesting, to say the least, and not as 'crazy conspiracy theory' as I thought it might be.
Furthermore, name one thing this government has successfully been able to accomplish without any snags. The idea that they were able to pull off 9/11 perfectly doesn't seem to correlate well with their record since. Iraq, Katrina, Bin Laden, the energy crisis, etc have all been failures to some degree. The 9/11 attacks would be the first and only event this government was able to pull off with relative ease, which makes me skeptical.
I can't wait until the day schools are over-funded and the military is forced to hold bake sales to buy planes.
"It's a great thing when you realize you still have the ability to surprise yourself. Makes you wonder what else you can do that you've forgotten about"
If the conspiracy theory was right, Bin Laden wasn't a failure at all. It would also call into question the motivation behind Iraq; if we don't know the goal in Iraq, we can't know if it was a success.
As far as Katrina ... well ... George Bush doesn't care about black people. (har har har)
But if the government had reason and was willing to lie about 9/11 (which they did, for the sake of argument we can say that they lied for reasons unkown - but they still lied), doesn't that call into question basically everything else they've told us? One (huge) lie doesn't mean everything else is a lie, but it does call for skepticism about everything else they say.
