stridge said:
Hey Reber,

So far as the 9/11 site not being properly investigated, I don't seem to have as much information on that as you all, but I fail to see what the whole problem was. First of all, 9/11 was something that had no precident. You need only look at hurricane Katrina and it's aftermath to see how incompitent and disorganized our government agencies are when they're in crisis and response mode. While I'm certain there were mistakes and snafus all the way down the line, I haven't seen anything that suggests criminal tampering. And, as I said, nothing like 9/11 ever happened before - I don't think that there was any set of instructions to guid the decision making process in the immediate aftermath. It's just something to consider when looking at this stuff.

I really don't see how the scene was 'cleared.' There were hundreds of millions of tons of rubble, it took months to get everything hauled away. As I've said before, the investigating scientists took as many samples as they needed - it's not like they were going to collect and study every shred of debris at Ground Zero. And keeping the area restricted isn't fishy to me, it's common sense. Not only was the place a major health hazard, but the top levels of government are naturally going to want to strictly control access and investigation into an area like that so there is order and control. Anyway if you let me know what you're referring to more specifically I can probably comment more articulately.

So far as Putin discussing armed conflict, I can't read too much into that. Putin is a thig and smart manipulator, and he's not afraid to switch on the anti-US rhetoric when it serves his purposes, but the Russian government also works very closely and happily with us on many things. Leaders publicly criticize and cut deals behind the scenes; that's how diplomacy has worked since the beginning. Russia has some potential, but they're a loooooong ways away from being able to finance arms build-up and actually be a seriously competative force. Their only chance for unlocking their resource potential is western investment - trust me on this one, it's directly related to what I do for a living. Putin is an old school realist when it comes to international relations, but he understands the globalized model as well, and he plays both strategies. But don't take some tough-guy chatter from Russia as a sign of impending catastrophe - he's basically just spouting off at the muzzle to placate anti-US government that Russia works with.

The Illuminati model is interesting, but it makes several assumptions that are somewhat dubious to me. For starters, it implies that the British political system is a farce where PMs and pre-ordained to rise to power with a specific agenda. This means democracy in your country is a sham, which I really don't think there's any evidence to support and I don't feel that's something that you could keep a secret in the UK for so long - you know how your tabloids are! Just kidding with that, but do you really think that democracy is just a show in the UK and Parliament is all on board with this world takover business? You know how Parliament is as well, and if what you say about the PMs is true, then every member must be cooperating with the conspiracy as well. That means all their staffs down there at Whitehall (I think that's what it's called? It's been a while) are knowledgable as well, because they could hardly work for an MP without being aware that everything he does is under the service of this conspiracy agenda to support a corrupt and unfairly appointed PM working on a global conspiracy. Frankly it all get a little unbelievable to me when I break it down into logistics this way - too many people, too hard to organize, too hard to keep secret, just too many variables. It's hard to keep small secrets amongst small groups of people - take Watergate in America as an example - this seems well enough impossible.

Another thing I don't get - a lot of what you've said about the global conspiracy implies that America is in on it, yet it also involves the downfall of America. Who amongst our government want to see it destroyed? None have a change of heart and decide they like having power in their own country and turn on the Illuminati? Basically some generation of leaders and business in the US will get screwed when we are eventually taken down, so what is their motivation to participate? And finally, this is pretty obvious but if America really is destroyed, it would cause a more or less global economic collapse that would wipe out the wealth and power of most the nations that I assume would be leading the new world order and many, many very wealthy people would lose everything. Considering the vested interest the wealthy have in maintaining their wealth, I really doubt so many of the power-elite would be willing to go along with this plan. If the international markets collapse - and they would without the US being involved - billionaires the world over would love just about everything. This makes it hard to believe that all these Larry Silverstein (who isn't really all that high up on the wealth table worldwide) types are actually willing to go along with this.

Plus, wealthy people and government thrive from commerce - most of the wealthy would lose everything if democracy were abolished under a global system and human society was enslaved. What is the point of enslaving everybody bring the downfall of everything as we know it? Why bother with this masssive scheme? Who really benefits by causing this?

Plus, what you describe involves America remaining as a prime aggressor in world affairs. That seems plausible at the moment, but as we speak out Democratic Congress is working to stop our involvement in Iraq and undermine Bush, and it's very likely that we'll have a black or female Democratic president in 2008, who are both committed to a non-aggressive foreign policy. Are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton signed on to help America tank itself so the NWO can take over as well? Are our elections rigged to suit this plan? If they are and the Illuminati people really have this much control, why has it taken them so long and why have they let US power become so hegemonic rather than impliment a one-world system when we were far weaker and it would have been much easier?

There are just so many things that make absolutely no sense to me about this, but I do find it interesting. What would you need to see happen to change your mind about this NWO thing? What if the US became internationally popular again and a new age of international peace and prosperity came around? I know it seems more likely in the Cold War mentality that a lot of this conspiracy stuff seems to operate under, but the fact is, a third world war is highly unlikely. Even with our military stretched thin, the US is just too powerful for anybody to defeat and it wouldn't do anybody any good to engage us and our allies. The realist era is over, we're into globalized economies now and a much more complicated international system. That doesn't mean we're developing into a one-world order, but it does mean that wars are more costly than ever before and nations are apt to work harder to avoid them - which is actually a good thing.

I don't know about any global elitists taking over the world through warfare or faked terrorist attacks. It's too big for me I guess.

It's more likely that if these free marketeers/"free trade" promoters get their way all across the board there will be a major global depression. It won't entirely be the fault of these free trade policies, but it will have greatly contributed to the mess that are the nations of south African nations in desperate need of worldly assistance in a similar way that they helped South American countries in the past. That globalization model doesn't work. It never has and it never will. It's too far to one side of the spectrum of regulation/deregulation/tariffs/nixing tariffs. If your model is to marginalize the poor then you will be looking at a huge problem across all social strata world-wide indeed. The effects they tend to have on health and the environment are costs no one can afford.

Plus, the way these models have been implemented have been practically at gun point. Sure on a micro-level I would take a job for 75 cents a day too if it was enough to afford me more than in the past, but that doesn't mean that I got a good deal. The more desperate one is the more likely one is to accept any terms to a deal. Unfortunately, the IMF, World Bank, and WTO have been out for the interests of multinationals as opposed to the bigger picture of actually giving poor nations a legitimate chance to experience a real economic upswing. Just let me catch the words privatization and water/electricity come across the lips of anyone in office here in Ohio(it's been proposed in some places here). Try to tell me who paid for the pipes again and oooh you'll find how thirsty some of us are. If what happened in California was allowed to go on for years longer than it was my God how many would be dead? Seriously. There's too many guns in this country for violence not to happen when the problem is that large and no one in government steps in to intervene/help. My feet would be in the street writing letters at the same time though if privatization was being lobbied here and seriously considered. "Privatization" in other countries worked so well. No population anywhere can afford the cost of the inevitable price manipulation that rears its ugly head with the kind of privatization we've witnessed the last 30 years or so.

At the least I've heard President Bush speak(rhetoric?) of no more loans and just giving aid instead to countries in need, but most of our foreign aid goes to Israel and Egypt. I think those two countries have received too much money when comparing countries that really need it. How can I believe this aid will be on the up-and-up without severe/crippling stipulations? I realize that the IMF and such are not the government, but who is at the controls there? There is a revolving door with those institutions as well. It makes you wonder what government's primary role is under one world economy. There are so many people tied together with similar interests it's scary. They know not what they do doesn't apply, but greed can blind.

As far as the world is concerned I don't think we can move forward in a positive way with so much of the world in poverty. The world is smaller, but is it any wiser? How can we come to a reasonable means of moving ahead long term when most of today's interests are anchored to relatively short-term ideas? I'm speaking of energy policy in particular, but all corporations are looking for the most money in the smallest time frame no matter what it's selling. As good as we have it because of their existence we cannot let them lead the way that they have traditionally. In other words we created a machine that works for one goal, moves only as fast as it possibly can, but forgot to include an off button. We'll gladly take the good with the bad if it creates a plush lifestyle in comparison to most of the rest of the world, but we can definitely limit the bad a bit better can't we?

I find conspiracies and ideas on the Illuminati interesting, however thoughts of the Illuminati and unknown individuals taking over the world through chaotic methods to me just sounds like a way to deal with the reality of how fucked we are while at the same time able to discuss such ideas as though the end is coming as sure as this Friday's party at our friend's apartment. It's kind of similar to how religion mainly functioned in earlier times although religion has obviously been a greater fluence in the world than any kind of belief in the existence of the Illuminati. "The end times are surely upon us." The end will surely come, but let's start working on the major problems facing humanity with more focus and determination. The world is much more complicated than a small group of individuals cunning and powerful enough to manipulate world affairs on behalf of an elaborate plan. There are plenty of shady business deals between people who know people in high places and the circle of "friends/business partners" are small enough to think there is a conspiracy, but working together to make money doesn't equal collaboration in a grand scheme. As stridge pointed out, on the surface it doesn't add up as far as what they supposedly want to accomplish through the means that were suggested.

The power is in the hands of what? whom? Bankers? The Federal Reserve and its other international equivalents? There are only a very few individuals who sit on the board of directors of the largest corporations. They are so intertwined it would seem that there is sort of an agenda and indeed there is to make money. Do these people have your interests in mind? If you own stock in one of these corporations then they think they do, but if the corporation pollutes the air or water and people in the local area develop lung disease or cancer finding fault isn't as simple as you'd think. A price needs to paid and I don't mean fines, but it doesn't mean that the corporation deliberately planned to kill innocent people. Looking the other way or deliberately hiding evidence that proves this polluting was happening is just as despicable, but not every top executive is guilty of murder. Still, to some small extent the public would be at fault perhaps for not pushing hard enough for stricter regulations. Surely, not the victims as I'm sure they were vehement about the corporations' practices. The cost to the environment and loss in lives far outweighs any major shortfall in some corporation. It's not conspiracy though...it's just such crimes are perpetrated by those who have lots of money and happen to be associated with anything, but violence/cruelty. White-collar/corporate crimes/laws are not easy to enforce and not easy to prosecute despite all the federal and state agencies that deal with investigating/enforcing such crimes(IRS, FBI, SEC, EPA).

On one extreme there are tremendous benefits for the developed nations while on the other extreme there are harrowing stories of people in the developing nations being buried alive in mine shafts after their deadline to leave the land had expired. These are the real-world correctable (albeit unforgiveable) problems we face. Not some faceless organization that is above the law of the land. WE MAKE THE LAWS! WE ENFORCE THEM! (yes, we can actually do that if it means enough to you) AS LONG AS WE STAND UP AND MAKE NOISE AND WORK TOGETHER WE CAN PREVENT FUTURE CRIMES AND ATROCITIES!

Now, I hope we can get back on track. 9/11. Discuss.
 
great post iwant8inches

its witching hour here in Blighty...

the world will be enslaved not by force but by virtue of credit.


keep pushing
 
Hey Reber, I'll try to address the stuff you brought up poinht by point without writing too long of a post here:

"investigation: what i know is that a chinesse company(i think they're called 'chinesse demolition' believe it or not) began clearing the vast amounts of structural steel from the site before any appointed authority could do what they do. the steel was then held briefly on Statan island(i think thats where) and then shipped to china to be melted down."

I thought the clearing company was actually American, but I don't think it's important. As we know, the scientists were allowed a lot of access to the area to get in there and collect as much stuff as they need from the rubble, as their own testimony has confirmed. At a certain point, they have a sample of most of the amterials they think they're going to need.

So far as the clearing beginning very shortly after the attacks - that's just a practical matter. Despite frequent conspiracy claims that the buildings fell into neat little piles, they in fact created destruction all around them and made a very large mess which was also located in one of the busiest and most important urban centers of the planet. Having that area shut down for any longer than it had to be just wasn't an option and there was a lot of pressure to get the clean-up going for financial and logisitical reasons, not to mention the general attitude America tried to affect after the attacks, which was sort of a 'get to work/life goes on stance.' I have no doubt that plans were being made to start getting the area cleared (remember it still took months) as soon as the danger was over, I imagine it was a top priority, but certainly not for any sinister reasons.

Sheeh, I'm not doing very well at keeping this short so far.

"these 45% phenomena's have not been touched upon by FEMA & NIST that im aware of, and its a trademark of visual demolition as stated by the worlds biggest demolition firm. was the steel they have access to selected? it makes me wonder."

Okay, so far as the famous 45 degree beam slicing goes, I'll first make a tangential argument. Firstly, the idea that the buildings came down with bombs requires many other points of proof that the conspiracy fails to make. The buildings clearly feel top down in the videos, no explosive charges can be seen, this would have been the largest and most complicated demolition in history by a wide margin which experts have said would have taken a large team many months of onsite preparation to pull off with total access to the structure, no credible engineers believe it was demolition, etc.

So, when I take in the many things that make demolition completely improbable (in all honesty mroe like impossible, but I'm trying to keeo an open mind), I wonder about the supposed beam slicing. I haven't seen these photos, but I think that it's possible to account for them in othe ways besides the presence of 'cutter' charges.

Firstly, conspiracy websites have been known to show distorted or deceptive photos in the past. One good example would be the frequent pictures shown of WT7 whith very little smoke coming out of it, used to claim there weren't major fires. Now, if you look at the NYFD photos and anything taken of the other side, you see a an enormous billowing column of smoke coming from the other half the building obscured from view - just one example. The photos could have been taken at an opportune angle or of something that had been perhaps cut or altered for removal and transportation. As I haven't seen them, I just don't know.

Another possiblity is just random chance. There has never been a building collapse of this size and intensity, so strange things may have happened with all the friction, energy release, and air compression that went down in just a few seconds. Every once in a while a burn piece of toast looks like the Jesus, so maybe random factors allowed for on of the sections of steel to get broken or sliced in such a way as to resemble an artificiall severing. It's not outside the realm of possibility, and considering the unlikely nature of demolition in general, other explanations carry more weight to me. I'd ahve to see something from a demolitions pro claiming there was no other explanation for the beam than deliberate charges used for such a purpose to sway my opinion, and even then I'd want some documentation/context for the photo.

"also the lack of governmental or larry silverstein appointed meastro engineers descending upon ground zero to deconstruct what occured on 9/11 so that an engineering failer of that calibre would never befall the world again made me wonder. you yourself said Larry has to rebuild, would it not have been shrewd to employ the best of the best to figure out what on earth happened... this isnt how matters played out was it, it was left months before anything of that ilk was put in motion."

Not sure what you mean exactly with these comments. Silverstein clearly believes his buidlings came down from the attacks, and I doubt it much matters to him what the mechanism was - it wouldn't affect his settlement or his contractual obligation to rebuild (which has been very expensive and difficult). All that really matters so far as his finances are concerned is that the towers came down - the mechanism really doesn't matter.

Who would be interested in invetigating would be his insureres, who could stiff Larry (theoretically but not so much in reality) if it was found he was in on a conspiracy to blow up his own properties. As I've noted before, for most people the possibility and evidence of conspiracy is just not there, and so I doubt they were too concerned he blew up his own properties for no reason. We already know this has been a terrible financial deal for the guy and probably a monsterous headache that no 70 year old man really wants to deal with. Plus, it assume he's a heartless murdering bastard that's capable of wiping out the lives of thousands for some twisted amusement, which a label I'm reluctant to stick people with when there's a total void of evidence against them.

"again with the molten metal/steel(or what ever it was . . . "

I've heard this brought up quote a bit on different conspiracy sites, but I don't understand what it proves except that extreme heat was generated in the collapse and by the fires - which conspiracy also claim weren't that hot - so it seems like a direct contradiction.

The charges used in demolition or explosive and quick, meant to weakn and shatter structure with directed force. The explosives used in building demolition wouldn't have generatede enough heat to make molten steel that could insulate under the rubble for months - if anything could do this it would be the friction and force generated by millions of tons of debris falling into a massive pile.

Also, as debunkers have pointed out, if it really were molten steal below the rubble, the heat needed to keep it in liquid form would be so intense that a workmen just coming into contact with it with a loader would instantly be burned by the heat trasnference through the loader - it's that hot. Obviously the whole area around it would be intensely dangerous. What evidence I have seen is that people have are chunks of cooled but once molten material, which by all accounts were actually quite light and easy to handle not long after the collapse. This suggest aluminum and composite that were melted by fire and such at much lower temperatures.

So far as NIST ignoring the molten matierals, keep in mind the goal of the NIST reporting: to document what happened with within strongly verifiable evidence. This is a government report, so they're going by the book. Unless they have data and thorough documentation about pools of molten material that is rock solid, it's not going to go in there. I've dealt with plenty of government information before, and the standards for inclusion of information are pretty rigorous - they need solid documentation of something and it must be relevant.

And once again, I fail to see what molten material means for the conspiracy as it their presence doesn't really help verify the idea of explosive charges.

"as for Putin, im versed with what this mans about and his politic ideologies . . ."

The only reason I follow up on Putin is that what I do reolves around the stability and safety of Russian and the bloc states. So far as space and nanoweapons, think about that for a moment. Russian can barely feed its nation its production is so wealk right now and things have been so bad in some areas that many folks are begging for a return to Communism. Meanwhile, in the US, where we have the strongest and most heavily funded military on the planet by a huge margin, we don't really have the capability for those sorts of 'futureweapons.' They're not even really practical or necessary. There's always R&D going on as this has to be done to stay competative or on the leading edge, but this in and of itself is standard practice and holds no frightening intentions. Russia just couldn't possibly sustain an arms race, especially not with us. They're not a superpower anymore, just a big, troubled state.

The real threat out of that part of the world is that their militaries are so weak and corrupt that they can't provide good security for their nuclear sites anymore. There's an alarming book by a former Kennedy Center fellow names Jessica Stern called "The Ultimate Terrorists" that details the sorry state of affairs for nucleay secuirty in Russia and the Eastern Bloc and the ease with which a motivated terrorist group could procure nuclear materials from the decripit and corrupt security structures - to me this is far more terrifying than any talk of nano-weapons and such. We've been begging all of them all to disarm for this very reason - they simply can't handle the cost and responsiblity of nukes when they're still trying to develop basic industry and productive economies in the post-Communist mess. Some have, thankfully, but as discussed in the book, some are literally still housing hundreds of warheads in old hangers locked up with rusty chains and watched over by Vodka soaked soldiers.

Sorry for the tangent, but this is an example of things that are much more real and much more troubling to me than conspiracy ideas. Sure they're not as interesting in some respects, but the fact that they are undeniably real makes them more deserving of our attention in my opinion.

"as ive stated many, many times i belive that it is the superbankers that own the banks in their little cartel that control the world because they print the money. if there is a new world order it is them(besides the Crown of course, "he who rules the oceans...")"

I now realize that I've been making a fairly unreasonable demand by asking you to spell out the Illuminati conspiracy to me. I've done some reading on the matter, and what I found was that the Illuminati stuff is varied, complicated, and often unique to the individual that nobody could really do this. There are hundreds of books (some are intentionally jokes, some involve aliens, but most all offer very different explanations of the Illuminati thing) on the subject, and it all becomes extremely complicated. Basically I never really realized the scope or involvement of this and how it tied into such a massive web of different conspiracy ideas. I was also interested to learn that the conspiracy claims have been around since the 1800s, earlier in some cases, so it's no recent phoenomena. The only thing consistent through time is that the claims of conspiracy theorists have never really come to pass.

I think the Illuminati took off in popularity because A) they were a revolutionary group that advocated the overthrow of monarchy, something that gives them a nice aura of danger, and B) they were a group within a group, meaning they existed within the Freemason world as well, which really titilates conspiracy-minded individuals. Since then a few very entertaining and influential books were written about them (a few of which, as I noted, were intended for humerous purposes but were taken seriously by many) and now we have them as the cornerstone of a lot of very vague speculating about global conspiracies.

So far as superbankers and such, I don't believe there really is such a thing. Now, I understand you are in no way an anti-semite or talking about Jewish conspiracies, but this basically where terms like "superbankers" come from. The idea that nefarious Jews control the European money and glod supplies came into fashion in Europe for a long time and there's a long tradition of suggesting that 'bankers,' which was once a fairly new concept, were controlling everything as not many people understood how banks and banking worked at a large scale back then.

What we now obviously know is that banks are just one part of the alrger financial system and there are so many of them that very few hold any real sway, or could hold real sway over world events. And, just to be clear, banks don't print money, and the vast majority of a bank's holdings actually don't belong to them, they're just holding them and investing against their worth. So it seems very counter-intuitive that they would work to undermine free markets and financial prosperity of all people, as this would devalue their growth and investment potential.

So far as the crown, not sure what you mean there. Monarchy is just for show and state pride these days. They're part of national identity and history, but they certainly aren't calling any shots in world affairs.

Thanks for replying to the thread as well, it's been very interesting. I've enjoyed reading about the development of the Illuminati ideas over the years and this converation has really helped me flesh out the 9/11 stuff in my own thinking.
 
iwant8inches,

I agree with much of what you have to say, particularly about the IMF and World Bank acting very irresponsibly. On a certain level I try to curb moral jugments against financial institutions in that their primary function should be to generate revenue, but in this case it's different because the IMF and World Bank attempted to cast all the loans they made during the 70s as part of some sort of larger social mission, which was an outright lie. In truth they were just so bloated with OPenis EnlargementC money that they literally had to expand their ideas about where to start moving all this raw wealth around, and they settled on development loans in Africa as an ideal target.

This was predatory lending at its finest. The loans they made were massive and without qualification. A popular analogy is a prominent New York investment bank loaning $1,000,000 to a homeless indigent on the street with no education and a long history of violence and instability. Obviously nearly all of the money was squandered and has since sent most of those nations into and endless spiral of debt, violence, corruption that has resulted in very little development, which actually benefits the banks as they still receive payments on debt that can likely never be erased.

Even when they make a grand show of 'debt relief' by backing off of a truly devastated nation for a time, allowing them to use the money that is normally scheduled for debt payment to try and develop their economies, they are put right back on schedule once they are actually producing some GDP. It's basically a scam to keep their economies from stagnating entirely and calling too much attention to immoral nature of their lending.

Stuff like this is no conspiracy, and it's what really bothers me about the world. As you point out, at a certain level there isn't a strict watchdog for groups like this, and once they've had some very poor leadership (as in the 70s), the damage has been done for millions of people already. The international system is improving but we're stil a ways from the type of cooperation we need to really protect against this sort of thing from ever happening.

So far as poverty, there is a lot of interesting new research into how to start correcting the situation, most it revolving around 'bottom-up' rather than 'top-down' models of development where the highest levels of government are circumvented in favor of local and individualized development. One of the major developments along these lines as been the use of micro credit and micro lending. While not a total success it is a good example of progressive ideas being applied to poverty that directly factor the mistakes made in the past.

I agree to some extent about the flaws inherent in globalization, but one thing to consider is that we're already stuck with it, and also that we're fairly early into the process. Transportation has been effecetively developed to its strongest technology right now, so basically what we're talking about is the continued expansion of economies and information. What we've seen so far is a structuring similar to the old world, which was that the rich are still exploiting the labor of the poor. This is unfortunate, but somewhat unstoppable under a free trading market, which is more or less a simplified idea of what we have right now. The idea is that things eventually will improve as more nations learn to capitalize on the increased opportunity a full international system presents as well as the cheaper and more affordable goods and services that become available.

Also, under this system, with increasing cultural exchange and contact, the world become more cosmopolitan and less prone to the kind of insular regional atrocities that have plagued us even into the 20th century. That's a bit wishy-washy, but a lot of what I've read on the matter suggests that violence has been decreased worldwide as a result of this new transparency and accessability of information. That leads to another advantage, which is that major war is far less likely under a system where we're all economically linked. The downside is the increased possibility for terrible regional wars, but on balance the potential for mass violence is supposedly lower.

That all being said, I do agree with many of your points, but I think it's rather difficult to characterize it as either good or bad at this stage. As with most things in the world, good for some, bad for others. I have always taken the stance that it's utopian nonsense that the world can be rid of all its problems in some sort of Star Trek far-future scenario, and so we must progressively attempt to correct what is wrong with whatever system we have at the time in hope of just producing the best result we're capable of. Again, bit wishy-washy, but I attempt to keep this in mind when criticizing the international and corporate systems.

And now, as you said, back to 9/11.
 
Micro-credit has been around for a while now and it has shown promise. This is definitely something I am behind 100%. It's fair if nothing else, right? The poor need money. The rich do not. I understand from a bank's stand point that there is a much higher risk in lending to the poor, but it is necessary to find a way to help these people function in the world. How can you get ahead when you can't even catch up? This would help the poor create stability. Last year's Nobel Peace Prize winner I believe championed this very concept among others to help the poor. He and Grameen Bank. His name escapes me at the moment. Something with a U or Y in his name. Damn it. Well, you probably know who he is. Still, this sort of lending cannot act alone to solve the problems of the poor. Problems of poor education systems and lack health care are not going to be resolved. I'm sure the banks are happy with the results that are reported too, but I wonder how much it actually is helping and what can be done to ensure credit problems don't haunt these people. I don't like credit at all, but it's necessary and becoming dependant should not be the result.

I was attempting to show that I can't look at things in black and white or good and bad. Things are too complicated for that kind of thinking and while I mentioned that there is good and bad to the whole of globalization it was basically a way to indicate as much. We take the good with the bad isn’t to say that things are good/bad on a moral scale. There will never be one magic solution to ending all plight. I can’t see how someone can think that way. Every decision/action involves consequences that would not have otherwise risen out of a different decision/action. We just shouldn’t pretend that the “bad” ceases to exist or state that something is working when it has not shown that it can deliver the speculated results. If someone is benefitting then someone else is not. That will always be the case no matter what is done. Whatever is done in the future about the discrepancy between the advantaged and disadvantaged the results shouldn’t involve its widening.

Seriously though where's the discussion on 9/11?

Point 1) No time-table for the implementation of the WTC buildings' demise. When could these buildings have been rigged? The amount of any kind of explosives would be in the tons. I'm not worried about any kind of problems where the explosives would go off upon impact of the planes. The areas would be unaffected where they would be placed anyway(near the core?) and if things started going awry where the charges were somehow detonated prematurely so what, right? Wasn't the point to kill people? Usama's boys and Al Qaeda couldn't possibly have the connections and manpower to rig the buildings, but the real culprits did and decided to crash planes into the buildings AND demolish them? Or what?

Point 2) Their "Footprint" was 6 times larger than it should have been/would have been if that was what occurred. (controlled demolition?)

Point 3) No S-waves registered. Steel columns(outer structural steel and core) were anchored into the ground. Where were the S-waves if explosives were used?

Point 4) There were many damaged buildings around the Twin Towers. This did not appear to be controlled if it was a demolition.

Point 5) The "explosions" that were heard throughout the day by those within the buildings and around them occurred in no way uniformly or in such a fashion that would suggest any kind of sequence observed in a demolition.

Point 6) The pools of molten metal. What does it prove if the molten metal was found to be molten steel?

Point 6) There are so many theories out there. Where is the consistency? It can't be controlled demolition OR Thermate and definitely not some sort of out of this world energy beam that somehow uses all of it's energy without giving off heat. Where would that f'n amount of energy come from in the first place? Two people can come up with two completely different conclusions about an event (any story has many different sides to it, but there is only so much lee-way one can have when there are plenty of facts presented), but both are only plausible if they are using the same facts. Even then both parties need to present their cases in a way that builds up to something verifiable. Most accounts of 9/11 within the Truth Movement appear without any 1st hand sources, test or experimental results, and verification.

Let’s look at a way to find out if there were was any sort of tampering with records that might shed some light into a time table.

If I was looking for any potential cover-up of records where construction projects were concerned...
Maybe, I’d look into the phone records of those residential floors within WTC 1and WTC 2.(not for an individual standpoint...strictly trying to find account information for those on several floors in search of any pattern for a lack of activity) (perhaps somewhere data is available that tracks the number of calls made from the buildings and it can be broken down or has been broken down floor by floor) Then I'd check to see what happens on floors that experience heavy construction say particularly in terms of phone calls made. Obviously, these floors would experience a total drop off in calls made during this construction period where inhabitants had to vacate. (Perhaps there would not be a complete drop off during this time, but I’m betting on near-zero to zero calls being made from these floors depending on what was being done) I’d check to see if indeed there was any drop off in phone activity that coincides with construction on a historical level. Again I’d need to go back even further in records dealing with construction and phone records. Not easy and in some cases all but impossible. Then I’d check to see if there was any such decrease in the number of calls made for any number of floors within either building in the year leading up to 9/11. (For this sort of project many floors would need to be vacated at a time so any kind of construction period involving 1-5 floors at a time like the instance referenced by Loose Change/9/11 Mysteries doesn’t count unless someone finds that 5 more floors above those floors the same kind of activity occurred weeks PRIOR and so on) I’d compare this activity with activity in past years if indeed this drop in phone activity occurred over several floors at a time, but only if I could find no history or anyone to verify any scheduled construction for that duration. Only at that point would I even have the basis for my suspicion.(there would be minor snags along the way once I somehow got going, but getting access to the phone records among other things would be tricky/illegal) If the trend continued throughout the months leading up to 9/11 then perhaps there would be something to alternative theories involving some form of demolition. I mean this is just off the top of my head and I’m very tired.

BUT Something like that is so far out there though that really it’d be unlikely anything would come of it. Plus, on what reasoning would I base these inquiries into construction and phone records? Ethically I couldn’t do it based on what I have been presented or at least what I have found on my own anyway. I’m sure with how often phone records are sold nowadays I could find enough information eventually and if I was savvy enough maybe something would come up that would give me reason to continue. But the legality of this would be in question for one and two the documents that I'd be able to get my hands on would conceivably be greatly limited in terms of how far back they went historically. The time it would take me to dig up this information would be great also. It would be impossible to look into the phone companies themselves to see if you could "obtain" records on occupants in the Towers.

I'm not one of those "well, if the data services have no problem selling these records why should I have a problem with buying them kind of people." But this is something I could see being done if there was reason to believe it would shed light on any kind of illegal activity, but it would still take an inordinate amount of time. The information is probably out there, but what it might be able to tell you is beyond me. I would bank on nothing coming from it simply because of how difficult it'd be to get the phone records over a long time for so many people. Again it's conceivable with the right people(it'd take a team and even then with as much information required for THIS we'd all be investigated/arrested in no time if regular citizens attempted something like this). I'm not endorsing this kind of behavior either. It's just there is plenty that the Truther's could do on their own on a less complicated level and I would figure at least a few would have turned to some sort of alternative method of obtaining documents/information since they find it so clear that 9/11 was an inside-job. I on the other hand am merely willing to believe that it is possible that it was based on capability and the fact that I am not God. Although I would like to see actual proof on which the Truther's can even base their conclusions.

There are people out there who are convinced that our own people were murdered by our own government, yet do nothing except maybe sit at their computer/sign petitions and march in peace rallies? Come on, I'm not suggesting anything violent because we'd basically all be dead and/or awaiting trial for high crimes within weeks, but those fine folks in California at the least refused to pay their electric bills when they knew something was afoul. What I just typed up probably makes little sense, but it was like 10 minutes of thought and it was in attempt to find a way to prove something that is claimed by Truthers is possible. I'm just getting frustrated with some of the local 9/11 Truth groups.
 
Micro credit is good, although as you point out, it's far from perfect. In some cases the borrowing percentages have been inflated by local branches that get greedy, which doesn't say much about the conceptual part but demonstrates that it's not bullet proof. Also, the majority of micro credit borrowers are women, and there is now investigation into widespread situations where the men of certain households are simply conifscating the small development loans for their own activities and causing women to either default or giving them nominal sums to pay back in order to keep the cash flowing. A thrid problem is borrower fraud, where in some cases entire communities get together and pool their small loans and redistribute them, which breaks down the household/individual model that micro credit works on. I can't remember the Nobel guy's name either but I know who you're talking about, he's been around on American talk shows hawking his a few times this year.

Obviously I agree about things not being black and white in the international scene. This is one reason I don't like conspiracies - they characterize the world as a simplistic place where organized adn evil forces seek to exploit the weak. I find the real scenario, which is that the world is dynamic and organizations and decisions have many different moral consequences to be far more interesting.

So far as the 9/11 stuff, I agree with all your questions, but to be fair I've never heard anybody discuss the energy beam stuff on this thread.

The logistical questions about phone records and such are very interesting, this is the kind of line of reasoning I like to see with this stuff. We can look at pictures of the towers going down ad infinitum or harp over steel temepratures and such, but for controlled demolition to be really possible there needs to be answers to just some very fundamental and practical questions.

As you mention, they would have needed a huge amount of access to the building's core elements over a long period of time - much smaller buildings than the towers and WT7 often take months and months just for the physical installation in a gutted building. On top of that, there are really only a few firms in the world that do this controlled demolition stuff on large buildings in the first place. Why don't the 'tuthers' get out there and find out what these people where up to? As you mention, if you start getting creative, there are so many new avenues that conspiracists could pursue for new evidence, but they choose to hash over the same points endlessly.

I've already discussed this idea before, but I feel this because for many deeply involved in the conspiracy world, finding the truth isn't really the point. It's all about immersing yourself in the conspiracy and enjoying the mystery and speculation - truth is actually very much the enemy of the broader conspiracy ideology.
 
Yeah, that sounds like what I imagined could go on with the micro-lending and borrower fraud, but especially with the men(husbands?) basically putting the women in a tricky financial situation. It happens here quite a bit don't you think where the man puts things in their wife's name and such. People will always find ways to abuse the system.

As for looking into phone and construction records and such it was really the first thing that came to mind. It'd be almost impossible for anyone to really gain access to records far back enough unless you were officially a part of an investigation. I'm sure one could find out the names of the residents in the buildings. It'd be tough to compile enough data to find any clues if there was a cover-up, but it could be done. It's just so far away from being likely that maybe no one would look into this. Plus, right away the only reason I tried to come up with some alternative route of uncovering any unscheduled construction was the lack of records of there being any "power down." Perhaps that isn't necessary for what happened. I don't know. Still, the easier way to find out about the "demolition" would be if anything was scheduled. If there were not any records or individuals willing to come forward with information then obviously you'd have to look elsewhere. That was all I could think to find something out about any suspicious activity.

No one suggested energy beams. That is correct, but I could swear that someone linked to a site with Dr. Judy Wood's calculations(that do not make any sense) for how long the buildings would have taken to collapse in a pancake collapse, but maybe not. If not I'd still like to hear any ideas that we can examine somewhat critically.
 
Last edited:
stridge/iwant8inches -

your talking debt, banks, money...

if you have not, i implore you to view this video. this is not conspiracy, this is not conjecture, this is the money changers and their ascent to world control... this is what i care and read about well-nigh daily. im not sure when this was made exactly, but it was pre '96.

the monetary system is what everybody should be talking about!

the money masters:
part 1
The Money Masters - Part 1 of 2 - Google Video
part 2
The Money Masters - Part 2 of 2 - Google Video


keep pushing
 
Ha, I wanted to wait to comment until I had time to give them a full viewing. I did look them up online and get the gist - some of them are historical fact of how finance developed in this country, which really isn't too scary, some of it appears to be speculation, but I'll wait until I see them to form an opinion.

Can't check out the linked photos right at this moment, but photos aren't really going to be very convincing to me. I'll take the word of the NYFD about the level of fires in the building. Many, many NYFD firefighters claim the building's fires appeared to be raging and the building severely damaged.
 
not to sound like a twat, but nigh-on all historical facts are based on informed, sage, speculation... its about as clear an account of how we've been raped of our free will and money as your ever guna get.

i know you think Alex Jones is a dickhead, but heres another video of how we're getting raped, and have done for the best part of 50 years.
Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports Exposed - Google Video
this isn't conspiracy and you cannot debunk it and you can not defend it. theres no getting away from the overt link of the super-bankers and big business, to 9/11.


keep pushing
 
I think we are getting away from the facts of 9/11. There's still the question of P waves, which were not registered at any point during the collapses of the Towers.
 
Sorry I've sort of abandoned this thread for a little while. Work has been hectic so I sort of but temporary ban on my interest in the conspiracy stuff until I had more free time. The one comment I'll make is to just point to iwant8inche's statement - it seems like the conspiracies draw attention to any point they can cast doubt on with isolated and questionable pieces of information, but there are lots of very basic things that they either can't account for or simply ignore because they don't fit the conspiracy model. The lack of any seismic recordings consistent with a controlled series of explosions is a prime example.
 
interesting wee video... just 5 mins.

YouTube - Totovader ignores evidence of exotic weaponry used on 911 discuss??? im sure there's a rational explanation to debunk steel turning to dust in a whisper.

unexplained melted vehicles & the real wtc blueprints
What Melted Cop Cars 7 Blocks From WTC On 911?
What May Have Melted The WTC Vehicles
WTC Blueprints Leaked by Whistleblower

and im sure we're all privy to Rosie getting lacerated by the talking heads on every major news network channel.

been a good week for those that believe otherwise.


keep pushing
 
stridge said:
Ha, I wanted to wait to comment until I had time to give them a full viewing. I did look them up online and get the gist - some of them are historical fact of how finance developed in this country, which really isn't too scary, some of it appears to be speculation, but I'll wait until I see them to form an opinion.

Can't check out the linked photos right at this moment, but photos aren't really going to be very convincing to me. I'll take the word of the NYFD about the level of fires in the building. Many, many NYFD firefighters claim the building's fires appeared to be raging and the building severely damaged.

and many many don't. remember there was no active firefighting in wtc7 at any point. so i'll take the stance that what i can see from photographic evidence plainly shows that 5 & 6 are emitting vast plumes of acrid smoke... not wtc7.
a building that was purportedly gutted by fires for hours and not one single clear cut image to varify this... that is odd to say the least.
perhaps its coz there was no raging, uncontrollable fire to capture.


keep pushing
 
Why then were pieces of the building (WTC7) falling to the ground prior to the collapse? Was this from WTC 1 and/or 2 debris that hit the building? How are pictures (vastly limited in showing many different angles not to mention the lack of dimensions that can be provided) definitive of proving anything?

One picture of the same object might show one thing and another something else from a different angle, but you can only tell what that picture shows or does not show.


9-11 Review: ERROR: 'Seismic Spikes Preceded the Towers' Collapses'

Read that^^^^

Nothing that we have been shown on video or otherwise is consistent with controlled demolition. Do we agree on that? Or is there proof that a top-down demolition has occurred? If so, what was consistent with such an event on 9/11?

Again, I do not think much at all of the the NIST report.

This sums it up for me.

-"NIST has refused to publish the computer models that its report imply show how the fires in the Towers led to "collapse initiation"."

"So NIST promulgates a theory of "progressive collapse" - ie once the top started coming down, the whole lot came down with it, even the undamaged sections of the building.

NIST admits that it didn't even attempt to model the undamaged portions of the building and only modeled a portion of each tower in any detail -- its "global floor model" which consisted of "several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure." Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called "global" models of the towers. NIST provides no evidence that its model even predicted "collapse initiation"."
 
I'm a little late chiming in on this thread but I do find this topic very interesting. I will start by saying that I find the concept of 9/11 being a government conspiracy to be quite laughable. One thing I don't think has yet been brought up (at least I don't think so, I did just skim a few of the super-long posts) is Osama Bin Laden and several other members of Al-Quaida who have released videos and statements where they admit they are responsbile for the events of 9/11 and also usually make threats of future terrorist attacks. Did they just happily go along with things when the Evil US Government wrongfully spakegoated them? Better yet, are THEY in on this massive conspiracy too?
 
Back
Top Bottom