Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Conspiracy Theories Board => Topic started by: OzmO on July 27, 2011, 04:43:01 PM
-
What I would like to see is some one come up with a detailed theory of what they think really happened on 911 as it was an inside job. From planning to execution to people and personal involved and from that begin to prove that theory using evidence.
Any takers?
-
If we were not the masterminds behind 911 how can we do this? The point of opening another investigation is to find this out - who was involved, etc. Your question can be answered only if we have all the information. Which we don't and doors have been shut investigating this at the government level.
It would help if the government opened 911 up to an INDEPENDENT, PUBLIC investigation. Without any restrictions. What have they got to lose if they are not involved?
-
If we were not the masterminds behind 911 how can we do this? The point of opening another investigation is to find this out - who was involved, etc. Your question can be answered only if we have all the information. Which we don't and doors have been shut investigating this at the government level.
It would help if the government opened 911 up to an INDEPENDENT, PUBLIC investigation. Without any restrictions. What have they got to lose if they are not involved?
If it's so apparent to you that it was an inside job, using all the evidence you claim as facts you should be able to construct a reasonable picture of what happened. Doesn't have to be as in-depth as the NIST report, but you know what I mean. And after all, they used available evidence :)
-
If it's so apparent to you that it was an inside job, using all the evidence you claim as facts you should be able to construct a reasonable picture of what happened. Doesn't have to be as in-depth as the NIST report, but you know what I mean. And after all, they used available evidence :)
You can have parts of a puzzle to form an idea about the puzzle, but without all the parts you cannot solve the puzzle. There is enough evidence to question 911, but to come out with a step by step scenario without having all the facts would leave one open to speculation. Aren't you interested in facts? That is why we need another INDEPENDENT PUBLIC investigation.
-
You can have parts of a puzzle to form an idea about the puzzle, but without all the parts you cannot solve the puzzle. There is enough evidence to question 911, but to come out with a step by step scenario without having all the facts would leave one open to speculation. Aren't you interested in facts? That is why we need another INDEPENDENT PUBLIC investigation.
I have always supported another investigation, but to conclude anything you need have at least some volume of evidence and if you say there isn't enough to even give a reasonable picture of what you alleged happened on 911 then how can you even conclude it was an inside job?
-
What I would like to see is some one come up with a detailed theory of what they think really happened on 911 as it was an inside job. From planning to execution to people and personal involved and from that begin to prove that theory using evidence.
Any takers?
no offense but how can you ask this of anyone with a serious face lol... Just look at the fact that there is an alternate reason given for every last scrap of evidence which is available to the people. Now there is still a shitload of what we are told is mundane evidence not released but we are for some odd reason not allowed to see that lol...
At any rate, it really doesn't matter what the theory is when every single point of evidence available has been debunked to the (satisfaction of skeptics). No matter what the detailed theory is you're asking for, it's just easy for you to go down the list of evidence and list alternative reasons adopted by skeptics for each point.
-
It all good. Maybe I what I am asking is unreasonable, But, I don't think it's an unreasonable request. People think 911 was an inside job. Some think that the WTCs where brought down by explosives, remote controlled planes, and the pentagon was hit by a missle. If thats the case, then what evidence leads them to that conclusion? And how does the evidence lend into an overall picture of what happened that day? I would think that if there is enough evidence to conclude it was an inside job at the every least there should be some sort of picture or sequence of events that could be drawn.
Like for example what happen to the flight that didnt hit the pentagon, from start to finish. The NIST used evidence to paint a story why can't CT'ers. Do the same if it's so obvious a plane didnt hit it?
I am sure evidence can be provided or arguments can be brought up that even skeptics can't argue to well. If so what are they? For me, lots of it is a matter or weight and volume. The volume of evidence for a plane hitting the pentagon far outweighs the evidence that a missle hit it. So if a missle hit it, what I am asking some one to do is make a real case. Start to finish. Tell the story in detail of what likely happened that day and use the available evidence to support it.
Then what evidence presented is valid or not? What can or cannot be dismissed? Like the flashes on the video NT insinuated were explosions, but the same flashes could be seen in mid air looked more like video noise or reflections from glass or metal. Not to mention the fact that a grainy video isn't at all conclusive or even practical to determining explosions where planted in advance.
Another good example would be the government knowing it was going to happen but not doing anything. The whistle blowers articles support that theory much better than the evidence used to conclude a missle hit the pentagon.
It's kind of like reversing sides. The NIST reports the official story and CTers find problems with it. Well if the CTer case is that strong then it should be able to switch places with the NIST case and stand up to similar scrutiny shouldn't it? If not then how could the CTer case be that strong if at all?
-
I have always supported another investigation, but to conclude anything you need have at least some volume of evidence and if you say there isn't enough to even give a reasonable picture of what you alleged happened on 911 then how can you even conclude it was an inside job?
For me there is enough evidence that the official stance on 911 by the government is not honest and true. I've looked at a lot of video interviews, articles by skeptics and from what I remember how it all went down on that day. Granted there is a lot of bullshit out there. I have questions about Israel's role in 911 and the Oslo attack. But for some these questions are too sensitive a matter. If there is nothing to hide then why get upset?
If you are not convinced that's fine. I don't hate you because of your conclusions. Everyone has a right to an opinion. ;)
-
Another good example would be the government knowing it was going to happen but not doing anything.
I can't help but think that the reason why the planes were not shot down is that...put yourself in that decision making place,...would you be quick to order a domestic airliner shot down?...at that time in history?...what if you were wrong?...Can you Imagine the public outcry if the United States AirForce shot down airliners and it turned out it was a screw up and there was no real evidence of danger afterwards?...Part of the mission of the AirForce is the protection of Civil Aviation, just as part of the mission of the Navy is the protection of the United States Mercantile fleet(civilian ships)
-
For me there is enough evidence that the official stance on 911 by the government is not honest and true. I've looked at a lot of video interviews, articles by skeptics and from what I remember how it all went down on that day. Granted there is a lot of bullshit out there. I have questions about Israel's role in 911 and the Oslo attack. But for some these questions are too sensitive a matter.
If you are not convinced that's fine. I don't hate you because of your conclusions. Everyone has a right to an opinion. ;)
I don't doubt that 100% of the information is not made available and for good reason. What are some of the things specifically do you think they are lying about?
If there is nothing to hide then why get upset?
Who is upset?
-
I can't help but think that the reason why the planes were not shot down is that...put yourself in that decision making place,...would you be quick to order a domestic airliner shot down?...at that time in history?...what if you were wrong?...Can you Imagine the public outcry if the United States AirForce shot down airliners and it turned out it was a screw up and there was no real evidence of danger afterwards?...Part of the mission of the AirForce is the protection of Civil Aviation, just as part of the mission of the Navy is the protection of the United States Mercantile fleet(civilian ships)
It seems to make some sense that there easily could have been hesitation on the part of the military to make that call. From i what i remember, immediately afterwards there was a change in the process of who could make a decision to shot a domestic plane down and now its supposed to be able to fall on lower General than before. I think before the president or someone really high up needed to get involved to make the call.
Also, at the time, everything the military was trained to do was to defend an attack coming from the Atlantic Ocean. Not from with in.
-
What I would like to see is some one come up with a detailed theory of what they think really happened on 911 as it was an inside job. From planning to execution to people and personal involved and from that begin to prove that theory using evidence.
Any takers?
MIT engineer Dr Jeff King gives his opinion.
-
No, NT you got unfinished business in another thread. Let's finish that off and we can get to this one.
I am not playing the jump and run game with you.
BTW, i am not interested in someone else's partial view. I want a poster's complete theory, or at least a complete start to finish of one aspect such as the alleged missile that hit the pentagon or how the WTC's were wired.
-
What I would like to see is some one come up with a detailed theory of what they think really happened on 911 as it was an inside job. From planning to execution to people and personal involved and from that begin to prove that theory using evidence.
Any takers?
Bump.
-
Bump.
Too few people on this board. You need several contributors to regularly bring information for sorting, and even then it might take a good while to develop a picture. We just don't have the numbers here.
The general board should cover a lot more ground than it does. That's the problem when boards get overly fragmented. Lots of lost potential.
-
I don't think it unreasonable to ask a person who "believes" a missle hit the pentagon to list their evidence and make a case.
Are you up to the task? Or are your conclusions based on unsupported conjecture also?
-
I don't think it unreasonable to ask a person who "believes" a missle hit the pentagon to list their evidence and make a case.
Are you up to the task? Or are your conclusions based on unsupported conjecture also?
OHHH, OHHHHHH...I KNOW THIS ONE!!!!
Unsupported conjecture, UNSUPPORTED CONJECTURE!!!!!!!!!!
-
I don't think it unreasonable to ask a person who "believes" a missle hit the pentagon to list their evidence and make a case.
Are you referring to me? Because I've never declared such a thing.
-
Are you referring to me? Because I've never declared such a thing.
So what do you think happened and what evidence directly supports and proves your conclusions?
-
So what do you think happened and what evidence directly supports and proves your conclusions?
Me? I don't know. I'm in question mode. That's why it wouldn't fit for me to believe it was really a missile that hit the Pentagon, as you just suggested I did, because that would require an explanation for a missing airplane.
You see where I'm going with this? It has always been my direction.
As for you, I notice you weren't on the other thread when some tough questions were presented about the official story.
-
Me? I don't know. I'm in question mode. That's why it wouldn't fit for me to believe it was really a missile that hit the Pentagon, as you just suggested I did, because that would require an explanation for a missing airplane.
You see where I'm going with this? It has always been my direction.
As for you, I notice you weren't on the other thread when some tough questions were presented about the official story.
If you go back through many of those 911 threads I am involved in them a lot. I find in most, if not all debate and discussions of 911 they usually end up with a lot of jumping around.
Which questions are you talking about?
BTW, you should know I support another invEstagation, but do not believe it should be done because a missile hit the pentagon or the WTC were wired with explosives.
PS you are first person other than my self I have ever talked to who has brought up the missing plane :)
-
OzmO, what's caused you to want another investigation?
-
OzmO, what's caused you to want another investigation?
Not any one thing.
-
Not any one thing.
If you were directing a new investigation, where would you focus most closely?
-
If you were directing a new investigation, where would you focus most closely?
Nothing. I would start from scratch.
-
Nothing. I would start from scratch.
Sounds like we agree on this, totally.
-
Sounds like we agree on this, totally.
From what i understand Pearl Harbor had 3 investigations. Why shouldn't there be another for 9/11? Some say it would be a waste of money. We waste so much money on the dumbest things. This wouldn't be so dumb.
I have stated many times. A missile didn't hit the pentagon nor was the WTC's wired with explosives. The evidence doesn't add up. Not even close. However, there are blaring issues with our intelligence agencies and with the Saudi's. Something another investigation would shed light on. My belief is, (and its only a belief) that another investigation would uncover serious incompetence on our part.
-
It is my belief that the 911 plot started in the basement of an unemployed, semi literate getbig poster who I will not reveal for the time being.
-
oooh, oooh... is it me is it me?
-
Having this board hidden is so ridiculous. Why not make it a part of the General??
-
From what i understand Pearl Harbor had 3 investigations. Why shouldn't there be another for 9/11? Some say it would be a waste of money. We waste so much money on the dumbest things. This wouldn't be so dumb.
I have stated many times. A missile didn't hit the pentagon nor was the WTC's wired with explosives. The evidence doesn't add up. Not even close. However, there are blaring issues with our intelligence agencies and with the Saudi's. Something another investigation would shed light on. My belief is, (and its only a belief) that another investigation would uncover serious incompetence on our part.
There is already more than enough evidence to show gross dereliction of duty. So that's the route to take toward a meaningful investigation. Focusing on the chain of command that day would answer all the basic questions as to whether this was allowed to happen. That would be step one.
If sufficient evidence were to support the idea that certain military leaders deliberately stood down, freezing our defenses, it would open the floodgates toward exploring the "made to happen" angle, including the possible use of explosives as supplementation.
As for the explosives idea itself, there are very solid reports made by many credible people that there were in fact explosions shortly before the planes hit. No matter how this particular aspect were to play out in the end, it is very compelling evidence that would carry tremendous weight in any courtroom, period.
As to the Pentagon attack, the thought of a missile hitting it rather than a plane doesn't make sense for obvious reasons, but a missile in addition to a plane would actually correlate with the supplementation theory of the WTC.
Again, none of these last questions could be answered until step one is accomplished and the floodgates were opened. And I haven't yet heard any argument as to why step one couldn't be accomplished.
-
Can you list that evidence of explosions before the plane hit? And is it only witness testimony?
-
Can you list that evidence of explosions before the plane hit?
OzmO, if you're seriously interested in this, here's what I'd suggest you do. Wait until you have an hour or so to spend browsing, and search the phrase "explosions before plane hit" (without the quotation marks " "). There is evidence from all sources to support this. Many of these are news reports that took place in the short time after the attacks started.
And is it only witness testimony?
If you're suggesting that a person could somehow mistake the obvious sensation of an explosion with something else, I'd say that you've never been near an explosion.
-
I meant to ask for your opionion on the length of time it took to produce a shootdown order, OzmO. What are your thoughts on this?
-
OzmO, if you're seriously interested in this, here's what I'd suggest you do. Wait until you have an hour or so to spend browsing, and search the phrase "explosions before plane hit" (without the quotation marks " "). There is evidence from all sources to support this. Many of these are news reports that took place in the short time after the attacks started.
If you're suggesting that a person could somehow mistake the obvious sensation of an explosion with something else, I'd say that you've never been near an explosion.
What i am suggesting is that witness testimony in large traumatic events is usually inconsistent. For example during the JFK assassination according to the HSCA study of 178 witnesses, 132 (74.2%) heard three shots, 6 (3.3%) heard 4 shots.
How many in the WTC's heard explosions before and how many after impact?
If there were explosives wired in there should be other evidence otherwise we are making a conclusion based solely on witness testimony, something that would only be good as basic supporting evidence (hearing explosions before impact), not incriminating evidence.
-
I meant to ask for your opionion on the length of time it took to produce a shootdown order, OzmO. What are your thoughts on this?
If i remember my research correctly from a few years ago, there were only 14 jets on the hot pad along the entire eastern seaboard. The small number was mainly because of the end of the cold war. Everything the air force had prepared for (protocols, radar warning, availability of forces etc.) was an attack from outside the USA, not from with in. To get the jets up there, vector them to where the planes where, who had turned off there transponders, find them, positively identify them, among many other jets flying around and know one was aiming to hit the second WTC, and get the order to definitively shot down a passenger plane used by a terrorist as a weapon was too much to do in such little time.
-
Before we go any further, let's not forget that step one is to determine whether there was a dereliction of duty or worse in the form of deliberate inaction, because that would be the platform needed to build on. So we're getting ahead of ourselves here, but...
What i am suggesting is that witness testimony in large traumatic events is usually inconsistent. For example during the JFK assassination according to the HSCA study of 178 witnesses, 132 (74.2%) heard three shots, 6 (3.3%) heard 4 shots.
How many in the WTC's heard explosions before and how many after impact?
If there were explosives wired in there should be other evidence otherwise we are making a conclusion based solely on witness testimony, something that would only be good as basic supporting evidence (hearing explosions before impact), not incriminating evidence.
You will find substantial evidence to say there was in fact severe damage in the lower levels of the building, including entire sections turned into concrete rubble, reported by long time employees--including WTC engineers who knew the environment better than anyone else. This evidence couldn't possibly lend any greater support to the theory.
By the way, I appreciate what you're saying about witness testimony. People have actually been wrongfully convicted based on false witness testimony. When a person is trying to describe levels of detail, such as a number of shots or precise facial features, it can sometimes become inaccurate.
A cover statement, such as seeing an entire concrete wall you are familiar with, down in the form of rubble, can be a sufficiently descriptive statement that won't require fine detailing.
-
If i remember my research correctly from a few years ago, there were only 14 jets on the hot pad along the entire eastern seaboard. The small number was mainly because of the end of the cold war. Everything the air force had prepared for (protocols, radar warning, availability of forces etc.) was an attack from outside the USA, not from with in. To get the jets up there, vector them to where the planes where, who had turned off there transponders, find them, positively identify them, among many other jets flying around and know one was aiming to hit the second WTC, and get the order to definitively shot down a passenger plane used by a terrorist as a weapon was too much to do in such little time.
Bro, you are giving a possible explanation as to why the South Tower wasn't saved. It simply doesn't explain the Pentagon attack, which happened one hour and twenty minutes after the first plane had been confirmed as a hijack.
-
Jack, plz just list it or provide a link to exactly what you are talking about regarding these witnesses. Especially the WTC employee. I've spent plenty of time (hours and hours and hours) researching 9/11. I am not really that motivated ATM to search through tons of sites to find the testimony of this employee. So i would appreciate it if you had a link. (BTW i was a few years ago when i was really into this, just not much now)
But don't get me wrong, if its good enough (this guy's testimony) i will start looking deeper. Like for instance, who else was working there and what do they have to say? Are there conflicting testimonies? etc.
I suspected dereliction of duty at the beginning, not really going on any solid evidence. The problem is, unless someone comes forward i don't think we will ever gather enough evidence to prove BUSH and Co. let it happen even with another investigation. Even if we did, Oliver North said it best: "I do not recall"
-
Bro, you are giving a possible explanation as to why the South Tower wasn't saved. It simply doesn't explain the Pentagon attack, which happened one hour and twenty minutes after the first plane had been confirmed as a hijack.
Yeah, but you have to remember we are looking at this in retrospect. It's pretty easy to see things clearly. However, in the fog of that morning getting the order to shoot down a Russian backfire bomber would have been very easy considering it was spotted on radar coming into the USA, but to make a determination to shoot down a passenger jet originating for an airport "In" the USA is something altogether different. There were still tons of planes flying around, we didn't have an AWACS flying up there identifying each plane, every target except for 1 was friendly and it wasn't for sure what that one was doing etc.
-
Jack, plz just list it or provide a link to exactly what you are talking about regarding these witnesses. Especially the WTC employee. I've spent plenty of time (hours and hours and hours) researching 9/11. I am not really that motivated ATM to search through tons of sites to find the testimony of this employee. So i would appreciate it if you had a link. (BTW i was a few years ago when i was really into this, just not much now)
But don't get me wrong, if its good enough (this guy's testimony) i will start looking deeper. Like for instance, who else was working there and what do they have to say? Are there conflicting testimonies? etc.
Yeah, I can understand what you're saying about the lack of motivation, probably for me because it meets so much blind resistance from most people despite being the case that it is. It was a thread here on getbig that caused me to get into it this far, but I understand the limits.
As far as the research part of it, I don't go by any single website. I go by the particular piece of information as it is examined across as many sites and as many documents as possible. It allows "both sides" to become more apparent and should give a truer picture in the end. It has also shown me deliberate misinformation that has been posted to help one "side" or the other.
I suspected dereliction of duty at the beginning, not really going on any solid evidence. The problem is, unless someone comes forward i don't think we will ever gather enough evidence to prove BUSH and Co. let it happen even with another investigation. Even if we did, Oliver North said it best: "I do not recall"
A person can remain silent or claim an inability to recall, but if there's enough reason to believe things happened a certain way, a conviction should take place anyway, no matter what the case or who the person. If we citizens have to abide by this, so should the elite. That's something everyone at least pretends to agree upon.
As far as Bush himself, I think he's just what he seems to be. Rumsfeld, however, has some serious answers to give. His explanation that he was "unaware" of what was happening is not only unacceptable and suspect, it is outrageous.
-
Yeah, but you have to remember we are looking at this in retrospect. It's pretty easy to see things clearly. However, in the fog of that morning getting the order to shoot down a Russian backfire bomber would have been very easy considering it was spotted on radar coming into the USA, but to make a determination to shoot down a passenger jet originating for an airport "In" the USA is something altogether different. There were still tons of planes flying around, we didn't have an AWACS flying up there identifying each plane, every target except for 1 was friendly and it wasn't for sure what that one was doing etc.
At this point, two hijacked planes had been deliberately flown into buildings, causing horrific disaster. Why would they think another hijacked plane was any different?
-
Something I've noticed, and haven't gotten a good explanation for it, but am open to open to one, involves the seismic readings versus the timeline for events.
The readings at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University record a seismic event 14 seconds before the first plane hit, and another event 17 seconds before the second plane hit.
OzmO, have you or anyone else come across this, and what do you make of it?