Pet Shop Boys Community

You know what's sad to me? Whateverman obviously does care deeply about the state of the world. I don't doubt that his views are sincerely held, and if he took the energy that he puts into his conspiracy-mongering and channelled it onto tackling a real-world issue then he might actually make some sort of difference somewhere. Oh well...

Edit: Oh and Whateverman, I don't think that you are crazy, I just think that you've bought deeply into the wrong ideas and mindset. I reckon that if I met you in real life I might even like you. All I'm trying to do is point out to you the flaws I see in the rationale that you've used to come to these conclusions, and why I think that a hell of a lot more solid evidence is necessary in order for your theories to make any sense to me.

Your Funny Uncle wrote:You know what's sad to me? Whateverman obviously does care deeply about the state of the world. I don't doubt that his views are sincerely held, and if he took the energy that he puts into his conspiracy-mongering and channelled it onto tackling a real-world issue then he might actually make some sort of difference somewhere. Oh well...

Edit: Oh and Whateverman, I don't think that you are crazy, I just think that you've bought deeply into the wrong ideas and mindset. I reckon that if I met you in real life I might even like you. All I'm trying to do is point out to you the flaws I see in the rationale that you've used to come to these conclusions, and why I think that a hell of a lot more solid evidence is necessary in order for your theories to make any sense to me.

Good post, I feel the same. Maybe what whateverman should do is get into politics, and then he can either try to help his fellow man, or, if he starts getting controlled, report back what exactly is happening!

whateverman42 wrote:Thanks UT, I think. But Firth is sort of right, I can be shy in real life but not when it comes to this stuff. I talk to strangers! Just today I was sightseeing at the falls and they were spraying chemtrails, huge blatant grids, some of the worst I've ever seen. And I mentioned it to a couple next to me, who must have thought I was nuts. But I try to plant seeds, I remember I would have thought I was nuts a couple years ago. Waking up is a complex process and while intelligence is a big part of it, there's also luck and unpredictability involved.

Its sort of like a house on fire, or a pot of water on the stove. Naturally some feel the heat before others and awaken, for whatever reason, and all I'm doing right now is shoving your shoulders and shouting in your ear 'the house is on fire!'. Naturally I mostly get mumbles 'but I'm having such a nice dream about sports and sexy celebrities', but the time will come. Whether you wait til you inhale volumes of smoke, get first degree burns or die, you'll realize. I just wonder what it will take.

Will you accept naked images taken of you at the airport with a nice dose of radiation? Well, at least they give you the other option of getting molested. That might not do it. Even child molestation won't:

http://www.myvidster.com/video/600891/V ... Checkpoint






How about being videotaped 24/7 in public streets? Nah, you already put up with that.

Maybe when a police officer is beating you and arresting you with no due process will you realize an injustice to one is an injustice to all.



Fluoride and mercury and aspartame don't do it. Here's a challenge: anyone, find a single thing on the internet explaining the benefits of ingesting fluoride. Then after inevitably reading nothing but hazards, tell me why its dumped in our water supply. And while you're at it explain why there's mercury in vaccine's we give our children and take ourselves. And tell me I'm a kook because I think aspartame is a poison. Got an opinion on Monsanto and GMO foods? Perhaps you agree they're all bad things but, gasp, they could never be coordinated! Because the government can see no potential benefit in a sick populace being dependent upon drugs they control.

Hmm, what else. 9/11 and JFK have been adequately explained by the very people we're accusing, who also tell us we're unhinged for not believing billionaires with everything to lose. So that also won't work.

Chemtrails? Well that depends if you want to sit through a documentary.

raggatwin wrote:conspriracy theories do people like me, the left, no favours whatsoever because people associate them with us. 9/11 was no conspiracy but it was certainly exploited by Bush and the military industrial complex in order to line their pockets.

Its nice you define yourself by a political party. You also identify with Coca Cola and Chevy, am I right? And if anything I'm often accused of being a republican. Anywho, your left media gatekeepers Colbert and Stewart are just as bad as O'Reilly and Hannitty, but again this has nothing to do with the left right paradigm. Here's a simple video explaining how they play you:



Sorry for the bad attitude . But your ignorance is actually killing me ! They can only do this stuff because we let them, and I got another dose of heavy metals today and I had to eat GMO food with a fraction of the nutrition it had decades ago, not just because they're evil, but because we do nothing about it.

I dont define myself through a political party as you put it and how could i define myself through capitalist scum sucking pigs like coca cola? uou dont have any real left media gate keepers in America, you have liberals - who we in the european left would describe as soft right.

And there's the thing. This forum contains a wide political spectrum from raggatwin the full-on socialist through left-leaning liberal folk like Drico and me to right-wingers like Glenn and we all see that these conspiracy theories are purest nonsense. It's not to do with our ideologies it's just that they make no sense.

FirthofForth wrote:What is your point here? This is a very very limited answer. America had two United States Banks, one founded if I remember right in the 1790s, and then the charter ended around the War of 1812, and then another was chartered. Jackson was certainly against the central bank. And by closing the bank, our nation got hit hard by the Panic of 1837. The bank had regulated all the so-called wildcat currency that other small banks had issued at the time. Without that regulation, there was serious issue. Of course, in the civil war we solved this problem by moving away from banks doing what they please into national bank notes backed by funds as well as greenbacks, etc. I'm really not sure of your point. What does the development of the federal reserve involving the Jekyll Island Club have to do with the president/supreme court (Especially SC)/legistlature? Answer in detail or don't answer. When did the three branches start being as controlled by someone as you think they are, and who the fuc% was it? You're just piecing together bunches of secret meetings you know about.

(I love quotes)

Thomas Jefferson:
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations will grow up around them, will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

Nathan Rothschild:
I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.

Amschel Mayer Rothschild:
Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws.

The Rothschild Brothers of London writing to associates in New York, June 25, 1863:
The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.

James Garfield (assassinated within weeks of this statement):
Whosoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce... And when you realise that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.

Woodrow Wilson:
I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.

A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.

Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

John Hylan, mayor of NYC:
These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of the newspapers and magazines in this country. They use the columns of these papers to club into submission or drive out of office public officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government....

The warning of Theodore Roosevelt has much timeliness today, for the real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over City, State, and nation... It seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection...

To depart from mere generalisations, let me say that at the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller-Standard Oil interest and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as the international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes.

They practically control both parties, write political platforms, make catspaws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organisations, and resort to every device to place in nomination for high public office only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business...

Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking Committee:
The depression was not accidental. It was a carefully contrived occurence... The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as the rulers of us all.

The Federal Reserve banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this nation is run by the International bankers.

Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are the United States government’s institutions.They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign swindlers.

Franklin Roosevelt:
The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson - and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W.W.

In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.

Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England:
The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough money to buy it back again...Take this great power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. But if you want to continue to be slaves of the banks and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.

Does that adequately explain why I find the inception of the Federal Reserve as being especially important? And do you really need me to go into detail about how people are bribed?

no major WMD cache secretly planted on iraq .....no 9/11 conspiracy in NYC.

its as simple as that.

What do you mean glenn? If they went to the trouble of faking 9/11 they would have planted WMD's?

The point is that as Drico said the "official" version IS perfectly plausible to any normal person. Yes there have been cover-ups, and possibly more will come to light (it may even be that there's something in the chemtrails theory or one of the other anomalies that you guys point to as evidence for your delusions) but as I keep pointing out to you such wide-ranging and co-ordinated Machiavellian plans are implausible in the extreme. They require the silence of so many people to work that given what we know about human psychology they are almost certain to fail. This is why the onus is on you to prove and not on us to disprove.

Well we simply differ, because I don't find it implausible in the extreme. Compartmentalization. Also, more quotes!

Oscar Callaway, U.S. Congressman:
In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, shipbuilding, and powder interests, and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press of the United States. These 12 men worked the problem out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers... This policy also included the suppression of everything in opposition to the wishes of the interests served.

John Swinton, managing editor, New York Times:
There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print.

I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.

The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press?

We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.

David Rockefeller:
We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been quite impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, now that the world is more sophisticated, it is prepared to march towards a world government and accept the supranational sovereignty of an intellectual and financial elite, which is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries…

William Colby, director of the CIA:
The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.

Its not implausible at all to control the entire media, manipulate opinion and hire people who share their own views. And its not a question of thousands of minions needing to keep their separate traps shut: they're compartmentalized and don't see their part in a much larger picture.

Ah ! I knew you'd get to the nitty gritty eventually. Think about what you said carefully ..... Do you seriously believe that a group with as much power as you believe they have, are indiscriminately poisoning their own kind ?! Don't you find it strange that it's only really Americans that are reporting these "chem trails" ? Your suggestion would just result in a massive own goal and be the equivalent of crapping in your own house! If "culling the herd" was really on the agenda there are far more efficient and selective ways of doing it.

Well the problem here is you can't comprehend the evil nature of the elites. They do not think of us as part of 'their own kind'. These are sick, twisted paedophiles and murderers. Don't misinterpret my meaning. I believe they are scum and absolute evil. Its not only the Americans reporting Chemtrails, Europe has a lot of support. I recommend watching What in the World Are They Spraying? And finally they are doing a whole number of methods as I've listed.

You know what's sad to me? Whateverman obviously does care deeply about the state of the world. I don't doubt that his views are sincerely held, and if he took the energy that he puts into his conspiracy-mongering and channelled it onto tackling a real-world issue then he might actually make some sort of difference somewhere. Oh well...

Edit: Oh and Whateverman, I don't think that you are crazy, I just think that you've bought deeply into the wrong ideas and mindset. I reckon that if I met you in real life I might even like you. All I'm trying to do is point out to you the flaws I see in the rationale that you've used to come to these conclusions, and why I think that a hell of a lot more solid evidence is necessary in order for your theories to make any sense to me.

I appreciate that, this is a debate I wanted to get into, and I want it to be respectful with no hurt feelings. I'm just providing quotes and videos you probably would never have seen if not for some conspiracy guy. 'Everything you know is wrong' is not an easy concept to consider.

And there's the thing. This forum contains a wide political spectrum from raggatwin the full-on socialist through left-leaning liberal folk like Drico and me to right-wingers like Glenn and we all see that these conspiracy theories are purest nonsense. It's not to do with our ideologies it's just that they make no sense.

That proves nothing but my point, left and right is the same in this system. Once you get out of the dogmatic Obama or Palin do you see what little choice you've been given. And even though you call it crazy, this is a real attack on your solid and comforting beliefs. That's why there's a real push to prove I'm wrong: no one has any allegiance to the Rockefeller's, so why do I get such heated replies? Because it hits home to your core values and asks uncomfortable questions. But that's an historian psychoanalyzing.

Anyways it seems most of you are interested in my personality, but this really is not about me. There's plenty of reputable and intelligent people who believe this same stuff, and a big focus remains on what type of personality it would take to believe it. Which really is neither here nor there. Sure, I don't structure sentences well and my thoughts are scattered, but don't let presentation turn you off ideas I'm throwing out there. I'm a slightly surprised anyone can dismiss this so thoroughly. I wish I had as much assuredness as the rest of you. I'd certainly feel better.

Obama is not 'left'.

...what is he?

By the standards of anywhere outside North America, he's a centrist, perhaps slightly to the right. The whole of the US is way to the right of most of Europe.

In relative terms I don't know how left/right America is compared to Europe, but isn't it a socialist country by definition? And with Obama introducing health-care and more government, isn't he more radical than the average citizen? Here's a post I found in the annals of the internet:

"Of course we are socialist. We have abandoned private property so we must necessarily be socialist, or fascist. Actually they are really based on the same general principle. That being that the individual is subserviant to society. These principles are just manifested in different ways.

We are socialist because property is no longer owned by individuals. It is owned by the government. When you have property taxes you are in effect renting the property from the government. If you do not pay your "rent" you are evicted or disallowed from exerting control over your property..."

But its sticky when looking for the tipping point. Americans pay something like 40% tax, so what constitutes a socialist country? 51%? 10%? Anyways its all moot, whether its fascist, socialist, capitalist or democratic, the same elite benefit from the system and the middle class are always attacked. The best form of government would be a republic: the rule of law. Its funny most Americans think their country is a democracy when its a republic. Its a shame socialism and democracy have subverted the original intention, like my signature implies, the vote of the majority is not freedom (especially when their opinion is manipulated so easily by the corporate controlled media).

whateverman42 wrote:Anyways, I don't believe it was an inside job because I'm prone to conspiracies, I believe because of all the evidence.

What evidence? Where's your proof? Where is your smoking gun? Where is the evidence? You have posted nothing more than a litany of conjecture, supposition, and paranoia, and stitched it all together into a tenuous web of wishful thinking. Not once have you provided evidence BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that the US government launched a terrorist attack on New York. Instead you've chosen to festoon your tiresome delusions with a blizzard of irrelevant quotations in a vain bid to cover the stark nakedness of your argument with a fig leaf of vicarious respectability.

You define yourself as a "truther", yet the simple fact is you can't handle the truth. The truth is too boring, too prosaic, too ordinary for your taste, too tedious and mundane for your fervid imagination.

whateverman42 wrote:If it all happened as the official conspiracy states, perhaps there would be no thermite in the dust...

No, the plausible explanation comfortably accepts the presence of thermite. That's because thermite-induced reactions largely caused the collapse of the towers and these reactions were the result of molten aluminium pouring from the airliners. You prefer to imagine the thermite charges were planted by your bogey men. Yet, the truth, once again, is far more mundane.

whateverman42 wrote:perhaps NORAD would have shot down the planes lickety split...

Nobody was going to shoot down a passenger plane with hundreds of civilians over New York City without knowing the hijackers' intentions. It really is that simple.

whateverman42 wrote:perhaps the Pentagon would release a video of a plane hitting the building...

Except it has - as far back as 2006: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12818225/ns ... s-security and http://articles.cnn.com/2006-05-16/us/p ... n?_s=PM:US

whateverman42 wrote: perhaps the ridiculous amount of eyewitness accounts of secondary explosions wouldn't exist... you know, simple stuff that would make sense.

Um, two massive airliners crashed into two humungous buildings and you think that secondary explosions are surprising? I'm embarrassed for you.

whateverman42 wrote:This might be the longest post I've ever done!

And effortlessly proves once again that size most certainly isn't everything.

Drico.

Drico One wrote:

whateverman42 wrote:This might be the longest post I've ever done!

And effortlessly proves once again that size most certainly isn't everything.

Drico One wrote:What evidence? Where's your proof? Where is your smoking gun? Where is the evidence? You have posted nothing more than a litany of conjecture, supposition, and paranoia, and stitched it all together into a tenuous web of wishful thinking. Not once have you provided evidence BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that the US government launched a terrorist attack on New York. Instead you've chosen to festoon your tiresome delusions with a blizzard of irrelevant quotations in a vain bid to cover the stark nakedness of your argument with a fig leaf of vicarious respectability.

Here's a ton of quick points I find important. Ready?

- Airplane black boxes were found at Ground Zero, according to two first responders and an unnamed NTSB official, but they "disappeared" and their existence is denied in The 9/11 Commission Report.

- The rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics.

- "No one could have imagined planes into buildings" - a transparent falsehood upheld repeatedly by Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush.

- The Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, creator of the Taliban and close ally to both the CIA and "al-Qaeda," allegedly wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta just prior to September 11th, reportedly through the ISI asset Omar Saeed Sheikh (later arrested for the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was investigating ISI connections to "al-Qaeda."). This was ignored by the congressional 9/11 investigation, although the senator and congressman who ran the probe (Bob Graham and Porter Goss) were meeting with the ISI chief, Mahmud Ahmed, on Capitol Hill on the morning of September 11th.

- The September 11th families who fought for and gained an independent investigation (the 9/11 Commission) posed 400-plus questions, which the 9/11 Commission adopted as its roadmap. The vast majority of these questions were completely ignored in the Commission hearings and the final report. The membership and staff of the 9/11 Commission displayed awesome conflicts of interest. The families called for the resignation of Executive Director Philip Zelikow, a Bush administration member and close associate of "star witness" Condoleezza Rice, and were snubbed. Commission member Max Cleland resigned, condemning the entire exercise as a "scam" and "whitewash." The 9/11 Commission Report is notable mainly for its obvious omissions, distortions and outright falsehoods - ignoring anything incompatible with the official story, banishing the issues to footnotes, and even dismissing the still-unresolved question of who financed 9/11 as being "of little practical significance.", as well as not mentioning Building 7.

- On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced a "war on waste" after an internal audit found that the Pentagon was "missing" 2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted assets. On September 11th, this was as good as forgotten.

- Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail, including the manner and likely targets of the attack, the name of the operation (the "Big Wedding"), and the names of certain men later identified as being among the perpetrators. Various individuals came into possession of specific advance knowledge, and some of them tried to warn the US prior to September 11th. Certain prominent persons received warnings not to fly on the week or on the day of September 11th.

- Unknown speculators allegedly used foreknowledge of the Sept. 11th events to profiteer on many markets internationally - including but not limited to "put options" placed to short-sell the two airlines, WTC tenants, and WTC re-insurance companies in Chicago and London. In addition, suspicious monetary transactions worth hundreds of millions were conducted through offices at the Twin Towers during the actual attacks. Initial reports on these trades were suppressed and forgotten, and only years later did the 9/11 Commission and SEC provide a partial, but untenable explanation for only a small number of transactions (covering only the airline put options through the Chicago Board of Exchange).

- Six months before the 9/11 attacks the World Trade Center was "privatized" by being leased to a private sector developer. The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion. "This is a dream come true," Larry Silverstein said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights." But the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. [BusinessWeek]

How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?

Also, the towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built.
It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings. [Arctic Beacon]

Other New York developers had been driven into bankruptcy by the costly mandated renovations, and $200 million represented an entire year's worth of revenues from the World Trade Towers.

The perfect collapse of the twin towers changed the picture.

Under a pending agreement, a developer and his investors will get back most of the down payment that they made to lease the World Trade Center just six weeks before a terrorist attack destroyed the twin towers. Developer Larry Silverstein and investors Lloyd Goldman and Joseph Cayre are nearing a deal that would give them about $98 million of their original investment of $124 million, The New York Times reported Saturday. [MontereyHerald 11/22/2003]

Instead of renovation, Silverstein is rebuilding, funded by the insurance coverage on the property which 'fortuitously' covered acts of terrorism. Even better, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, based on the two, in Silverstein's view, separate attacks. The total potential payout is $7.1 billion, more than enough to build a fabulous new complex and leave a hefty profit for the Silverstein Group, including Larry Silverstein himself.

As reported in The Washington Post, the insurance company, Swiss Re, has gone to court to argue that the 9/11 disaster was only one attack, not two and that therefore the insurance payout should be limited to $3.55 billion, still enough to rebuild the complex. A federal jury ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports. [Forbes.com 12/06/04]

The result of court ruling: Silverstein makes a huge profit off of the 9/11 attacks.

Drico One wrote:You define yourself as a "truther", yet the simple fact is you can't handle the truth. The truth is too boring, too prosaic, too ordinary for your taste, too tedious and mundane for your fervid imagination.

How much do I owe? Back to the events themselves...

Drico One wrote:No, the plausible explanation comfortably accepts the presence of thermite. That's because thermite-induced reactions largely caused the collapse of the towers and these reactions were the result of molten aluminium pouring from the airliners. You prefer to imagine the thermite charges were planted by your bogey men. Yet, the truth, once again, is far more mundane.

You believe your scientists and I'll believe mine I guess.

Drico One wrote:Nobody was going to shoot down a passenger plane with hundreds of civilians over New York City without knowing the hijackers' intentions. It really is that simple.

Oh really. After the first hit that theory goes out the window.

Drico One wrote:Except it has - as far back as 2006: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12818225/ns ... s-security and http://articles.cnn.com/2006-05-16/us/p ... n?_s=PM:US

You're embarrassed for me? Do you see a plane in those videos? Just so I get this straight, are you going to claim that as evidence? Two blurry videos *which don't show evidence of a plane* are the only videos released from the site of the most videotaped building on earth. Its 9 years after the fact, there's just the two still *which still don't show evidence of a plane* and you're satisfied? Holy ****. A JUMBO JET HIT THE PENTAGON. And we still haven't seen it yet.

Drico One wrote:Um, two massive airliners crashed into two humungous buildings and you think that secondary explosions are surprising? I'm embarrassed for you.

"A new eyewitness who was working in the WTC on 9/11 has gone on record to describe how he heard multiple grenade-like explosions around the basement levels of the north tower, backing up William Rodriguez' story, the WTC janitor who reported explosions before the first plane hit the tower.

Anthony Saltalamacia was a morning supervisor who managed over a hundred workers in the twin towers. He worked closely with WTC janitor William Rodriguez, eyewitness to sub-level explosions that occurred before the impact of the first plane in the north tower and representative for many 9/11 victim's families.

Saltalamacchia was in sub-basement B1 of the North Tower, approximately 1,100 feet below the airplane's impact point at floors 93 to 98. "The explosion....at first we believe it came from the mechanical room and then we heard a series of other explosions that sounded up on the above levels of the building," said Saltalamacia.

Saltalamacia then discusses how a man ran into the office with his skin hanging off. William Rodriguez had previously described the same scenario following basement level explosions and it was also seconded by another eyewitness , Kenneth Johannemann, an employee of ABM janitorial services.

"As we're standing there, more explosions were happening," said Saltalamacia, before he urged Rodriguez and the other workers to leave the building. The group left and initially headed towards the lobby before they realized it too had been partially destroyed.

Despite Saltalamacia's plea to stay out of harm's way, Rodriguez ran back into the burning building in an attempt to save his colleagues.

"The amount of explosions I heard from 8:46 to the time we got out was so many - at least ten - it was just like multiple explosions to where I felt there was different grenades, that's what it sounded like, like different grenades being set off in the building," said Saltalamacia.

"It was one major explosion and then there was different explosions throughout that period of time until we got out," he added.

Numerous other WTC basement workers, including Felipe David and Salvatore Giambanco, have also gone public with eyewitness testimony concerning massive sub-level explosions that took place before Flight 11 hit the north tower.

WTC construction worker Phillip Morelli was headed for level B-4 in Tower One [north tower], four stories below ground, when he was thrown to the floor by a violent explosion that coincided with the plane hitting 100 floors above.

15-year WTC worker Marlene Cruz told Peter Jennings in an interview with ABC News that she was also rocked by an explosion in the basement level of the north tower.

The 9/11 Commission completely ignored the hundreds of survivors, professionals, first responders, firefighters and police who reported numerous secondary explosions at all levels of the twin towers.

In his video interview, Saltalamacia concluded by dismissing the official story of 9/11 as a "cover-up" and urged a proper investigation to find out the truth behind what he and others witnessed that day.

Drico One wrote:And effortlessly proves once again that size most certainly isn't everything.

Thanks. Its a pleasure speaking with you.

I'mnot going to quote all your quotes whateverman:

Yes, you explain why you are worried about those who have money. Lovely. But you still can't give any sort of accounting, much less a good accounting, or through accounting of where power lies in the sup court/legislature and executive branch and how it got that way.

I can quote the founding fathers as showing they were deeply Christian religious. I can also quote them heavily to show they were deists. I'm asking you not to just send a few quotes but really make an outline of your argument for us. But can you? I doubt it. You don't have a position based on evidence, you have a position based on a lot of missing links and ignoring other evidence. When you say Obama is not in control, tell us who is, tell us how they got to the point, and give evidence of this from reliable sources. Thanks

Drico accuses you of posting a litany of conjecture, supposition and paranoia and you respond with more of the same. Really? That's the best you've got?

Oh and eyewitness testimony is THE WORST kind of evidence for anything. It's been proven time and again that human beings are not to be trusted. Our system of perception is based on a series of mental shortcuts that predict what will happen based on experience of how the world usually works. This is how magicians can so easily fool you. You don't see what actually happened you see what your brain was expecting to happen. Worse than this, your memory is a ductile thing. We all tend to change and adapt our memories so that they form a narrative that seems coherent to us. We can even invent memories of things that never happened given the right conditions.

Considering this, how can you trust eyewitness testimony of the what must have been the most confusing and abnormal event in the lives of anyone there? Knowing how the human mind can both misunderstand sensory input that is out of the ordinary and reconstruct it to try to make sense afterwards, how can you be sure that what any WTC survivor says is accurate without recorded proof?

It can be clearly seen that the WTC towers fail at the point where the planes struck then collapse down floor by floor. The lower floors do not move until the collapsing upper floors strike them. In a controlled demolition caused by explosions at the base, the whole tower would move down at the same time then collapse in on itself. I mean, look at all the footage you lot post comparing WTC7 to controlled demolitions (ignoring as I pointed out the 6 seconds where that building started to collapse on the opposite side.) Your eyewitness testimony clearly does not match up with the footage of what actually happened. If the explosions they report didn't cause the lower floors to collapse, then what the hell were they for?

FirthofForth wrote:I'mnot going to quote all your quotes whateverman:

You don't have a position based on evidence, you have a position based on a lot of missing links and ignoring other evidence. When you say Obama is not in control, tell us who is

The satanic lizard people, of course. Do keep up, FoF.

Your Funny Uncle wrote:Drico accuses you of posting a litany of conjecture, supposition and paranoia and you respond with more of the same. Really? That's the best you've got?

That's *all* he's got - but there's an unending supply of that particular brand of delusional cant.

I'd love to continue this "discussion", but I refuse to be dragged into a battle of wits with an unarmed man. You'd be as well off debating a random quotation generator that's suffering a catastrophic meltdown. It would be just as oblivious to logic, but at least you wouldn't feel guilty afterwards.

Drico.