Is WTC Owner Larry Silverstein the Key to Breaking 9/11 Wide Open?

[JustMeSee]

What would be the motive of this conspiracy?
How many people would be involved in this seemingly well planned event?

 

[ManFromUncle]

What would be the motive of this conspiracy?
How many people would be involved in this seemingly well planned event?

The motive is pretty clear. What did 9/11 do? It drew us unto the Middle East and justified the destruction of Iraq. Guess who has been wanting this for years? The Neocons at Project for a New American Century (PNAC), who said the goal of overthrowing Saddam would require "a new Pearl Harbor." In the paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses" PNAC said its goals would be hard to accomplish,

"absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor."

George Bush justified the invasion of Iraq with 9/11. In his "mission accomplished" speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, on May 1, 2003, 3 months after the invasion of Iraq, he said:

"We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th, the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got."

There is one problem: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But Bush kept linking the two and everyone was willing to trust him.

Who were the Neoconservatves at PNAC who had been dreaming of destroying Iraq for decades? The same guys who Bush put on his foreign policy team, and became the architects of the Iraq War.

The Iraq War accomplished a few things:

- Of course it made a few people extremely rich, with contracts for building military bases, fuel (one-third of the cost of the occupation) etc., companies like Halliburton.

- It cleared the way for Israel to expand across the Middle East and got rid of the threat of Saddam to them, who lobbed SCUD missiles at Tel Aviv in Gulf I.

- It allowed the government to eliminate our rights in the name of "safety." Rights are always a problem for corrupt governments. Now they can listen to us anytime they want, throw us in jail without trial (NDAA,) or just kill us if they say we are a threat to "national security." Which is phony because they didn't even stop the Boston Bombers who they were warned about.

If you want to understand more read:
Bush Neocons Urged Netanyahu to Use U.S. Forces to Remove Saddam, Five Years Before 9/11

Also see former US Army War College Director of Studies Dr. Alan Sabrosky below.

Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at US Army War College,
General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research. Concludes
that a combination of treasonous elements in the US government and
Israeli MOSSAD orchestrated 9/11, in order to enable invasion of Iraq.
[youtube]EPLU4N7gmY4[/youtube]

 

[Btodd]

If the motive were to get into Iraq, then it makes no sense that we 'framed' so many Saudis as hijackers, considering they're one of our allies. Another example of the conspiracy story being needlessly complex, convoluted and generally not making any sense.

It would have been much simpler to frame Iraqis. And I got the impression that the question was being asked in regard to Building 7, not the entire supposed conspiracy.

What's the motive for demolishing Building 7? How was that crucial to the supposed giant plot that had already brought down the Twin Towers? I've never heard a single response as to how this fits into the conspiracy narrative.

Look who also pointed out some of these same things (also about the scientific method and how it doesn't work by petitions). That 'shill' for the Bush Administration, Noam Chomsky.

Noam Chomsky Has No Opinion on Building 7 - YouTube

 

[Maynard Keenan]

“The best predictor of belief in a conspiracy theory is belief in other conspiracy theories,” says Viren Swami, a psychology professor who studies conspiracy belief at the University of Westminster in England. Psychologists say that’s because a conspiracy theory isn’t so much a response to a single event as it is an expression of an overarching worldview.


Btodd

Conspiracy theorists often seem to fit into one of a couple of categories. One, it seems, is a person who sees how unjust the world is and seeks answers for why bad things happen and why bad people often succeed while good people fail. As a coping mechanism - rather than accept a cold, uncaring, unpredictable world - they theorize nefarious actors pulling strings and causing the awful things we can't rationalize. Another, similar one, is someone who doesn't feel in control of their destiny and as a remedy to their feelings of powerless inadequacy, they boost their ego with ideas that they have wisdom and insight greater than the masses of "sheeple" who have fallen for the lies of the ones running things.

 

[abysmul]

Aww not this again...

So this guy is in one one of the biggest conspiracies of the millennium, yet makes the mistake of talking about it on live TV.

Worst. Conspiracy. Ever.

Fantastic point!

 

[ManFromUncle]

Conspiracy theorists often seem to fit into one of a couple of categories. One, it seems, is a person who sees how unjust the world is and seeks answers for why bad things happen and why bad people often succeed while good people fail. As a coping mechanism - rather than accept a cold, uncaring, unpredictable world - they theorize nefarious actors pulling strings and causing the awful things we can't rationalize. Another, similar one, is someone who doesn't feel in control of their destiny and as a remedy to their feelings of powerless inadequacy, they boost their ego with ideas that they have wisdom and insight greater than the masses of "sheeple" who have fallen for the lies of the ones running things.

More psychobabble which is nothing more than a dodge to once again avoid the facts, like you know, the OP. No one cares about your armchair analysis of anyone who doesn't accept the official story. If anything the real candidates for psychoanalysis are those who keep denying the facts and what their eyes can see in order to preserve their more comforting view of the world.

Now that you mention it, the documentary Experts Speak Out on 9/11 did a segment on just that, interviewing professional psychologists explaining why people have such a block about looking at the facts of 9/11.

Please watch and discuss:

Psychologists speak on the difficulty of accepting the truth about 9/11
[youtube]cPBiZcfg2lE[/youtube]


Full documentary
[youtube]6xif0jIT_ZM[/youtube]

 

[1Feather]

9-11 helped to expand the government authority like nothing else before. The Patriot Act was voted in just a few weeks after and it was hundreds of pages long and then, as now in most cases, not a single congress person read it prior to passage.

In something like this where there would have to be conspirators to pull it off, the question becomes, who benefits?

Absolutely others besides the Muslim terrorist hijackers on the planes knew something prior to impact.

In our lifetime we'll never know what really happened.
Meanwhile, projecting and conjuring what if's doesn't help the dead to rest in peace.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

More psychobabble which is nothing more than a dodge to once again avoid the facts, like you know, the OP. No one cares about your armchair analysis of anyone who doesn't accept the official story. If anything the real candidates for psychoanalysis are those who keep denying the facts and what their eyes can see in order to preserve their more comforting view of the world.

Now that you mention it, the documentary Experts Speak Out on 9/11 did a segment on just that, interviewing professional psychologists explaining why people have such a block about looking at the facts of 9/11.

Please watch and discuss:

Psychologists speak on the difficulty of accepting the truth about 9/11
[youtube]cPBiZcfg2lE[/youtube]


Full documentary
[youtube]6xif0jIT_ZM[/youtube]

We've looked at your "facts." We've been looking at them for over a decade. They're unconvincing because time after time, mistruths, faulty logic, and enormous jumps to conclusions. You've simply failed, time and time again, to present a compelling case. For those of you who made your mind up that it was a conspiracy before seeing the facts, it's easy to find tidbits that seem to fit within your narrative, allowing you to "connect the dots" and convince yourself it was the logical conclusion. But it isn't. There's simply a lack of solid evidence implicating a conspiracy.

 

[Wormdirt]

Daily Paul?

Daily "Pull!"

This has to be one of the worst 9/11 spoofs - one of the top 3 anyway.

 

[ManFromUncle]

We've looked at your "facts." We've been looking at them for over a decade. They're unconvincing because time after time, mistruths, faulty logic, and enormous jumps to conclusions. You've simply failed, time and time again, to present a compelling case. For those of you who made your mind up that it was a conspiracy before seeing the facts, it's easy to find tidbits that seem to fit within your narrative, allowing you to "connect the dots" and convince yourself it was the logical conclusion. But it isn't. There's simply a lack of solid evidence implicating a conspiracy.

Who is "we?" You and your sock puppet buddy? Did you look at the fact that Silverstein knew the towers were wired and skyscrapers do not come with demo charges planted in them just in case something hits it or it catches fire?

So how did he know WTC was wired to implode? Why did the Fox News reporter even verify this fact:

Shame On Jesse Ventura! | Fox News

"Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."

Yes, the Fox News reporter thought he was mocking "conspiracy theories," so I guess he didn't know that buildings don't come pre-wired either.

You say you've "looked at the facts" yet keep ignoring even this simple one. So look at the facts.

Don't go off on a long diatribe. Focus your attention on just this question (remember, the firefighters had been ordered out 6 hours before.) All you do when you ignore the question is convince more people that the official story is false. Americans aren't as dumb as you think, and can see through you. They think: "That's all interesting about conspiracy theorists, but he didn't answer the question again."

 

[Maynard Keenan]

Who is "we?" You and your sock puppet buddy? Did you look at the fact that Silverstein knew the towers were wired and skyscrapers do not come with demo charges planted in them just in case something hits it or it catches fire?

So how did he know WTC was wired to implode? Why did the Fox News reporter even verify this fact:

Shame On Jesse Ventura! | Fox News
Yes, the Fox News reporter thought he was mocking "conspiracy theories," so I guess he didn't know that buildings don't come pre-wired either.

You say you've "looked at the facts" yet keep ignoring even this simple one. So look at the facts.

Don't go off on a long diatribe. Focus your attention on just this question (remember, the firefighters had been ordered out 6 hours before.) All you do when you ignore the question is convince more people that the official story is false. Americans aren't as dumb as you think, and can see through you. They think: "That's all interesting about conspiracy theorists, but he didn't answer the question again."

See, this was exactly what I meant when I said trutherism is based on ridiculous jumps to conclusions. The property manager, seeing that the foundation was damaged beyond repair, sought permission from insurers for a controlled demolition. You thus conclude that the building already had explosives wired in. Despite the author of the article stating that he was there and that there were no sounds of explosions, nor did the building's collapse occur as a controlled demolition would. No one knew, at the time, if the building would collapse very quickly, as it did, or if it would remain standing for some time in a weakened state. It would be prudent in such a situation to get approval for a demolition so that as soon as workers could safely enter, work could be done to bring the building down in a controlled manner.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Who is "we?" You and your sock puppet buddy?

Sock puppets. Sheeple. Shills. You complain about how people judge the credentials of AE911-ers, but seem to have no qualms about doing it yourself?

Speaking of facts....

Shame On Jesse Ventura! | Fox News
Yes, the Fox News reporter thought he was mocking "conspiracy theories," so I guess he didn't know that buildings don't come pre-wired either.

You say you've "looked at the facts" yet keep ignoring even this simple one. So look at the facts.

The conversation that was had and reported - that is a fact.

The conclusion that you've drawn, about how the WTC was "pre-wired for demolition" based on the reported conversation - that's a "trutherfact" - in other words a wild conclusion with no evidence for it whatsoever.

 

[ManFromUncle]

See, this was exactly what I meant when I said trutherism is based on ridiculous jumps to conclusions. The property manager, seeing that the foundation was damaged beyond repair, sought permission from insurers for a controlled demolition. You thus conclude that the building already had explosives wired in. Despite the author of the article stating that he was there and that there were no sounds of explosions, nor did the building's collapse occur as a controlled demolition would. No one knew, at the time, if the building would collapse very quickly, as it did, or if it would remain standing for some time in a weakened state. It would be prudent in such a situation to get approval for a demolition so that as soon as workers could safely enter, work could be done to bring the building down in a controlled manner.

So "trutherism" is pointing out that a skycraper cannot be prepped and wired for demolition in a few hours? Duh. It takes weeks if not months. This is especially so when they have already declared it not even safe for firefighters to enter, and have cleared them out. Double duh. WTC 7 came down at 5:20pm on the same day, are you understanding this?

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

So "trutherism" is pointing out that a skycraper cannot be prepped and wired for demolition in a few hours? Duh. It takes weeks if not months.

So surely there'd be some actual evidence for this. Teams of people sneak into a building over a period of weeks or months to pre-wire it for demolition, yet no-one notices, no-one who was part of the conspiracy comes forward, not a single camera in the state of New York catches them on video...

And yet a guy talks about "pulling" a building on live TV and supposedly blows the whole conspiracy.

Oh - and despite the conspirators being happy to kill a few thousand people in the "wired for demo" WTC so that they can push the US to go all ninja on Iraq, they suddenly grow a conscience and remove firefighters before blowing up WTC7.....

Belief. Suspended.

 

[Btodd]

I thought it was refreshing to hear him admit that it would take weeks/months to wire it.

And then provide zero evidence of any wiring found. There's so much work to be done that it takes a very long time with crews of men, but not a wire was found. And the order was given by Silverstein to the chief of the NY Fire Department, who is suddenly involved in demolitions.

I mean, c'mon...connect the dots, sheeple!



Btodd

 

[Dave Ellis]

The "truther" claims about wired buildings and whatnot is complete and utter nonsense. If they knew anything about building demolition they'd know why.

First off, to wire a building for demolition, it requires a fair bit of internal demolition first, so they can attach the explosives to the main support beams in the building.

The process of wiring a building for demolition, especially a building as large as WTC 7, much less the twin towers would take months to accomplish and require widespread internal demolition.

Despite that reality, the truthers would have us believe that large of a project was completed without any prep work, and was not once noticed by the the thousands of workers who occupied those buildings 24 hours a day.

On top of that, WTC 7 already suffered severe damage from the twin towers falling on it (as would be expected) and had it not fallen down, it would have likely needed to be torn down anyway.... so why go to all the trouble (and risk of being detected) of wiring it to be blown up in advance?


The story is just a ridiculous, illogical mess. I can't see how people actually buy into this conspiracy theory crap.

 

[Paul01]

http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

 

[mandyangel]

“The best predictor of belief in a conspiracy theory is belief in other conspiracy theories,” says Viren Swami, a psychology professor who studies conspiracy belief at the University of Westminster in England. Psychologists say that’s because a conspiracy theory isn’t so much a response to a single event as it is an expression of an overarching worldview.


Btodd

interesting. does he say anything else about it or do u have more information?

 

[Btodd]

interesting. does he say anything else about it or do u have more information?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...09/paranoia-and-the-roots-conspiracy-theories

Paul01 originally posted the article, I just quoted a portion of it, because in my experience...it's something I've seen over and over again. I have hardly ever met someone who, for instance, thinks 9/11 was an Inside Job™...without also believing in almost every other conspiracy theory that exists.

It seems to be a worldview, not something where this one particular conspiracy theory just seems to have convinced the person...once they adopt that worldview, then all of the conspiracy theories become true pretty much by default. Then it's a matter of finding little supposed 'factoids' that try and make the evidence fit the conclusion. Like, 'pull it' being evidence of a demolition, context-be-damned, instead of expecting to find mass amounts of wiring or reports of crews removing sheetrock and using torches to pre-cut steel beams in the building before installing cutter charges. Nope, 'pull it' seals the deal.

But I like surprises.


Btodd

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Then it's a matter of finding little supposed 'factoids' that try and make the evidence fit the conclusion.

The guy on these forums who used to insist that the airliner debris at the pentagon must have been trucked in because no-one had HD video of the plane crashing was my favourite.