WTC Conspiracy Thread (merged)

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Disaster, Feb 16, 2006.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It's function as a dispenser of confusion, fog, and distraction from the actual issues surrounding the events of 9/11 is far more obvious than any raising of anyone's awareness.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Just for fun, let's look at the stupidity of this statement.

    First of all, there is something called the presumption of innocence in the United States. That is, you have to have proof to accuse someone of a crime. You simply cannot accuse them, then attempt to condemn them for refusing to testify.

    If you have a case, make it. If not, quit embarrassing yourself. Not talking about something, or not wanting to talk about something, proves absolutely nothing.

    Then we have this pearl...

    Actually, it happens quite a lot. One example, to quote the recent papers, involves the Ramseys, who never talked to the police and have finally been exonerated.

    You're obviously not a lawyer, and neither am I, but apparently I understand how the law works slightly better than you.

    Grand Juries do nothing other than indict people. They can't detain anyone. Judges do that. A Grand Jury doesn't indict anyone without a lengthy investigation by the police and a positive recommendation for charges from a prosecutor. At that point, they have nothing to do with what happens.

    To return to your Bush/Cheney whine, I need to look at my 9/11 report, which is packed at the moment, but I tend to recall that both interviewed with the committee, as did Clinton.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 12, 2008
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    And I'm still waiting to hear what you think those actual issues are, Ice. Enlighten us.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Because controlled demos require at the very least a few days to prepare for. Thus pre-planned. Nothing about 9/11 is supposed to be preplanned(on the ground).
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The way I run into it most often, the demolition setup dates from the installation of some sort of sensitive government stuff in the building, or maybe a preplanned insurance fraud, or the like, that either was planned as a response to any serious breach of security or took advantage of the opportunity or something.

    So that it wasn't a controlled demo, but a criminal or emergency response, set up in advance to handle a variety of potential events.

    It doesn't seem necessary to me, or even likely, but it is sort of possible - unlike the various screwball accounts of tower demolition.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2008
  9. Ganymede Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,322

    SAN FRANCISCO -- Barry Bonds' personal trainer refused to testify Thursday to the federal grand jury investigating the slugger for perjury and could be sent back to prison.

    Greg Anderson, who served three months in prison after pleading guilty last year for his role in the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative steroid scandal, could be sent back to prison if found in contempt of court for refusing to testify.


    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2504877

    Not to get off topic, but yes refusing to testify to the grand jury will cause one to be incarcerated, now back to the original topic.

    The Ramsey's aren't innocent. The day of the murder it was snowing in their town. The ground was completely covered by snow. But there were no footprints anywhere on the premissis leading to, or away from the home. So this alleged killer didn't break in, he had total access to the walkway, and the front door. But that's another thread we can debate if you want.


    Innocent people don't refuse to have a transcript of their conversation, nor do they refuse to go on the record. Only a fool would think otherwise.
     
  10. Ganymede Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,322
    The same way you convince yourself that Ron Paul didn't author his own racist newsletters which bears his own signature. :crazy:
     
  11. Ganymede Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,322

    Bullshit, the US Government only allocated 14 million to the 911 commission. While they allocated 40 million dollars investigating Monica Gate. Why do you perpetually pull facts out of your ass.
     
  12. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590

    Right, but it's the judge who incacerates people, I believe. Your point, however, is moot for a number of reasons. One, Bush and Cheney were never called to any grand jury. Two, they did speak to the 9/11 commission. Third, if they were called to a grand jury, their office exempts them from testimony.


    According to the DA, who is relying on DNA evidence, they are. But obviously, you and your baseless allegations are more meaningful in the fantasy world you inhabit.


    You're an idiot. Attorneys tell their clients all the time not to testify, to take advantage of their 5th Ammendment rights. In federal matters, there is no presumption of guilt there. None.
     
  13. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    That wasn't a fact genius, it was opinion. The word "probably" is what we like to call a context clue.
     
  14. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Do you really believe that is "sort of possible"?
     
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The Oklahoma City bombing, the Exxon Valdez spill, the Kennedy assassination, the sinking of the Titanic, the first Shuttle disaster, the Pearl Harbor attack, Bill Clinton's sex escapades, all would have legitimate claims to having been investigated more thoroughly than 9/11 has been so far.

    Most of those investigations resulted in at least some blame being fixed, with negligent parties named and penalized.

    AFAIK the only person to lose their job over 9/11 was Bill Maher.
     
  16. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    James911 seems to be spamming these posts across several threads now.

    The stability of WTC7 was in question long before it fell. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Collapse_Expectations Five videos.

    If you must make comparisons with other buildings could you please compare to a building which had part of a skyscraper fall on it.

    The WTC1 + 2 conspiracy theories start to sound absurd even to the conspiracy theorists so we then move to WTC7. If that gets too hard we will then move to the Pentagon.... which was apparently hit by a missile.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It isn't ruled out immediately by the visible evidence. It doesn't require huge and ludicrously vulnerable conspiracies with no apparent motive and every chance of failure.

    I wouldn't bet a nickel of my own money on it, on any odds.
     
  18. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    i might be wrong about this but PB said wtc7 was where the CIA had there head quaters. if thats true then its possable they had an auto distruct set up incase the commies took it over

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Cazzo Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    There's like 3 different threads on this WT7 conspiracy. How many more can we expect ?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    Bullshit. And if you truly believe this, then you're as batty as the Truthers.
     
  21. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    The Titanic?
     
  22. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    So if things can't be ruled out, they immediately become plausible?

    Sure. OK.

    That makes absolutely no sense.

    And as usual, you want it both ways. You put the idea out there, say it's possible and then back off by saying you wouldn't bet on it.

    Do you get a kick out of these kind of games?

    And have you got any more theories for us to entertain? I enjoy watching you embaress yourself.
     
  23. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Mod Note: Various threads have been merged to form this bigger, more powerful WTC conspiracy thread. Have at it!
     

Share This Page