WTC Conspiracy Thread (merged)

There are a few errors in Loose Change but it serves the function of raising awareness that there is 'unfinished business' regarding the events of 9/11/2001.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ganymede said:
If Bush and Cheney would of went on the record about 911 then you'd have a leg to stand on. By them refusing to go on the record is definitely an indication of guilt or deception of some sort. If you believe he refused to go on the record because he was innocent, then you're the one in need of zoloft!
Click to expand...

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...

Ganymede said:
I can't recall any case where an innocent person refused to go on the record or testify.
Click to expand...

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.

Ganymede said:
That's why Grand Juries detain people who refuse to tesitfy, because it gives them reason to the believe they're hiding something, innocent people are motivated to clear their names.

A witness who refuses to testify without legal justification will be held in contempt of court, and is subject to incarceration for the remaining term of the grand jury. A witness who testifies falsely may be separately prosecuted for perjury.
Click to expand...

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:
John99 said:
WTC7 is virtually meaningless to 911 event in general. At leas as far as how it came down, even if it was a controlled demo initiated afterwards. Why would that matter much?
Click to expand...

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).
 
nietzschefan said:
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).
Click to expand...
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:
countezero said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.

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.
Click to expand...

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.


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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ashura said:
I'm starting to see how you manage to convince yourself of whatever it is you want to believe, be it certain circumstances about 9/11, or that Obama's an atheist, amongst other things.
Click to expand...

The same way you convince yourself that Ron Paul didn't author his own racist newsletters which bears his own signature. :crazy:
 
countezero said:
ere.

9/11 is probably the most documented and investigated event in human history. That a few kooks in a basement discovered the "truth" when multiple scientists, journalists and government agencies didn't not only flies in the face of common sense, it demands something more than doubt, vague conjectures, wild accusations and obstinate disbelief be offered to us.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Ganymede said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.


Ganymede said:
The Ramsey's aren't innocent.
Click to expand...

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.


Ganymede said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
count said:
9/11 is probably the most documented and investigated event in human history.
- -
That wasn't a fact genius, it was opinion.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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. :D
 
count said:
Do you really believe that is "sort of possible"?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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:p
 
iceaura said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. And if you truly believe this, then you're as batty as the Truthers.
 
iceaura said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top