Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

why did the wtc's collapse? conclusive proof


lord_casek
 Share

Recommended Posts

Who benefits most?

 

The companies rebuilding Iraq, the mercenary companies like BlackWater, Is that about right?

Either way it puts the officials who let this happen in a really bad position because if they were to get caught thats treason of the highest degree, I dont see that as worth a few million bucks, or some oil fields in the Middle East

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The companies rebuilding Iraq, the mercenary companies like BlackWater, Is that about right?

Either way it puts the officials who let this happen in a really bad position because if they were to get caught thats treason of the highest degree, I dont see that as worth a few million bucks, or some oil fields in the Middle East

 

 

Don't forget Larry Silverstein, the Bush administration, intel services, etc.

 

Yes, it would be high treason if officials were to be caught. Trillions, Silba. Trillions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was already proven to not be a demolition term.

 

Silverstein was talking about pulling the rescue/firefighting operation, as in pulling all firefighters & police out of Building 7 because of the fear that it may collapse too (it was on fire on several stories and multiple support beams had been compromised from WTC 1's collapse).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think my tin foil hat was to tight and i a little too high and over thought/ conspiracied, if thats even a word, his point when he was talking about them building the towers, i got watch that again and brush up on my WTC history and what not.

 

 

Yeah, you should. It's important to know what happened that day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ya i just skimmed through a few things, gonna read some longer stuff when i get the chance, also read more about the gulf war and the WTC truck bombing from 93.

 

any suggestions of something specific i should read?

 

 

Nothing in particular I can think of at the moment. I don't want to point you one way or another.

 

If you really feel like it, watch and be super critical the following:

 

 

 

and some sites

http://ae911truth.org/

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

 

Those should give you some good starting points for doing your own research and coming to your own conclusion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...

See I watched most of this video and unfortunately I don't see it as offering any evidence for anything particularly. It can be understood as making psychology based arguments for why people don't accept alternate narratives of the 9-11 event, but not a lot more. Equally I could present a collection of psychologists who all claim some degree of scientific objectivity in stating that people desire a grand narrative surrounding events of this magnitude that gives over-arching meaning to each aspect of the event. I posted an article or two in a thread here a while back to this effect.

 

If anything this video illustrates the fallibility of psychology as a 'scientific' profession. For example, one lady says there is ample evidence to suggest an alternative narrative, so given this evidence the question should be 'why do people not accept it?'. What she has done is begin from the assumption that her reading of the evidence is correct and constructed a theory to explain why people don't agree with her. Sure, her theory is interesting, but it is hardly based on objectivity. It's totally valid to construct speculative theories, I do it quite a often in trying to understand why people are so complicit with horrific state actions, but you also must accept that you, or I, could be completely wrong in our assessment.

 

The realm of the social is a strange, shifting, reality. It is hard, if not impossible, to quantify given that we are all so deeply embedded within it. Objective social 'truths' are, over time, understood to be nonsensical. Less than 100 years ago we understood women and darker skinned people to be inferior, and constructed 'objective' theories to substantiate this. All of which has since been revealed to be a farce. So, the nature of truth in a social context is deeply subjective. Psychology, as a profession, tries to build objective truths on top of a largely subjective field of behaviour. In this way it is prone to make highly disputable claims to 'truth'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, it's all perspective if you ask me.

 

I do think they bring up some points on people whom just won't even look at the evidence. However I'm sure they can get some other psychologist's to throw the opposite perspective and it would make sense as well.

 

Personally the video I posted with the Architect's and Engineers is more damning, but that's me.

 

Not to mention the cop who arrested the Israeli's, there is more information out there about that as well, which would make you realize it's significance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For sure. I should just qualify my previous posts by saying that there is no doubt more to the story than was presented in the commissions report. Though, how much more, or to what end I don't know and am not interested enough in this event particularly to investigate thoroughly. Moreover, I think it is important to recognise the limits of internet based 'research', as the best you can really do is collate a range of other peoples opinions unless you go out and conduct empirical evidence yourself.

 

I am generally of the opinion that if there was a grand conspiracy in the way the 'truthers' generally portray, there would be a shit-tonne of people selling their stories to various media orgs, govs and anyone else who would listen by now. Yet, having some knowledge of the way historical narratives are constructed I can certainly see how certain aspects of the story are enhanced while others are played down or discarded for the sake of political ends. This process can be deliberate from a central org, like government, or can be coincidence based on groups of people all seeking to maximise their own particular interests. I would generally suggest the latter option is much more common.

 

tldr; Official story is probably a highly selective presentation of factual events, whereby inconvenient truths are discarded for the sake of political (in the broad sense of the word) ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...