UH, it's been four years since the 911 commission said they'd investigate four MAJOR aspects of 911?

Question

1) THE COLLAPSES (their story changes every time their "theory" is challenged) -- FACT.

2) Marvin Bush's Securacom security company which handled security for boston's logan airport and the world trade center complex.

3) Marvin Bush's ties to the insurance company that handled insurance for the world trade center complex. (FACT)

4) Lastly, the FACT that trade volumes of short-selling stock on airliners PROVE foreknowlege of 911.

5) Of course the commission has fallen silent on the fact that planes have NEVER vaporized on impact, nor have buildings collapsed due to fire...only in america, and only on 911.

wake up, you buncha starbucks junkies!

tubebandit (typical lazy-minded american p.o.s.)

How YOU Doin? (another unoriginal p.o.s. who simple tows the party line...)

jeeper peeper....get a fuking life....

Answer 1

1.Comfort.
Comfortable people do not dissent. They rarely question authority, unless overwhelmed by fleeting pangs of conscience or momentary madness. Why would any self-satisfied comfortable person want to discomfort themselves? The whole purpose of a comfortable person is to acquire more comfort or to ensure a perpetual state of comfort. Why would comfortable people, contented with their place in the world--
a comfortable home, a well-paid job, respect within their community--
want to upset that equilibrium? Why would any comfortable person question his government about circumstances he cannot control? Why risk discomfort, disapproval, suspension from work and community scorn simply to question something like 911 that cannot be changed? To a comfortable person, that makes no sense at all.
2. Complacency.
Complacent people rarely make waves, create dissension, cause an uproar. They prefer not to talk about politics and religion, nor to do any independent thinking. Because a complacent mind is a safe mind. Complacent people prefer "to get along to go along," to swim with the tide, to run with the herd, to blow with the wind. They like to mind their own business which, on the face of it, seems like common sense and the safe thing to do. Because to get passionately involved in any cause or belief
(aside from sports)
would require a lapse of complacency. Complacency, unlike comfort, requires a more practiced inertia. To accept the state or the status quo, with mild complaint--
but only the mildest, acceptable complaint--and plod along like herd animals. To dare question the state, or debate popular consensus, is not only foolish and insane but borderline treasonable to the complacent citizen.
3. Cowardice
Cowardice is the most understandable of denials of 911. It is convenient to deny 911 out of fear, because to do otherwise, to look at the evidence presented by the most powerful empire in the world, requires a heretical leap of independent thought. A mental insurrection worthy of revolutionaries, pioneers, patriots and outraged citizens. But cowards cannot sift the evidence and arrive at an independent conclusion. They have been beaten and cowed and, at most, can only cringe and howl in derision from the rear. At every original thought or contrary opinion
(contrary to the state and the corporate media that is),
they howl and scurry away, anonymously. At best, their children may lead them, by example, into a braver realm of thought.
4. Conviction
Conviction--to be convinced of one's rightness---
and the courage to assert it, is admirable even if one is proven wrong eventually. A great many believers
(in the official story)
are as convinced of the Kean Commission version of 911, as we skeptics are of their error. These believers claim, with many, many intelligent professionals to back up their claims, that steel does weaken and melt from fuel fires and big buildings do indeed collapse, that falling concrete does indeed pulverize into micro-sized dust particles, that incompetence does not necessary indicate evil.
We truthers, in turn, claim the mass of incriminating evidence overwhelms the experts and trumps their testimony. So who is more right? Time will tell. But the only way we will ever convince these true believers
(our co-workers, friends and family)
of the falsity in the official, government version of 911 is to show them what a lying, poisonous, murderous, mercenary, fear-mongering, war-mongering, fascistic group they have put their faith in. And every day more and more disgruntled citizens are becoming convinced we may have a point.
5. Collusion
A secret activity undertaken by two or more people for the purpose of FRAUD.
The definition of collusion. The US media colludes every day. They collude with the White House or Pentagon or State Department to perpetrate some fraud or other. And many of us collude right along with them. The smallest group of 911 deniers, numbering several million, which I call the Colluders, includes many who have worked for the US government, still work for the US government, receive huge chunks of money from that government to fund their work, depend on contracts from the US government and, more often than not, support the official US government line. Many of them, working high in the US government--NSA, FBI, CIA, Pentagon officials---
know exactly what happened on 911 but keep quiet. Colluding all the way to the bank. Privately they may not agree with many aspects of the official version but, publicly, they will NOT utter a single statement, will NOT go on record, publicly, with a single dissenting word. Not while there is money to be made. And so, of all the 911 deniers, they are most complicit with the crime.
Comfort. Complacency. Cowardice. Conviction. Collusion. And sometimes a combination of all of them.
Footnote: A tip of the cap to those activists at 911Blogger.com Not only do I read the columns posted there but the remarks (an addiction) and sneers from the trolls. This column is dedicated to the 911 activists everywhere, in recognition of the five types of people you run up against every day--and I mean against.

Answer 2

1. The buildings collapsed first at the points of the fire, and the extreme weight of the higher up floors fell after the collapse and because the buildings were supported largely by outer columns (you can see them on pictures) the implosion was very rapid (little resistance in the building's interior)
2. Crap
3. Crap or coincidence
4. No
5. They went into the buildings, didn't vaporize. That would be ridiculous to think they would vaporize.

I belive that the conversation went something like this.
Kyle: So who was responsible for 9/11?
Stan: A bunch of pissed off Muslims, duh.
Hardly Boy: Yeah, are you retarted?
when's the last time there was a jet fuel fire in a high rise?

Answer 3

Condi promised us proof shortly after 9/11.I am stillwaiting.
As a day trader ,the insider trading evidence is smoking gun enough for me.That kind of put option trading is unprecedented .It really is and no one can say it isnt.
EPA analzed the dust from WTC (as well as many independent labs) and what they found was highly indicative of explosive use.It is on the net lookit up naysayers.
The 9/11 commission report claimed that the steel trusses sufferred 42 inches of deflection which resulted in collapse.However controlled environment experiments in Britain were only able to achieve 3inches of deflection Using temperatures equal or higher to any temperature that could have existed in that building.And 3 inches of deflection just doesnt cut it.
The damage was assymetrical and yet the collapse was totally symmetrical.How can this be overlooked.In the video.you see the top half of the building falling away from the line of most resistance but before our eyes that piece just disappears.Has no one heard of the Law of angular momentum??That building piece should have continued down and in a spinning motion ,falling slightyly away from the main mass
And then of course we have WTC 7.A clear crimp in the roofline indicating significant interior structural failure on a ver large scale.Buildimg support systems of that nature are built with redundancy.Which means that many structural members can be compromised and a building will maintain its structural integrity .Even FEMA in the 9/11 commission report that it is a n extremely low probaility that WTC7 failed structurally due to fire!!
Thsi comment that the WTC towers failed at the point of damage first is ludicrous.Very carefully watch.The antenna on the roof starts its fall just before the building does,indicating interior structural failure.It is on video.I am not making this up
The building was supported mainly by the outer columns...well how interesting.I guess those 40 odd core columns were just there to make people feel good about themselves.I mean look at the steel in these things.Again you can find it on the net.If you have no building or engineering experience at all ,you still will be amazed at these masses of steel.And they are designed for load bearing.For the laymen out there here is a simple rule of thumb.If it is in a building and it is big ,and you cant see it ,it is load bearing
Placing of explosives.Yes that would require a lot of time and planning but there were numerous powerdowns ,security shoutdowns,"internet" cable replacement with much coming and going by workmen during these power downs complete with I believe 2 building evacutions because of bomb scares.The bomb dogs were removed totally 5 days previous to 9/11.Reports from tenants of drilling sounds and gray dust on table and window ledges.Concrete dust? Obviously not normal dust as it wouldnt have been remarked on by the tenants.
The belly of the 757 that crashes into tower 2.We can look at this from 4 different angles from video and the belly is not smooth as the 757s I see taking off from airports around the world.The shadow idea is ridiculous.Shadows of what.Look at the videos yourself and you will see what I mean.

Answer 4

Well lets see.

1. Marvin Bush doesn't have a security company, he was on the Board of Directors of Securacom from 1993 to 1999, big difference from being a board member to owning or running a company.

1a. Securacom lost their WTC security contract in 1998 and was replaced by E-J Electric Installation Co.


2.I don't see how Marvin Bush's ties to any insurance company that provided insurance for the WTC is relevant. There were 9 different insurance companies that provided insurance for the WTC. All the Insurance companies lost money on the WTC claim, so I don't understand your point.

3. yes there was unusual volume of put options of amaerican airlines stock prior to 9/11.

But, the 911 commission stated in thier report, none of those outstanding put options were ever cashed in, and that 95% of the put options placed, were placed on sept 6th by one investment company, which on sept 10th bought 115,000 shares of american airlines. Now why would a company with foreknowledge buy 115,000 shares of stock, if they knew the stock price was going to go down ???

4. as to you assertion that demolition must have brought the towers down. just how could the demolition charges have been planted and connected, without a single tenet of the WTC noticing ?

demolition of buildings takes months of prep work and weeks to place and rig the explosives and connect the det cord .

But were supposed to believe that it was somehow done, without any tenet of the WTC noticing ??

now thats a conspiracy theory.

Answer 5

09999907134 Mahipalpur EScOrTs+!!+ 9990110727 +!!+ EsCoRT Service in Mahipalpur

Answer 6

i have no false expectations of the government being 100% honest. BTW,i hate starbucks coffee,but they are a fairly good company in regards to how they treat employees

Answer 7

dude stop screwing with marvin,you know he has close friends with the cia,nsa,dia,dea and the fbi-so cool it.You know you really should stop smoking that contaminated crap from chernobyl.so lame!

Answer 8

is that you micheal moore?