The Great 9/11 Insurance Bonanza

No, the problem here is that when you get confused or lack a real argument (evidence) you have to try and turn it around to be about me instead of the topic at hand.

Stop with the foolishness and just show me the document already. Or admit that all you got is guess-umptions, oft repeated childish cliches and feel sorry for Larry sob stories to offer in LS's defense.

Show me the document!

 

It's silly to ask for evidence? Evidence that by now should already be part of the public record???

I would think a crime the size of 9/11 would get a first rate invetsigation instead of the whitewash job we got.

Even the 9/11 commission itself admits the investigation was a whitewash. Google it.

So, to say asking for evidence is silly could quite possibly turn out be the utmost in sillyness.

And why do you not attempt to answer my questions? How long would you wait for a 7 billion dollar payout? Would you wait 9 years for 7 billion?

 

I've seen this site. Alot of "debunkers" rely on it for their information.

Nevermind that on the very first page the "debunkers" are debunked and proven to be uh, less than factual in their approach.

From the site, page one paragraph six. A strawman argument.

"Controlled demolition experts reject the notion that "pull it" is a term used in building implosions."

This "fact" is somehow supposed to change the fact that three buildings defied the laws of physics and gravity on that day.

Here's some real experts for ya.

Many respected senior members of the military, intelligence services, and government have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Some even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. Below are the highly revealing public statements on this vital topic of over 50 prominent public servants with links for verification and further investigation.

The collective voices of these respected senior officials along with over 100 esteemed professors, over 200 pilots and aviation professionals, and hundreds of architects and engineers give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed. These dedicated individuals from across the political spectrum are not irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by decades of service to their country, demonstrate that criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report is not only reasonable and responsible, it is in fact a patriotic duty.

SOURCE

These dissenting voices added to those actually involved in the 9/11 commission who claim the whole thing was a sham should be telling you something.

Something like maybe the whole thing really was a sham and we need a proper investigation?

 

I believe this to be a common misconception as an event this size could be pulled off by only a few people "in the know" with the help of a few more "useful idiots" who weren't. But in either case.

Why the need for a cover up if everything happened as the government claimed? Obviously there was a cover up or the commission members wouldn't be complaining about it.

Right?

Here's a two page summary on 911 taken from mainstream "news reports".

America’s top military leaders drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in US cities to trick the public into supporting a war against Cuba in the early 1960s. Approved in writing by the Pentagon Joint Chiefs, Operation Northwoods even proposed blowing up a US ship and hijacking planes as a false pretext for war. [ABC News, 5/1/01, Pentagon Documents]

1996–2001: Federal authorities are aware for years before 9/11 that suspected terrorists with ties to Osama bin Laden are receiving flight training at schools in the US and abroad. One convicted terrorist confesses that his planned role in a terror attack was to crash a plane into CIA headquarters. [Washington Post, 9/23/01, CBS, 5/30/02, more]

1996–2001: On multiple occasions spies give detailed reports on bin Laden's location. Each time, the CIA director or White House officials prevent bin Laden's elimination. [Los Angeles Times, 12/5/04, New York Times, 12/30/01, more]

2000–2001: 15 of the 19 hijackers fail to fill in visa documents properly in Saudi Arabia. Only six are interviewed. All 15 should have been denied entry to the US. [Washington Post, 10/22/02, ABC, 10/23/02] Two top Republican senators say if State Department personnel had merely followed the law, 9/11 would not have happened. [AP, 12/18/02, more]

2000–2001: The military conducts exercises simulating hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets causing mass casualties. One target is the World Trade Center (WTC), another the Pentagon. Yet after 9/11, over and over the White House and security officials say they’re shocked that terrorists hijacked airliners and crashed them into landmark buildings. [USA Today, 4/19/04, Military District of Washington, 11/3/00, New York Times, 10/3/01, more]

Jan 2001: After the Nov 2000 elections, US intelligence agencies are told to “back off” investigating the bin Ladens and Saudi royals. There have always been constraints on investigating Saudi Arabians. [BBC, 11/6/01, more]

Spring 2001: A series of military and governmental policy documents is released that seek to legitimize the use of US military force in the pursuit of oil and gas. One advocates presidential subterfuge and hiding the reasons for warfare “as a necessity for mobilizing public support.” [Sydney Morning Herald, 12/26/02, more]


CONTINUE HERE.

Obviously if there is a cover up there is something being hidden.

What?

CUI BONO?