Gyroscopic Investing

I've never really subscribed to the idea that 9/11 was a conspiracy. A false flag attack so to speak to draw our country into a never ending war against an underground international army. But, after looking at footage of the collapse of building 7 at the wtc complex and listening to testimonials about molten steel at the base, I really have to give more credit to the thermite controlled demolition line of reasoning. The idea that that building pancaked perfectly from a fire on a few floors seems quite implausible. Anyone else think something fishy was going on? Watching footage sends up all my BS alerts regarding the govt explanation.

A few days ago I noticed a WTC7 conspiracy sign in a front yard in my neighborhood.

May be time to move.

It would require too many people to pull off.  Outside of all the "truther" debunking that has occurred, this imo is the strongest argument that exists.  People, in general, suck at keeping secrets.

Jesse Ventura had some comments for Piers Morgan regards this exact issue recently...how a BBC reporter was broadcasting that Building 7 had collapsed...several minutes before the building actually was demolished.

I agree that in general conspiracies of this magnitude are hard to imagine. People talk, thats the truth. However, just like in the kennedy assasination, there are a lot if mysterious circumstances surrounding the events of this day and inconsistencies and leaps of faith that are required to buy into govt explanation.

Jesse ventura is a kook. That fact isnt subject to speculation.

I discount the WTC conspiracy theories on the sole basis that it would be impossible to pull off an inside job of this magnitude and maintain secrecy.

I don't discount however that there are malign forces at work who would do this sort of thing if they could get away with it. You can google "Operation Northwoods" and see that false-flag operations disguised as acts of terrorism were proposed during the Kennedy administration to start a war with Cuba and they did involve hijacking airplanes.

You can also read about other well-documented CIA false flag operations that were pulled off during the cold war. The CIA kept a stash of Russian made weapons on hand like the police do with a throwaway gun to prove Russian involvement in internal strife whenever it might be necessary for the U.S. to intervene.

Do I think that George W Bush would have sanctioned such a false-flag operation if it had been presented to him 9 months into his presidency, even though Saddam Hussein (allegedly) tried to assassinate his father? No I don't. He always struck me as a misguided idiot but I never thought of him as that malevolent.

(My 3rd modification to this discourse...)

Did I think that Kennedy was the kind of president who would have sanctioned Operation Northwoods? No, I did not (and he did not). But I can tell you what I have subsequently learned about him. A big part of his campaign involved closing the "Missile Gap" with Russia - the notion being that Russia was way ahead of us in development of ICBM's (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) and we needed to close the gap. History has now shown that no such Missile Gap ever existed and at the time Kennedy was campaigning on it Russia had 4 ICBM's to our many. History also shows us that Kennedy KNEW THIS because he had been briefed about it during the elections, yet he continued to campaign on it any way. The Russians, knowing the truth, thought he was crazy. In 1961 we had the Cuban Missile Crisis which I remember very well fearing the world as we knew it was coming to an abrupt end. Only many years later did I learn that this crisis was averted by Kennedy secretly agreeing to remove missiles from Turkey in exchange for Russia not deploying them in Cuba. At no time during the Cuban missile crisis do I remember hearing anything about the missiles in Turkey to explain why Russia might be deploying them in Cuba - only that the Russians were evil and bent on worldwide domination.

So my point is that there IS a lot of evil going on behind the scenes that we don't know about and presidents do not have the same kind of allegiance to telling the truth that a lot of us have.

But I still can't swallow the WTC conspiracies.

It's been completely debunked.

doodle wrote: Jesse ventura is a kook. That fact isnt subject to speculation.

Probably true but his PP is probably a lot bigger than mine.

Crazy sells....unfortunately.

doodle wrote: Jesse ventura is a kook. That fact isnt subject to speculation.

Does this mean his statement about Building 7 / BBC reporter is false?

As it relates to bbc reporter, yes. Unless the bbc was in on conspiracy it makes no sense. Jesse lost a few too many brain cells in the wrestling arena i fear. Nevertheless, i dont think that the issue is totally clear. I have seen many questions raised by competent structural engineers regarding the official explanation.

murphy_p_t wrote:

doodle wrote: Jesse ventura is a kook. That fact isnt subject to speculation.

Does this mean his statement about Building 7 / BBC reporter is false?

The BBC did report the collapse prematurely, but there is no great mystery behind it.

No steel frame high rise had ever before collapsed because of a fire, although there had been previous cases of collapses or partial collapses of smaller steel buildings due to fire.[66] However, 7 WTC also sustained significant structural damage from 1 WTC debris after its collapse. BBC News reported the collapse of 7 WTC twenty minutes before it actually fell.[67] The BBC has stated that many news sources were reporting the imminent collapse of 7 WTC on the day of the attacks.[68] Jane Standley, the reporter who announced the collapse prematurely, called it a "very small and very honest mistake" caused by her thinking on her feet after being confronted with a report she had no way of checking.[69]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trad ... y_theories

And think about it. If someone other than terrorists were behind the collapse of #7, why would the friggin' BBC know about it?

Somebody should do a study on the modern fetish for conspiracy theories. It is astonishing how many nutty theories on all sorts of subjects have become so widely accepted by otherwise rational and intelligent people. Some of my favorites...

1. 9-11 Trutherism
2. Birtherism (brought to you largely by the same nut jobs who brought us the Truther movement)
3. TWA Flight 800 shot down by the US Navy
4. Vince Foster murdered by Bill Clinton
5. Roswell Area 51 and UFOs
6. New World Order (the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Group)
7. The Illuminati
8. The assassination of President Kennedy (so widely believed, evidence notwithstanding, that it has become almost gospel)
9. The International Communist Conspiracy (water fluoridation etc.)
10. Too many anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to name

Ad Orientem wrote:The International Communist Conspiracy (water fluoridation etc.)

Major Jack D. Ripper (in [i]Dr. Strangelove)[/i] wrote:I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Ad Orientem wrote: Somebody should do a study on the modern fetish for conspiracy theories.

I suppose the fetish is timeless, but in modern times we have the Internet to help spread it around instead of, you know, old wives.

I had high hopes for "Among the Truthers" by Canadian journalist Jonathan Kay, but most people who've read the book say it doesn't explain why people are drawn to CTs.

Your list is good. I would add fear of vaccinations to my list of "favorites" (i.e. most hated CTs).

WildAboutHarry wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote:The International Communist Conspiracy (water fluoridation etc.)

Major Jack D. Ripper (in [i]Dr. Strangelove)[/i] wrote:I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

That was one of the greatest scenes in the history of film.

http://youtu.be/Qr2bSL5VQgM

Ad Orientem wrote: Somebody should do a study on the modern fetish for conspiracy theories. It is astonishing how many nutty theories on all sorts of subjects have become so widely accepted by otherwise rational and intelligent people. Some of my favorites...

I haven't heard most of those conspiracies in a long time.  The problem with debunking is it can make up facts, evidence and insinuations just as much as the conspiracy kooks do.  We only have someones word for it either way.  The only difference is it gets parroted out to "authoritative" sources for publishing to quench widespread dissent.  I'd like to comment on four:

1. I think this is the reason: http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm

3. Was allegedly a missle witnessed by numerous eyewitness.  Why is it hard to believe the government would cover its own ass?  Either it was a honest friendly fire mistake or some kind of terrorist incident.

4. The evidence appears to show Foster was murdered, but not by President Clinton.  I think a cover-up sacntioned by the President would be more rational.  Does anyone believe an inexperienced Hillary Clinton really turned $10K into $100K trading futures in just a month or two?

5.  There seems to be enough unidentifiable physical evidence and eyewitness stories now from both crash sites that I actually think Roswell ostensibly has more truth behind it than anything else on the conspiracy list!  If the government truly cannot keep a secret, then Roswell is a prime example of it.

MachineGhost wrote: I haven't heard most of those conspiracies in a long time.  The problem with debunking is it can make up facts, evidence and insinuations just as much as the conspiracy kooks do.  We only have someones word for it either way.  The only difference is it gets parroted out to "authoritative" sources for publishing to quench widespread dissent.  

But don't you think the burden of proof should be on the conspiracy theorists? If intelligent mainstream journalists actually found credence, word would get out.

I'll give you a real conspiracy instead of these phony ones:

Benghazi-Gate.

Reub wrote: I'll give you a real conspiracy instead of these phony ones:

Benghazi-Gate.

I think your confusing incompetence for conspiracy.

Ad Orientem wrote:

Reub wrote: I'll give you a real conspiracy instead of these phony ones:

Benghazi-Gate.

I think your confusing incompetence for conspiracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

According to the WTC 7 conspiracy storyline, what was the purpose of intentionally destroying this building?

Wouldn't the destruction of the twin towers be sufficient to achieve whatever the purpose of the conspiracy was supposed to be?

Simonjester wrote: planes into the towers and coverup conspiracy by blaming terrorists in (pilot) episode of lone gunman aired March 4th, 2001, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rsMG2hHsLo not only does it predict the even but the conspiracy surrounding it??

A conspiracy does seem far-fetched to me, but it really bothers me how all of the buildings that collapsed went straight down--demolition-style--rather than topping over sideways even slightly.

For example, here is WTC 7 collapsing in perfect demolition style:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Why do professional demolition teams get paid big bucks to carefully set up safe demolitions of large buildings over many days or weeks if all they need to do is set off some dynamite in some random spot in the building, set a few fires, and then just sit back and let the building collapse in perfect demolition style on its own? Evidently that's all they really need to do.

Reub wrote: I'll give you a real conspiracy instead of these phony ones:

Benghazi-Gate.

Reub, what malign motivation do you fear might have been behind "Benghazi-Gate"?