Pete Carroll is apparently a 9/11 truther

The "pull it" comment is pretty much enough for me to think he ordered the demolition. There were no fireman in the building, which he says he was referring to, and anyway, a group of fireman are not referred to as "it." He knows that, and he's been in real estate for about 40-50 years so he knows what "pull it" means, without question. Clearly, this guy meant demolition and he made a lot of money from this. Everyone in NYC know this guy has been a creep for years, including politicians, tenants, and regulators.

fzdbhfdb wrote:

O'Donnell wrote:

To those who refuse to believe no plane landed in the Pentagon, the names of the passengers on the plane who died that morning are well known. The disrespect you show their survivors is disgraceful.

I am not disrespecting anyone!

I didn't say no plane crashed there and I didn't say no one died on board a plane that day!

Do you even know if I had a relative who died in one of those crashes?

Maybe you are the one being disrespectful.

Those people may have died in other circumstances - I DON'T KNOW!

I find it HARD TO BELIEVE (happy to be shown conclusive evidence and admit that I know nothing about the subject) that a 757 would do so little damage to the building.

What is hard to believe? Two planes made plane-sized holes in the WTC towers. The pentagon had a plane-sized hole in it. All buildings later suffered collapses, although obviously with the pentagon being very wide it wasn't a complete collapse. Maybe you're expecting too much of a giant building vs. airplane encounter? Planes are fast and big but not particularly massive (they need to fly).

yer right on this one fact - the insurance policy was newer than I wrote. I misread a wikipedia entry.

It is a minor point tho - I can't think of a way it changes anything whether the policy was a year old or a a few months.

the place had already been bombed - he'd have to be an idiot not to insure it. And if he had preknowledge, why wouldn't he insure it for full value?

It's been repeatedly reported that Larry Silverstein had insured the Twin Towers a year earlier, and it is more than "co-incidental" that this insurance covered terrorist attacks. Further, Silverstein had numerous legal disputes that aimed to increase the payout by arguing that there were two separate attacks. To a first approximation, this was successful and Silverstein managed to claim approximately $4.6 billion.

Rebuttal: What conspiracy theorists don't mention about this is that the total cost of the towers was significantly in excess of this — the insurance value was way below what it should have been. Most of the legal wrangling after the fact was also due to the insurance contracts being incomplete. The total cost of the attack would be in the region of $7 billion or more, leaving a considerable cost once the relatively measly insurance payout was claimed. With too low an insurance value and less-than-solid contracts, literally none of the insurance-based activities seem to point to the actions of people who knew exactly what was going to happen in advance. If it was an insurance scam, it was the worst ever.[3]

It should also be noted that the World Trade Center had already been bombed once before in 1993, and that several major terror plots against U.S. landmarks had been uncovered since then. In light of this, an anti-terrorism insurance policy would appear to be an entirely logical purchase.

Shady stuff wrote:

The "pull it" comment is pretty much enough for me to think he ordered the demolition. There were no fireman in the building, which he says he was referring to, and anyway, a group of fireman are not referred to as "it." He knows that, and he's been in real estate for about 40-50 years so he knows what "pull it" means, without question. Clearly, this guy meant demolition and he made a lot of money from this. Everyone in NYC know this guy has been a creep for years, including politicians, tenants, and regulators.

so, troofer, you would rather believe that a crack crew of demolition experts had wired up a busy office building to explode, because the bldg owner knew that the twin towers would be hit by planes on 9/11. And not one of that crack squad was ever caught or squealed.

You would rather believe that impossible scenario than believe that 'pull it' meant 'pull out the fire fighters'.

You would also believe that the owner would be stupid enough to order the demolition in public.

do I have that right? Cause it sounds like a seriously stupid theory to me.

abandon hope wrote:

so, troofer, you would rather believe that a crack crew of demolition experts had wired up a busy office building to explode, because the bldg owner knew that the twin towers would be hit by planes on 9/11. And not one of that crack squad was ever caught or squealed.

You would rather believe that impossible scenario than believe that 'pull it' meant 'pull out the fire fighters'.

You would also believe that the owner would be stupid enough to order the demolition in public.

do I have that right? Cause it sounds like a seriously stupid theory to me.

Just going to drop this here. Are all these people idiots too? the 2150 engineers, architects, and demo experts who think something is amiss?

I'm not trying to prove anything either way, but I was always amazed that this many educated people found things wrong.

The funniest part is that you claim the "troofers" (spelling? lol) are ignorant and lack any ability to see evidence but you are doing the exact same thing they are doing... except you're on the other side of the coin. You are just as ignorant as they are because you are doing the exact same thing they are, claiming you are right, with your evidence, and disregarding everything to the contrary.

I'm not for either side, but you're doing an awful job successfully arguing your point.

the difference is that the facts are on my side. Done.

On the other side are...no facts.

it's like saying the flat earth society is the same as the MIT physics department. or that evolution is the same as creationism.

there are facts here. troofers have none of them on their side.

Not sure how you deal with that fact.

I don't know wrote:

for anyone who thinks the U.S. would not conduct a false flag operation, look up Operation Northwoods

very disheartening that the joint chiefs would promote that sort of thing, but of course it was rejected out of hand, forcefully.

Still, amazing to learn about.

Let me point out a few things that I'm trying to get across. I'll just use your last post:

Fallacies of Arguments:

Ad Hominem: Name calling = I'm right; calling people "troofers"

Inconsistent Comparison: The whole MIT, flat earth society comparison is the same as creationism/evolution- these aren't the same things. (really more of a false analogy if anything)

Argument from Ignorance: You are saying that you are right because you cannot be proven false

Appeal to common sense: the "troofers" are wrong because who in their right mind would believe such drivel

And really, your argument is that you are right, because they are wrong. "there are facts here. troofers have none of them on their side"

Now. Do you care to address what I asked about earlier? About how 2150 professionally licensed architects, engineers, and demolitions experts disagree with your claims?

show me a link and I will make the attempt

You have been provided with links throughout the entire discussion. A building goes down completely into its own footprint... All vertical support collapses at exactly the same time. The lease-holder of the building is asked a single question, "where were you the morning of Sept. 11?", and he proceeds to lie in classic fashion for 3 minutes about why he was not there that morning, but, he states that every other morning he would have been there.

Every psychological expert (Ph.D) that I have shown the video to have ALL agreed that he is lying about his story.

A large society of Engineering experts also disagree with the official narrative.

You can deny all you want, and I actually commend you for taking the time to attempt to support your argument, but there is much more evidence to support the side of the "troofers" than what you have provided. I mean seriously, PDF's with some "de-bunked" evidence as your "proof"... come on!

homer j wrote:

i watched the game the other day and pete was on the sideline, if you look to the left of him there was a man holding a clip board.

what was on that clipboard?

secret agendas?

is the NFL fixed?

i heard though a youtube video that the NFL make SIX BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, what about THAT pete?

where's the MONEY?

follow the f0ckin money, dodes!

YES, the NFL is fixed! Remember the Super Bowl a couple of years ago when the lights went off at the EXACTLY perfect time to save the game from complete boredom? Did anyone else notice that the 49'rs did not DO ANYTHING till the last 2 minutes of the game against Seattle. The NFL has gotten so bad and boring because of fixing. If you don't know who the sucker is, YOU'RE IT!

The major irony of your post is that behind the big conspiriacies is A DIETY (or maybe more accurately the dieties followers). The double major irony is that often the conspiracy and the diety are in plain site! In the case of 9/11 the deity was ISIS (the statue of liberty is Isis). When the towers fell (controlled demolition) it was the "unveiling of Isis". In the case of the JFK murder take a look at the Zapruder film on YouTube and you will see that Jackie shoots JFK in the head! Plain as day! Jackie was DURGA (in Hinduism) the ultimate God of the universe,a woman that is summoned when the Devil (JFK) is out of control. People don't invent conspiracies to feel better they want to know the truth (the truth may not make you feel better,lol).

far from truth wrote:

Let me point out a few things that I'm trying to get across. I'll just use your last post:

Fallacies of Arguments:

Ad Hominem: Name calling = I'm right; calling people "troofers"

Inconsistent Comparison: The whole MIT, flat earth society comparison is the same as creationism/evolution- these aren't the same things. (really more of a false analogy if anything)

Argument from Ignorance: You are saying that you are right because you cannot be proven false

Appeal to common sense: the "troofers" are wrong because who in their right mind would believe such drivel

And really, your argument is that you are right, because they are wrong. "there are facts here. troofers have none of them on their side"

Now. Do you care to address what I asked about earlier? About how 2150 professionally licensed architects, engineers, and demolitions experts disagree with your claims?

A majority of the of the "experts" have been shown to be little more than interns or undergraduates studying architecture or whatever. Even still, just because you're an "expert" doesn't mean you're immune from subscribing to crackpot conspiracy theories. For every "expert" truther, there's an Expert debunking their silly claim.

Every half wit theory has been debunked. All of it. If you still believe any of this you either A: haven't done your full research (heaven knows you've already done the research to support your preconceived belief), or B: You don't care and would rather continue to subscribe to ill conceived conspiracy theories.

He makes several good points.

rtfgrtf wrote:

He makes several good points.

But that's the problem. Everybody makes good points which is why everyone is still arguing about all of this. No one can win this game. No one can trump the other. And to think anyone here has any sort of logical argument is false.

And so, because I like to watch the world burn, I asked the question, "Why would so many professionally licensed people, with a collective education of at least 10,000 years, think that there was something wrong with the official story of the WTC building collapses?"

The point here is not to prove any side right, it's to show the complete pointlessness of any sort of argument on this matter because it gets us... nowhere. I am just here to call people out.

far from truth wrote:

rtfgrtf wrote:

He makes several good points.

Everybody makes good points

totally, irrefutably false assertion

every 911 conspiracy theory has been thoroughly debunked

far from truth wrote:

"Why would so many professionally licensed people, with a collective education of at least 10,000 years, think that there was something wrong with the official story of the WTC building collapses?"

The point here is not to prove any side right, it's to show the complete pointlessness of any sort of argument on this matter because it gets us... nowhere. I am just here to call people out.

Just because you're a licensed professional doesn't mean you don't have the type of personality that subscribes to conspiracy theories. It's no coincidence that many people that are 9-11 truthers also believe in other types of conspiracy theories. If you want to believe in an idea you'll use your expertise to make things "fit" no matter how illogical it sounds. We're all guilty of it - it's human nature.

far from truth wrote:

rtfgrtf wrote:

He makes several good points.

But that's the problem. Everybody makes good points which is why everyone is still arguing about all of this. No one can win this game. No one can trump the other. And to think anyone here has any sort of logical argument is false.

And so, because I like to watch the world burn, I asked the question, "Why would so many professionally licensed people, with a collective education of at least 10,000 years, think that there was something wrong with the official story of the WTC building collapses?"

The point here is not to prove any side right, it's to show the complete pointlessness of any sort of argument on this matter because it gets us... nowhere. I am just here to call people out.

I studied the JFK murder for 30 years and it got me "nowhere" then I saw a high resolution video of Jackie shooting JFK in the head (Jackie did it) so these things CAN BE SOLVED! It is just that many of the 9/11, JFK conspiracy people don't want things solved either! Than they would be out of a job! It is a huge industry.

trees for the forest wrote:

What is hard to believe? The pentagon had a plane-sized hole in it.

That is what I find hard to believe...

Look at this: