9/11- Interesting video raises some serious questions

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Again, why would they bother?

1) Because it's mandatory.

2) To bolster their case.

3) To silence their critics and/or political enemies.

4) Public demand for a meaningful investigation.

5) Because it was one of the most important events in American history.

Wouldn't that be a tremendous waste of money, time and resources?

To gather up a few parts, check the serial numbers, and confirm that they matched the aircraft and flight numbers?

Can't imagine how this would be all that difficult - after all, you just posted a pic of one of the engines lying on a sidewalk in Manhattan.

We know why these aircraft crashed. We know who was responsible. We know why the buildings came down.

There are still a lot of unanswered questions and problems with the official story.

To me, the idea that Bin Laden is still alive, is a national embarrassment and the grreatest symbol in existence of Bush's mind boggling incompetence.

No argument there. :)

[W*GS]

You call this a crime report? Oh please.

I call it far better and fact-based than any of the loony stuff you've proffered.

[mhgaffney]

I think we all know what happened; Our government was asleep at the wheel and more committed to its little internecine, bureaucratic warfare than it was concerned with its duty to the American people.

This is the perceived wisdom but the facts don't support it. 911 was not a failure of the security agencies. The US government knew in advance that an attack was coming - even the details and the date. At this point there's no serious doubt about complicity. What we've been arguing on this board is the full extent of that complicity and involvement - which admittedly remains controversial.

At a minimum the Bush White House was prepared to allow thousands of Americans to die in another Pearl Harbor -- in order to implement its aggressive foreign policy agenda, which the American people would otherwise not support, and which was posted as early as 1997 on the PNAC web site.

We are now reaping the disastrous results of that policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, in Lebanon and around the world.

MG

[W*GS]

A good subtotal with which to start would be the number of people who cashed in on those American Airlines put options the day before the attacks.

(People who have never been tracked down or brought to justice by the government.)

On what charge?

[W*GS]

This is the perceived wisdom but the facts don't support it. 911 was not a failure of the security agencies. The US government knew in advance that an attack was coming - even the details and the date. At this point there's no serious doubt about complicity. What we've been arguing on this board is the full extent of that complicity and involvement - which admittedly remains controversial.

You keep repeating your fantasies as though they were fact, making errors that completely undermine your beliefs, again and again. Yet you blithely continue on, building on your falling-apart house of nonsense. You fail to address key issues that destroy your case, and go on as if nothing is amiss.

You couldn't win a high school debate with your tactics.

[alkemical]

is the 9/11 report by the 9/11 commission 100% accurate?

[W*GS]

is the 9/11 report by the 9/11 commission 100% accurate?

No - but you're demanding an impossible level of fidelity to reality.

Why?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This is the perceived wisdom but the facts don't support it. 911 was not a failure of the security agencies. The US government knew in advance that an attack was coming - even the details and the date. At this point there's no serious doubt about complicity. What we've been arguing on this board is the full extent of that complicity and involvement - which admittedly remains controversial.

At a minimum the Bush White House was prepared to allow thousands of Americans to die in another Pearl Harbor -- in order to implement its aggressive foreign policy agenda, which the American people would otherwise not support, and which was posted as early as 1997 on the PNAC web site.

We are now reaping the disastrous results of that policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, in Lebanon and around the world.

MG

That's a pretty accurate summation.

As for me, all I have to do is ask "who benefited from 9/11, and how?"

Then the idea that it was just coincidence or pure chance becomes utterly laughable.

[W*GS]

As for me, all I have to do is ask "who benefitted from 9/11, and how?"

Then the idea that it was just coincidence or pure chance becomes utterly laughable.

And with your well-known fair and objective view of conservatives, Bush, and the Right, your beliefs are reasonable.

NOT.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

is the 9/11 report by the 9/11 commission 100% accurate?

More important, IMO, did the 9/11 Commission ask all the important/hardball questions?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

From Catherine Austin Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner in the first Bush Administration:

"Cui Bono?"

"Cui Bono?" is Latin for "who benefits?"

Is there a connection between the rich flow of profit and market manipulations flowing from 9-11 and the stonewalling by the Administration and the agency members of the National Security Council?

Time has passed since September 11, 2001. As new budgets are approved, financial statements published, laws passed, taxes cut and stocks go up, it is easier to identify who benefited politically and financially from 9-11.

As we map out the financial "real deal" on 9-11, we realize there are three categories of people benefiting.

Richly Guilty: The first category of people who benefited were those who are guilty and complicit in designing, implementing and financing the 9-11 operation. On such a sophisticated and successful covert operation, the people responsible would have had budgets and financing and would have organized the operation to maximize their political and financial benefits. This is the nature of economic warfare.

Richly Opportunistic: The second category of people who benefited were those who were opportunistic in taking advantage of 9-11 as an economic and political event as soon as it happened. Some folks, such as money managers, are obligated as fiduciaries to be opportunistic. Others, such as government officials, may be opportunistic at the cost of ignoring their fiduciary obligations. As one retired banking executive said, "Let's face it, if the guys in Washington had been doing their job instead of helping their pals make money, 9-11 could never have happened."

Sustainably Naïve: The third category of people who benefited where those who shared in the political and economic profits generated by the first two categories. Taking the position that, "money has no smell," the large number of people in this category are generally not cognizant of their complicity through the incentive system created by "voting with their money, time and attention."

Where to begin to determine the specifics of who benefited? This is a significant task for private citizens who do not have the rich flow of investigatory, intelligence and enforcement resources of government. Hence, a citizen led effort will need to break the task down into manageable collaborative pieces.

One way for global networks of researchers, blog authors and Internet media to start to build the "Cui Bono?" unanswered questions of 9-11 is to develop a framework that outlines the general areas of profiteering.

Top 20 Areas of 9-11 Profiteering

Here are my candidates for the top twenty profit flows resulting from or related to 9-11 and the response to 9-11:

Money Missing from the US Treasury

In fiscal 1999 and 2000, the Department of Defense (DOD) reported $3.3 trillion of undocumentable adjustments in the process of failing to produce audited financial statements. In the summer of 2001, the appropriations for DOD failed to report out of committee before the summer recess. The political tension between arms manufacturers and defense contractors who anticipated pay back from the Bush election victory and those pressing for federal spending and financing to conform to spending and securities law was resolved by 9-11.

The questions remain – who has the $3.3 trillion plus missing from the US Treasury? what is the role of the NY Federal Reserve Bank and its members as depository for the US government and agent for the Exchange Stabilization Fund? and why are we proposing to cut back social security rather than getting these resources back?

Useful Link:

Where is the Money?
http://www.whereisthemoney.org

US Stock Market Pump & Dump Fraud

At the time of 9-11, federal and state enforcement leaders were facing a mountain of documentation that up to $6 trillion had been fraudulently skimmed out of pension funds and retail stock holdings through insider trading and other forms of corporate and banking financial fraud and securities law violations.

The events of 9-11 are alleged to have destroyed significant amounts of documentation related to investigations against Wall Street firms and leading New York Federal Reserve members. Subsequent to 9-11, enforcement bureaucracies attention shifted in response to the Patriot Act and a shift in budgetary resources away from policing white collar crime by corporate and banking leadership.

Useful Links:

Le Metropole Cafe
http://www.lemetropolecafe.com

Sanders Research Associates
http://www.sandersresearch.com

Scoop Media
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason

From the Wilderness
http:///www.fromthewilderness.com

No More Fake News
http://www.nomorefakenews.com

Tom Flocco
http://www.tomflocco.com


Federal Credit Arbitrage & Relaxed Monetary Policy

Financial institutions who have access to the federal credit can use such credit to raise deposits and savings from citizens, paying little or no interest, and then lend it back to the citizens at much higher interest rates through financing the US Treasury, mortgage agency securities or in relaxed lending policies which charge relatively expensive interest and fees. Hence, it is now a common fact pattern to find people in America earning 2% on their bank CD's while their neighbors are paying Citibank, JP Morgan Chase and the IRS 18% on their debt.

Subsequent to 9-11, these types of rich federal credit arbitrage profits appear to have skyrocketed as the facilitating ease in monetary policy was matched by extraordinary increases in government debt and easing in consumer debt policies and more industry favorable bankruptcy and lending laws. In short, 9-11 appears to have been used by Greenspan and the NY Federal Reserve to promote the back door liquidation of middle class equity through federal credit arbitrage.

This kind of manipulation allows sophisticated financial institutions to "put" their losses back to the government and the citizens in a "heads we win, tails we win" economic model which is hard for the non-financially literate citizen to understand.

Useful Links:

Le Metropole Cafe
http://www.lemetropolecafe.com

Sanders Research Associates
http://www.sandersresearch.com


US Military and Policing Deployment Globally

With important air cover from 9-11 and the 9-11 response, the flow of government contracts and economic activity is diminishing throughout the United States. That is because our military is being deployed abroad. As these government contracts and related economic flows move to Eurasia, the private equity pump and dumps move from onshore to offshore.

Useful Links:

Centre for Research on Globalization
http://www.globalresearch.ca

From the Wilderness
http://www.fromthewilderness.com

UnAnswered Questions re: CSC DynCorp
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0304/S00158.htm

Eagle Eye
http://www.eagleeyeinc.com/

DynCorp wins $1.75 global policing contract to support
US Department of State $6 billion contact support for civilian policing missions
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040224/latu054_1.html

Scoop Media
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason

The American Tapeworm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0304/S00228.htm

Eurasian Oil & Gas/Afghanistan & Iraq War & Occupation

The 9-11 response has been used to justify increased military, political and covert support to ensure that American and European oil interests are protected in the Middle East and worldwide.

As part of the 9-11 response, the US has invaded and occupied two sovereign nations and, in the process, increased war profiteering, narcotics trafficking and organized crime flows in these areas.

Of particular concern is the necessity that the draft will be re-instituted after the Presidential election and global invasions will continue to subsidize the war profiteering business model.

This model is essentially one in which government pays all the expenses, the citizens give their lands, lives and limbs, and the economic benefits and private booty flow to a handful of private parties and their investors. When viewed by age group, it is a war on the young by the old.

See links above.

Insurance Industry Legislation

After 9-11, the insurance industry won important legislation that shifts significant risk from private investors to citizens.

Useful Link:

Under New Bill, Taxpayers to Underwrite Insurance Losses
http://www.american-reporter.com/2,307/709.html

Airline & Other Special Legislation

Additional legislation and special benefits were provided to the airline industries as well as other corporate and banking interests. Significant tax cuts would fit into this category.

Useful Link:

Tom Flocco
http://www.tomflocco.com

Increased National Security Appropriations

Budgets for the national security state increased across the board, including to support its control over domestic functions and to deploy globally both in space and on land.

Useful Link:

Sanders Research Associates
http://www.sandersresearch.com

Commodity & Financial Market Manipulations

While allegations of insider trading on 9-11 have circulated in the press, there has been little comment on the extent to which the 9-11 response supported continued manipulation by the NY Federal Reserve and its member banks, including through the US Treasury Exchange Stabilization Fund, of the gold, silver, stock and other capital markets and the continued build up of private unregulated derivative positions.

Useful Links:

Le Metropole Cafe
http://www.lemetropolecafe.com

Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee
http://www.gata.org

Is Silver Scandal on the Horizon?
http://www.insightmag.com/news/
2004/03/30/National/Is.Silver.Scandal.On.The.Horizon-632699.shtml


Fund Raising for Trusts & Endowments

While not-for-profits raised a tremendous amount of donations as a result of 9-11, where the money went is a question. Was it used to respond to 9-11 or did it enrich endowments that were reinvested in corporate and bank stocks and the securities financing the profiteering?

Useful Link:

The Red Cross in the Cross Hairs?
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=117216

Privatization and Redevelopment of the WTC

The World Trade Center was sold by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey with a transfer of mortgage shortly before 9-11. Understanding the economics of these transfers, the controls and economics of the losses and the potential profits of the redevelopment are essential to understanding what has happened. Also essential is understanding the various insurance and security company players who had access to the building and building specifications, information systems and archives and the law firms who represent them.

Useful Link:

Centre for Research on Globalization
http://www.globalresearch.ca

Airport & Building Security Contracts

The increase in airport and building security and the centralizing control of it's outsourcing has contributed significantly to the costs of these facilities, who controls the facilities, flow of traffic and data and the profits flowing to selective parties providing these services. A look at the economics of the related insurance business and premiums is warranted. Analysis of the average time to move through the facilities of corporate travelers and their luggage versus non-corporate travelers and their luggage and who controls that differential and the related data will be instructive.

Useful Links:

Kroll claims 10,000 building security assignments after 9-11
http://www.solariactionnetwork.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=2321#2321

Suppression of the Florida Media Recount & Black Box Voting

US media canceled the announcement of their recount of the Florida presidential election as a result of 9-11. Allegedly, this would have raised legitimate questions as to the Bush Administration's legitimacy.

After 9-11, the installation of computer voting systems for which there is no verifiable paper trail has accelerated. This increases the chances that Florida type events will increase. The companies doing the installation appear to be predominantly Republican owned and controlled.

Profits are generated both from installation of the system, as well from the benefits to those who can rig elections as a result. For example, it is worth estimating the extent to which rigging the Florida election impacted who got how much 9-11 profits.

Useful Links:

Major Media Suppress Recount Study of Florida Vote
http://www.washingtonfreepress.org/54/MediaSupress.htm

Scoop Media's Black Box Voting Series
http://scoop.co.nz/mason/features/?s=usacoup

Patriot Act Consolidation of Banking & Money Laundering Market Share

The Patriot Act, available off the shelf at 9-11, was passed with little legislative access or discussion. It authorized extraordinary control of financial cash flows and data about financial cash flows. What is the value of controlling an estimated $500 billion- $1 trillion of annual US money laundering?

Retirement Benefit Privitization & Cutbacks

In the shift to a permanent war time economy, the alleged insolvency of the Pension Benefit Corporation, Social Security, the health care system and the credits behind the mortgage securities and other securitized consumer debt held in US pension funds and retirements savings has received short shrift financially and conversationally.

Corporate Media

It is essential to understand the impact of 9-11 and the 9-11 response to the market share and profits of corporate media and the linkages between investors in corporate media and in the corporations and banks that most benefited from the policies promoted by corporate media.

HAARP, Ocean, Space & Satellite Weaponry

Since 9-11, we have watched the role out of a significant amount of black budget technology. The intimate militarization of all planetary air, land, water and oceans and space with electromagnetic, laser, sonar and other invisible weaponry implies a zero privacy world for all living things. This is a world where our thoughts and feelings are not free of 24-7 interference and influence unless we wish to tunnel deep underground. Perhaps that is why the black budget is financing so many underground facilities.

Useful Link:

Dr. Nick Beglich on HARRP
http://alberta.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/4519.php

Centre for Research on Globalization
http://www.globalresearch.ca

From the Wilderness
http://www.fromthewilderness.com

Law Firms

Always telling, a review of what law firms are representing the parties profiting in all the other categories will say a great deal. Attorney client priveledge remains the primary railroad to protect the rich flow of organized crime profits behind national security law. Lawyers are often the channel for political campaign contributions and political lobbying as well.

Useful Links:

Open Secrets
http://www.opensecrets.org

The American Lawyer Law 100
http://www.law.com/special/professionals/
amlaw/2003/amlaw100/amlaw_100main.html

9-11 and Enron

The crossover between the players involved in 9-11 profiteering and in Enron's rise, fall and clean-up are mystifying. There are linkages here that can offer important clues if we analyze them as related economic flows. One hypothesis is that Enron was being used by the NY Federal Reserve member banks as US Treasury depositories to launder some of the monies disappearing from the federal government.

Useful Link:

The Real Deal on Enron
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0304/S00031.htm

Promotions

Who has been promoted following 9-11? The salaries, stock options, health care and other perks of the key players both private and public are well worth reviewing carefully.

Continued: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0403/S00244.htm

[alkemical]

No - but you're demanding an impossible level of fidelity to reality.

Why?


Well if there wasn't an official investigative action done on 9/11 - then why should i buy into it?

I mean afterall all the 'right wingers' want to biatch about how bad the gov't programs operate - then want me to buy into a report - in which there wasn't a full investigation done - and to take the gov'ts word - in which they were at the very least neglible on not following through repeated warnings due to red tape BS.

Tell me wags, how am i supposed to have 'faith' in that?

[alkemical]

Oh that really long sources cited post LABF just made

SOME of those links are very much valid and very good.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Oh that really long sources cited post LABF just made

SOME of those links are very much valid and very good.

:thumbsup:

And, before anyone starts screaming "far-left conspiracy nut," note that the author is a former Assistant Secretary of Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner in the first Bush Administration.

[W*GS]

Well if there wasn't an official investigative action done on 9/11 - then why should i buy into it?

What would satisfy you as to what a proper investigation would be?

[W*GS]

And, before anyone starts screaming "far-left conspiracy nut," note that the author is a former Assistant Secretary of Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner in the first Bush Administration.

That doesn't mean she's not a conspiracy nut - the far left hardly has a monopoly on that.

On the other hand, Fitts did co-author an article on conspiracyplanet with Cynthia McKinney, going over much of the same ground.

[alkemical]

What would satisfy you as to what a proper investigation would be?



I'd like to see not only a juncture between groups like the FAA/NHTSA/FBI/CIA/NSA + Investigative panels from the airlines (their own investigators) + the insurance companies own investigators + full disclosure on any and all materials relating to al quieda, OBL, all money movement (FTC + banks) + Full investigations into the security compnaies that provided security for the WTC buildings, the airports, port authority + INS....

i'm sure i can come up with some more - i mean a total and thorough investigation.

But then wags, i guess if it's not in the economist, it's not true - right?

[alkemical]

That doesn't mean she's not a conspiracy nut - the far left hardly has a monopoly on that.

On the other hand, Fitts did co-author an article on conspiracyplanet with Cynthia McKinney, going over much of the same ground.



Actually Wags, lots of those links are valid and spot on. The gold anti trust lawsuit - the money missing from the treasury - those are valid and not conspiracy -


I love it how the people that bash 'conspiracy' theories totally shut their brains down to anything that isn't of the 'norm'.

[W*GS]

I'd like to see not only a juncture between groups like the FAA/NHTSA/FBI/CIA/NSA + Investigative panels from the airlines (their own investigators) + the insurance companies own investigators + full disclosure on any and all materials relating to al quieda, OBL, all money movement (FTC + banks) + Full investigations into the security compnaies that provided security for the WTC buildings, the airports, port authority + INS....

You know what that would reveal?

Incompetence and bureaucratic ass-covering - just what we'd expect.

But then wags, i guess if it's not in the economist, it's not true - right?

Bite me.

[W*GS]

I love it how the people that bash 'conspiracy' theories totally shut their brains down to anything that isn't of the 'norm'.

I'm curious why some people see "conspiracy" behind everything.

I'll let you in on something - it's all a conspiracy - the FBI/CIA/NSA/KGB/NASCAR/FDA/NFL/CBS/NAFTA/UN/SCOTUS/POTUS - all of it. It's more insidious that you can possibly imagine...

[The Lone Bolt]

LABF: All I see in your article is a lot of innuendo and useless links. Take a look at the contents of this link for instance:

http://www.nomorefakenews.com

THE BIG FORK IN THE HIGHWAY

AUGUST 19, 2006. Here is another backgrounder for my ongoing tele-workshop, DESIRE, MANIFESTATION, AND FULFILLMENT. You can still click on the link above and get in on the 2 remaining live sessions---AND you’ll get the entire workshop on CD or mp3.

I almost didn’t finish this article. I thought it might be too far-out. But I was motivated to complete it and post it because, all around me, I see people mistaking some sort of Pattern for spiritual insight. People are addicted to pattern. When they see pieces of a puzzle come together, they’re mesmerized.

It’s a form of hypnotism, and it can be very sophisticated.

The recent hysteria surrounding the so-called Da Vinci code is, in part, all about a fascination for pattern. “The mystery will be revealed, and then you will know. And then you can rest on your laurels.”

The storyline tends to go this way: “There is a key, and I’m handing it you, and when you find the door and insert the key, you will walk into a room and all will be revealed. You’ll see ancient inscriptions and pictures and histories you never knew existed. You’ll study these signs and symbols, and you’ll become enlightened.”

It sounds good, but in the long run it offers up nothing of enduring value.

Enduring value exists in quite a different territory.

The interest keeps growing in what people variously call magic or fulfillment or enlightenment or self-realization----but what is the core of all of this? The true core?

Down through history, people have tried to make a convincing case for HIGHER PATTERN. They claim that, if people plug into such a pattern or field, they can change their lives and their thoughts and their perceptions.

This is true.

I've entered domains of forms. The effect can be uplifting and expansive. The magnetic attraction can be very compelling.

Which is why so many people think THIS is the great secret.

It isn't.

IT ISN'T.

Higher pattern, energy fields, whatever you want to label it...it's ultimately just another stage play, another version of reality.

It's another coat you can put on. A more expensive coat that feels good.

Believe me when I tell you that ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE MISTAKE THIS COAT FOR THE GRAND SECRET.

It babbles on for another page or so. How is this relevant information? It's not even coherent, much less relevant. As a mental health professional I would also like to add that writing like this suggests schizophrenia, disorganized type.

And how's this for innuendo:

Richly Guilty: The first category of people who benefited were those who are guilty and complicit in designing, implementing and financing the 9-11 operation. On such a sophisticated and successful covert operation, the people responsible would have had budgets and financing and would have organized the operation to maximize their political and financial benefits. This is the nature of economic warfare.

Who are these "richly guilty?" Can he name anyone in particular? He makes an accusation here but offers no supporting evidence. How about some hard proof of this conspiracy? Innuendo is not proof, and if you are going to make a statement of fact like this one, you better be able to back it up with something other than circumstantial evidence.

Subsequent to 9-11, these types of rich federal credit arbitrage profits appear to have skyrocketed as the facilitating ease in monetary policy was matched by extraordinary increases in government debt and easing in consumer debt policies and more industry favorable bankruptcy and lending laws. In short, 9-11 appears to have been used by Greenspan and the NY Federal Reserve to promote the back door liquidation of middle class equity through federal credit arbitrage.

How did 9/11 lead directly to "ease in monetary policy" or an "easing in consumer debt policies and more industry favorable bankruptcy and lending laws?" The links provided offer no information on this. The author establishes no cause and effect relationship, only his opinions on this legislation and vague innuendo that it had something to do with 9/11. This article is also full of other examples of making interpretations of laws and linking them to 9/11 for no reason other than they were passed into law after 9/11.


And I LOVE this one:

While not-for-profits raised a tremendous amount of donations as a result of 9-11, where the money went is a question. Was it used to respond to 9-11 or did it enrich endowments that were reinvested in corporate and bank stocks and the securities financing the profiteering?

Did it? Or maybe the donations went to space aliens trying to breed an army of Loch Ness monsters to take over the world! Maybe it went to build a secret space station for Elvis! Who knows? The author's suggestion is pure speculation. The link he provides does not lead to a web page, and he offers no evidence in this article to back up his accusation.

I am not going to waste my time on every link provided here because the ones that I did check out were -- all of them -- completely useless and irrelevant. This article is full of nothing but innuendo and really thin speculations that don't even come close to proving anything.

Really LABF, this article is convincing to you? Amazing.

[W*GS]

I am not going to waste my time on every link provided here because the ones that I did check out were -- all of them -- completely useless and irrelevant. This article is full of nothing but innuendo and really thin speculations that don't even come close to proving anything.

Really LABF, this article is convincing to you? Amazing.

For some people, that's all it takes - innuendo, smears, slurs and lies, so long as the target is something they already despise and fear.

[alkemical]

You know what that would reveal?

Incompetence and bureaucratic ass-covering - just what we'd expect.



Bite me.


You know what else it would uncover - that some people did benifit monetarily and through expanisve use of power because of 9/11.


What's a matter wags, don't like it when someone pokes a stick at your authority of information?

[alkemical]

I'm curious why some people see "conspiracy" behind everything.

I'll let you in on something - it's all a conspiracy - the FBI/CIA/NSA/KGB/NASCAR/FDA/NFL/CBS/NAFTA/UN/SCOTUS/POTUS - all of it. It's more insidious that you can possibly imagine...



So lets see the Wags hypocrisy:

"Why do some people see conspiracy?" Then answers own said question....

Forrest/trees wags

[alkemical]

All I see here is a lot of innuendo and useless links. Take a look at the contents of this link for instance:

http://www.nomorefakenews.com



It babbles on for another page or so. How is this relevant information? It's not even coherent, much less relevant. As a mental health professional I would also like to add that writing like this suggests schizophrenia, disorganized type.

And how's this for innuendo:



Who are these "richly guilty?" Can he name anyone in particular? He makes an accusation here but offers no supporting evidence. How about some hard proof of this conspiracy? Innuendo is not proof, and if you are going to make a statement of fact like this one, you better be able to back it up with something other than circumstantial evidence.



How did 9/11 lead directly to "ease in monetary policy" or an "easing in consumer debt policies and more industry favorable bankruptcy and lending laws?" The links provided offer no information on this. The author establishes no cause and effect relationship, only his opinions on this legislation and vague innuendo that it had something to do with 9/11. This article is also full of other examples of making interpretations of laws and linking them to 9/11 for no reason other than they were passed into law after 9/11.


And I LOVE this one:



Did it? Or maybe the donations went to space aliens trying to breed an army of Loch Ness monsters to take over the world! Maybe it went to build a secret space station for Elvis! Who knows? The author's suggestion is pure speculation. The link he provides does not lead to a web page, and he offers no evidence in this article to back up his accusation.

I am not going to waste my time on every link provided here because the ones that I did check out were -- all of them -- completely useless and irrelevant. This article is full of nothing but innuendo and really thin speculations that don't even come close to proving anything.

Really LABF, this article is convincing to you? Amazing.



I don't agree with how the artile points or presents itself.

But the Gold antitrust lawsuit and the missing treasury monies are indeed FACT - not conspiracy.

[W*GS]

You know what else it would uncover - that some people did benifit monetarily and through expanisve use of power because of 9/11.

Just how naive are you? If "They" have kept their benefits hidden so far, don't you think they'd be able to fend off yet another useless investigation? Actually laying out the facts would be quite a shift in their "style"...

What's a matter wags, don't like it when someone pokes a stick at your authority of information?

I don't like it when someone takes a cheap shot at my intellect.

That said, one issue of "The Economist" is worth 1000 of your posts.

[W*GS]

So lets see the Wags hypocrisy:

"Why do some people see conspiracy?" Then answers own said question....

Forrest/trees wags

The sarcasm was over your head.

[alkemical]

Just how naive are you? If "They" have kept their benefits hidden so far, don't you think they'd be able to fend off yet another useless investigation? Actually laying out the facts would be quite a shift in their "style"...



I don't like it when someone takes a cheap shot at my intellect.

That said, one issue of "The Economist" is worth 1000 of your posts.


Actually i didn't take a shot at your intellect. But it's nice to know your ego clouds your judgement and makes you jump to conclusions that aren't really there, now isn't it wags.

I was proving a point. You want to smear and queer any other source, but want to treat the economist as gold. (hence, a while back i asked what you thought about mises to compare/contrast what mises gives as to what the economist gives: so remove head from ass wags). Yet when someone likes to take a bit of a poke at what you use as argument from authority all of a sudden it's your intellect, your ego. Touchey touchey. (PS i guess it's good i have a few thousand posts, then i'm a few issues of the economist ;) )


So the end result of what you are saying wags is - it doesn't matter what the truth is since democracy is going to die anyway - since there's nothing you, i or anyone else can do a damned thing about it?

That is an answer i refuse.

[alkemical]

The sarcasm was over your head.


Sorry, i can't tell when it's your time of the month over the internet wags.

[W*GS]

So the end result of what you are saying wags is - it doesn't matter what the truth is since democracy is going to die anyway - since there's nothing you, i or anyone else can do a damned thing about it?

Wrong.

Seeing conspiracy behind everything is wrong. You always ascribe conspiracy when incompetence does just fine as an explanation - and even then, that's not always reasonable. Just plain ignorance works too.

Since we cannot know the future, facts we know now as obvious weren't so obvious before they became known. That's one key aspect (to be specific) of the 6 Aug memo, which you (and others) hold up as essential to the whole "The government (and Bush) had foreknowledge of 9/11" conspiracy nonsense.

[alkemical]

Wrong.

Seeing conspiracy behind everything is wrong. You always ascribe conspiracy when incompetence does just fine as an explanation - and even then, that's not always reasonable. Just plain ignorance works too.

Since we cannot know the future, facts we know now as obvious weren't so obvious before they became known. That's one key aspect (to be specific) of the 6 Aug memo, which you (and others) hold up as essential to the whole "The government (and Bush) had foreknowledge of 9/11" conspiracy nonsense.


Wags,

I don't always subscribe to conspiracy and this you know....man!

The aug6 memo can prove two things, correct?

Either A) Blatant incompetence or B) it was ignored

For you reality is A, for me Reality sometimes B, where did schrodigner leave his damned cat.......

Anyway - what if (stop!) we are both right?

[Rohirrim]

Since we cannot know the future, facts we know now as obvious weren't so obvious before they became known. That's one key aspect (to be specific) of the 6 Aug memo, which you (and others) hold up as essential to the whole "The government (and Bush) had foreknowledge of 9/11" conspiracy nonsense.

Or, as Donald Rumsfeld put it: As we know, there are no known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know.
;D

[W*GS]

The aug6 memo can prove two things, correct?

Either A) Blatant incompetence or B) it was ignored

For you reality is A, for me Reality sometimes B, where did schrodigner leave his damned cat.......

Anyway - what if (stop!) we are both right?

The significance of the 6 Aug memo wasn't appreciated at the time (that doesn't mean it was "ignored"); I wonder how many other memos of "equal" importance were written on that day, and the days before and after. Indeed, the 6 Aug memo is a perfect example of 20/20 hindsight.

[alkemical]

The significance of the 6 Aug memo wasn't appreciated at the time (that doesn't mean it was "ignored"); I wonder how many other memos of "equal" importance were written on that day, and the days before and after. Indeed, the 6 Aug memo is a perfect example of 20/20 hindsight.


Wags,

can you tell me with 100% certainty that this was not ignored intentionally by somebody?

[W*GS]

can you tell me with 100% certainty that this was not ignored intentionally by somebody?

Can you tell me with 100% certainty that it was ignored?

[alkemical]

Can you tell me with 100% certainty that it was ignored?


Well if you can't give me a gaurantee - why should i offer one?

[Spider]

Well if you can't give me a gaurantee - why should i offer one?
why ? the answer is obvious ...... FDR locked up a bunch of Japaneese Americans is why ..........

[defenseman]

Can you tell me with 100% certainty that it was ignored?

Exactly. the fact is neither can be proven with any sort of certianty. Ergo, more information/data is required to solidify either. However, to "assume" it was ignored is dead wrong, and to preach this is absolutely dead wrong. The same goes for the other take. It is what it is, until, further information surfaces, if ever..dman

[defenseman]

What would satisfy you as to what a proper investigation would be?

Unfortunately, some here will not be happy w/o an investigation that proves what they believe. If it doesn't, it wasn't good enough.....dman

[alkemical]

Exactly. the fact is neither can be proven with any sort of certianty. Ergo, more information/data is required to solidify either. However, to "assume" it was ignored is dead wrong, and to preach this is absolutely dead wrong. The same goes for the other take. It is what it is, until, further information surfaces, if ever..dman


Finally someone figured out what i've been phucking saying

[W*GS]

Well if you can't give me a gaurantee - why should i offer one?

Let me put it this way - does the fact that 9/11 occurred prove that the 6 Aug memo was deliberately ignored?

Remember:

Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to xxxxxxxxxxx service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an xxxxxxxxxx service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladin's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.
Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Ladin associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al-Qa'ida members - including some who are US citizens - have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qa'ida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a xxxxxxxxxx service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

[Rohirrim]

Exactly. the fact is neither can be proven with any sort of certianty. Ergo, more information/data is required to solidify either. However, to "assume" it was ignored is dead wrong, and to preach this is absolutely dead wrong. The same goes for the other take. It is what it is, until, further information surfaces, if ever..dman


But there are some interesting facts. After the Cole, Clinton didn’t want to unleash any counter attack, and basically do what Bush 1st did to him, start a war (Mogadishu) and then leave office, so he sent Louis Freeh to Yemen to investigate. Then he sent the entire terrorism portfolio with Sandy Berger, who told the Bush transition team, “Your number one priority will be terrorism and Osama Bin Laden” and turned over the portfolio. After the Bush inauguration in January, it was decided (by whom we don’t know) that Cheney would be in charge of all terrorism related issues. He held his first meeting regarding terrorism one week before 9/11. Rice got the “Osama will strike the U.S.” memo in August. During most of this period of time, especially after August, Richard Clark was requesting meetings with the top officials in the Bush administration to pass on his concerns that an attack was imminent. He got his ten minute meeting a week before 9/11.

The important meeting is the one Cheney held in March of 2001 with the heads of the various energy companies. It was during this meeting that they discussed the fact that Saddam had sold his operating contracts to Russia, France and China and that once these countries got Iraq’s pumps flowing, they would pump out oil to their heart’s content and drive down prices worldwide.

[alkemical]

Let me put it this way - does the fact that 9/11 occurred prove that the 6 Aug memo was deliberately ignored?

Remember:

Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to xxxxxxxxxxx service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an xxxxxxxxxx service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladin's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.
Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Ladin associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al-Qa'ida members - including some who are US citizens - have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qa'ida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a xxxxxxxxxx service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.



Wags,

if a terrorist decleared war on the USA and was successful to some extent to carry out attacks and a memo came through and stated a big spectacular attack was to take place and nothing was really done or heeded - where am i supposed to stand? Just brush it off on idiocy?

[W*GS]

if a terrorist decleared war on the USA and was successful to some extent to carry out attacks and a memo came through and stated a big spectacular attack was to take place and nothing was really done or heeded - where am i supposed to stand? Just brush it off on idiocy?

Where's the actionable information as to manner, time, and place in the 6 Aug memo?

[alkemical]

Where's the actionable information as to manner, time, and place in the 6 Aug memo?



Hmmm

It has probable manner and place wagsy..... if you are looking at it pre 9.11

of course, maybe henry kissinger can give us a nugget of wisdom:

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."
-- Henry Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderburgers meeting. Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech was taped by a Swiss delegate to the meeting.

[W*GS]

It has probable manner and place wagsy..... if you are looking at it pre 9.11

"[H]ijackings or other types of attacks", and maybe New York.

Are those probable or merely possible?

Even post-9/11, we can't protect everything, everywhere, all the time. Do you think we can?

Here's a scenario for you - suppose the government made a leap of faith and assumed that civilian jetliners were the targets, and that Arab men were the perps. A program is set up to profile Arab men during the then-minimal airport security checks. How long before the ACLU and other groups would have filed an injunction preventing the program from continuing?

[alkemical]

"[H]ijackings or other types of attacks", and maybe New York.

Are those probable or merely possible?

Even post-9/11, we can't protect everything, everywhere, all the time. Do you think we can?

Here's a scenario for you - suppose the government made a leap of faith and assumed that civilian jetliners were the targets, and that Arab men were the perps. A program is set up to profile Arab men during the then-minimal airport security checks. How long before the ACLU and other groups would have filed an injunction preventing the program from continuing?



Wags,

Secrecy is the death of democracy.


Considering the man blew up an embassy, and had a boat blown up and the FBI noted that they were survialing different areas, etc - you woudn't take that seriously?

PS - you can't just survial muslims - last time i checked most of the threats agaisn't the gov't were white guys. So if you did it for ME men, you'd have to do it for white men too -

and if you did it for white men, you'd have to just profile black men- because white men are scared of black men and popular culture dictates that black people are more full of crime and drugs and then.......

well i guess this settles it, everyone needs to be tapped and survieled since we are all potential terrorists.

[alkemical]

oh one more thing on the 8.6/01 memo

in it it claims bin laden wants to hit the us because of retaliation for the cruise missle strike clinton laid on him -

funny thing - that damn equivalent exchange keeps coming up over and over again - wierd how that damn cyclic events happen.

[W*GS]

Secrecy is the death of democracy.

Not as an ironclad rule.

Considering the man blew up an embassy, and had a boat blown up and the FBI noted that they were survialing different areas, etc - you woudn't take that seriously?

"The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related." Would 100 be more "serious"?

PS - you can't just survial muslims - last time i checked most of the threats agaisn't the gov't were white guys. So if you did it for ME men, you'd have to do it for white men too -

and if you did it for white men, you'd have to just profile black men- because white men are scared of black men and popular culture dictates that black people are more full of crime and drugs and then.......

well i guess this settles it, everyone needs to be tapped and survieled since we are all potential terrorists.

The State has to watch everyone, or no-one, then?

You're setting an impossible standard.

[alkemical]

Not as an ironclad rule.



"The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related." Would 100 be more "serious"?



The State has to watch everyone, or no-one, then?

You're setting an impossible standard.


A) Wags, secrecy builds distrust and distrust builds cynical behaviour. When the citizens distrust the gov't and become cynics of the gov't - the gov't in turns fears the people - and enacts more rule upon them - further allowing this cycle to continue till democracy or a republic becomes endagered.

B) Well abel danger was kinda spot on, now with this being disregaurded - i can rule both - incompetence and also deliberate ignoring of fact.

C) Why not wags? Not all muslims are ME looking. Esp those ones we helped out in bosnia. What about those helpful muslims during the 80's?


it's not an impossible standard wags, far from it. But as noted, the NSA wasn't just screening 'muslim phone calls', now were they - they even stated it was everyday people. So the gov't has already set that standard wags..... If they wish to treat me as enemy, when i have done nothing but wish to preserve this country as is - then maybe it's time the american people read the constitution and act on that little clause where we have the right to change or overthrow the gov't when it fails to act for the people.

[W*GS]

A) Wags, secrecy builds distrust and distrust builds cynical behaviour.

All secrecy by the government is bad all the time, period?

B) Well abel danger was kinda spot on, now with this being disregaurded - i can rule both - incompetence and also deliberate ignoring of fact.

It's not at all clear that the government disregarded the 6 Aug memo.

C) Why not wags? Not all muslims are ME looking. Esp those ones we helped out in bosnia. What about those helpful muslims during the 80's?

I didn't mention Muslims - I mentioned Arab men.

We don't need to trade liberty for safety - but we also need some safety. Do you disagree? What about the clause in the Constitution:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

What is the government obliged to do in regards to the bolded above?

it's not an impossible standard wags, far from it. But as noted, the NSA wasn't just screening 'muslim phone calls', now were they - they even stated it was everyday people.

That's post-9/11 - and you've gone far beyond the scenario I proposed.

[alkemical]

All secrecy by the government is bad all the time, period?



It's not at all clear that the government disregarded the 6 Aug memo.



I didn't mention Muslims - I mentioned Arab men.

We don't need to trade liberty for safety - but we also need some safety. Do you disagree? What about the clause in the Constitution:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

What is the government obliged to do in regards to the bolded above?



That's post-9/11 - and you've gone far beyond the scenario I proposed.


A) When it comes to the treatment of its citizens - yes.

B) Well it's clear they didn't regard it.

C) Some arab men are not muslim.

D) Common Defense for whom, the gov't or it's citizens?

E) It's not beyond, it's where we are at now.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF: All I see in your article is a lot of innuendo and useless links.

Because you simply cherry picked the parts of the article you thought were irrelevant or innacurate and ignored the rest of it.

[ClevelandBronco]

…irrelevant and innacurate…Ignore…

Sums up the vast majority of your tired b****ing.

I'll save you the trouble:

This from one of the few wingnuts left who support the failed policies of...whatever.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Sums up the vast majority of your tired b****ing.


Oh, I know:

Damn that guy with the gun to your head who keeps forcing you to visit a "war, religion, and politics" forum and to suffer confrontation after confrontation with inconvenient facts and unpleasant truths about your beloved ExxonMobil sock puppet, your Corrupt Old Party, and your flagging neoconservative agenda.

The guy could at least show some small measure of mercy and allow you to reach for the "ignore" button.

Oh, the humanity!

http://www.bartcop.com/fooledagain-ani.gif

[ClevelandBronco]

inconvenient facts and unpleasant truths


Facts and truths?

From your keyboard?

Don't bother, my friend. I have no faith in your ability to categorize either fact or truth.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Facts and truths?

From your keyboard?

Don't bother, my friend. I have no faith in your ability to categorize either fact or truth.

Strange words coming from a guy who is coming off a recent defeat at my hands on the playing field of facts and truth.

(Does that Defense Science Board report ring a bell?)

[W*GS]

A) When it comes to the treatment of its citizens - yes.

You've already limited the scope of when secrecy is allowed. Is it always wrong for the government to keep some information from the citizenry?

B) Well it's clear they didn't regard it.

I'll ask again - what actionable information is in the 6 Aug memo?

C) Some arab men are not muslim.

Pre-9/11, keeping profiling of passengers to Arab men would be sufficient.

D) Common Defense for whom, the gov't or it's citizens?

The citizens. Does the State have no obligation or duty to "provide for the common defense"?

E) It's not beyond, it's where we are at now.

We're discussing the pre-9/11 world, remember?

[alkemical]

You've already limited the scope of when secrecy is allowed. Is it always wrong for the government to keep some information from the citizenry?



I'll ask again - what actionable information is in the 6 Aug memo?



Pre-9/11, keeping profiling of passengers to Arab men would be sufficient.



The citizens. Does the State have no obligation or duty to "provide for the common defense"?



We're discussing the pre-9/11 world, remember?


A) Unless the person poses a clear defined physical threat to others, it should be illegal.

B) Abel danger + Memo = action should have been taken

C) Post OKC all whitemen who think the gov't is a threat should be survialed.

D) It's not the common defense of the citizens the gov't is concerned with.

[alkemical]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=401315&in_page_id=1770


Flight 93 'was shot down' claims book


Why did the engines go missing?


However, the absence of any significant debris — including tailplane and wings — bewildered witnesses, relatives and, more importantly, some crash experts.

They found it hard to believe that an airliner up to 155ft long, with two engines each weighing more than six tons, could have penetrated the ground so completely as to utterly disappear. Had it, in reality, been blown to pieces in mid-air?

Certainly it is unclear how a single piece of fuselage the size of a dining room table could have been recovered from a marina in Indian Lake, a couple of miles away from the crash site — unless it fell from the sky during an aerial break-up.

But a bigger mystery is why the engines went missing.

Considering their weight, they should have plunged deep into the earth along with the rest of the airliner.

Yet they weren’t in the crater and only a one-ton segment of an engine was ever recovered, again more than a mile from the crash site. The FBI said, unconvincingly, that it had ‘bounced’ there.

The FBI also claimed metal fragments found up to eight miles away could have been carried there by the wind, even though the breeze was very light.

Witnesses said nothing was left at the crash site, yet the FBI belatedly claimed to have made two sensational discoveries — a red bandana and a passport allegedly belonging to the hijackers.

Very conveniently, these turned up as prosecution evidence earlier this year at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the socalled 20th hijacker and only terrorist to be convicted over the 9/11 atrocities.

If flight 93 was shot down, there must have been a fighter jet in the skies to unleash a guided missile.

The U.S. government has admitted that two F-15s were flying above New York City before 9am on September 11 and three F-16s were patrolling over Washington by 9.40am. They could have reached Shanksville in minutes.

According to investigative writer David Ray Griffin, several witnesses saw two F-16s tailing Flight 93 minutes before it went down.

[mosca]

The U.S. government has admitted that two F-15s were flying above New York City before 9am on September 11 and three F-16s were patrolling over Washington by 9.40am. They could have reached Shanksville in minutes.
The same F-16s from Langley that, had they not flew east over the Atlantic for 100 miles or so, could have been in position over Washington to intercept Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon at 9:37 am.

[The Lone Bolt]

Because you simply cherry picked the parts of the article you thought were irrelevant or innacurate and ignored the rest of it.


Actually I went through the whole article and many of the links. "Innacurate, irrelevant, and highly speculative" describes most of the article, not just a few sections.

Tell me what parts are relevant and accurate?

[alkemical]

Actually I went through the whole article and many of the links. "Innacurate, irrelevant, and highly speculative" describes most of the article, not just a few sections.

Tell me what parts are relevant and accurate?


As i've said before -

the gold anti-trust is legit (not in the manner applied to article posted - but the information on the gold anti trust is def. legit)

and i forgot what else i've said - but considering noone read what i posted the first time - they probably won't the second time.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Actually I went through the whole article and many of the links. "Innacurate, irrelevant, and highly speculative" describes most of the article, not just a few sections.

Translation:

"I can't counter any specific claim or disconfirm any specific fact presented in the article, so I'll just categorically dismiss the whole thing with a few pejorations and declare some kind of imaginary victory."

Works for Rush and the rest of the right-wing spin jobbers.

[Spider]

The same F-16s from Langley that, had they not flew east over the Atlantic for 100 miles or so, could have been in position over Washington to intercept Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon at 9:37 am.
hard call though , I would have ordered the F-16's to the plane , but without knowing the terrorist intentions I wouldnt have ordered the F-16's to shoot down the passenger plane .....that would be tough call to live with .......

[The Lone Bolt]

Translation:

"I can't counter any specific claim or disconfirm any specific fact presented in the article, so I'll just categorically dismiss the whole thing with a few pejorations and declare some kind of imaginary victory."

Works for Rush and the rest of the right-wing spin jobbers.

Translation of your translation: "I haven't really read TLB's response to the article. I am completely blind to the fact that most the links in the article lead to web sites that provide absolutely no supporting evidence to the claims the article makes. I am totally oblivious to the fact that the author of the article time and time again links legislation to the events of 9/11 for no reason whatsoever, and that the author is only providing his own political spin on those laws without providing supporting evidence. Oh, and when challenged by TLB for parts of the article that include real evidence and relevant links, I can't provide them so I'll just call him names instead."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Translation of your translation: "I haven't really read TLB's response to the article. I am completely blind to the fact that most the links in the article lead to web sites that provide absolutely no supporting evidence to the claims the article makes. I am totally oblivious to the fact that the author of the article time and time again links legislation to the events of 9/11 for no reason whatsoever, and that the author is only providing his own political spin on those laws without providing supporting evidence. Oh, and when challenged by TLB for parts of the article that include real evidence and relevant links, I can't provide them so I'll just call him names instead."

Just as expected:

You can't even pick one single claim made by the author and dispute it.

All you can do is play the usual Bush supporter game of "attack the messenger and pretend you've discredited the message."

[The Lone Bolt]

Just as expected:

You can't even pick one single claim made by the author and dispute it.

All you can do is play the usual Bush supporter game of "attack the messenger and pretend you've discredited the message."


Aahh. So it's not up to the author to support his claims, it's up to me to disprove them? We're supposed to just take his word for it that the legislation he cites are somehow connected to the events of 9/11 without supporting evidence? We're supposed to take his word for it that there is a group of "rich guilty" who "are guilty and complicit in designing, implementing and financing the 9-11 operation" without a shred of proof? Instead it's up to me to disprove it?


Golly, well why didn't you tell me those were the rules!


Hey, did you know that Noam Chomsky is secretly a member of the Nazi party? You didn't? Well he is 'cause I said so. What's that? You say it's a lie and I'm making it up? Well I don't need a shred of evidence. It's up to you to DISPROVE IT, otherwise we'll just assume it's true!


Gee, I like these rules!ROFL!

[alkemical]

You missed "et al". The substance of your arguments supporting your premise rely on correlation implying causality.

And, like I said, I accept that you have a fundamental problem with authority and I'm not going to change that, or even try to.

Pearl Harbor was "sort of" allowed to happen? Based on? Retrospective analysis that clearly demonstrates that a different course of action could have been taken? Yeah, we all have moments of clarity in our day to day lives when it comes to analyzing events and decisions leading up to a traumatic event in our lives. If only....but if....But, again, had you known at the time that getting into the car would end up with you wrapped around a telephone pole you wouldn't have gotten in. But in that same example, you, instead, are standing on a street corner and a bus jumps the curb. Now, if only you had gotten into the car.



If an arm of the gov't planned to stage an attack to justify war on another country, why should it be so absurd to think that it may not/could never happen 'for real'?


There's enough evidence to suggest that it was allowed to happen, just as there is enought o prove it was a 'suprise'.


your lame analogy has no bearing on fact.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Aahh. So it's not up to the author to support his claims, it's up to me to disprove them? We're supposed to just take his word for it that the legislation he cites are somehow connected to the events of 9/11 without supporting evidence? We're supposed to take his word for it that there is a group of "rich guilty" who "are guilty and complicit in designing, implementing and financing the 9-11 operation" without a shred of proof? Instead it's up to me to disprove it?

First of all, the author is a "she" - not a "he" (and a former official in the first Bush administration.)

Second, the evidence is right there - you simply choose to ignore it. (Either that, or you didn't bother to actually read the article.)

[The Lone Bolt]

First of all, the author is a "she" - not a "he" (and a former official in the first Bush administration.)

Second, the evidence is right there - you simply choose to ignore it. (Either that, or you didn't bother to actually read the article.)

I haven't ignored jack. I looked on the websites and found no supporting evidence.

If it's there, where is it? Point me to some.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I haven't ignored jack. .

I don't buy this for one second.

In fact, I'm wondering if we're even talking about the same article (which is all about "who benefited?" from the 9/11 attacks.)

In any case, your failure to venture a rebuttal to even one of the author's claims coupled with your intellectually lazy move to dismiss the article in its entirety speaks volumes here.

[ClevelandBronco]

Strange words coming from a guy who is coming off a recent defeat at my hands on the playing field of facts and truth.

(Does that Defense Science Board report ring a bell?)

I remember that I was supposed to read something you posted a couple of weeks ago and let you know whether I wanted to argue about it. But since I never did get around to actually reading it, I'll just let you have that one. Congratulations on a stunning victory.