9/11 Rant Topic

2alex1: Uhm, what exactly does that solve?
ShoGun: It debunks many of the 9/11 truther arguments. You keep refusing to lay out any arguments in favour of the conspiracy so why would I debunk something that hasnt even be stated yet? Thats why I am asking you to present your case and the evidence that supports it. If you have any that is.

 

Sixty percent of the 9/11 commissioners have publicly stated that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11 and that the Pentagon was engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack?

Thats more than goddamn half.

In respect to other evidence - Here is a complete Bibliography of evidence stacked in favour of a cover up:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/20_minutes_bibliography.html

 

Please use your own arguments. I dont feel like going through 17 pages worth of links and spending the rest of the year reacting to everything.

 

These are just some of my own reasonable suspicions backed by evidence that I have gathered.

- Merrill Lynch/HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley Dead Witter, Bank of America, Raytheon, Lehman Brothers, General Motors, and AXA Re started making negative bets against the stocks of the airline and insurance companies associated with the 9/11 crash before the attacks. These negative bets on the stock market are called put options which are bets that certain stock will fall in value by a certain date; it's big risk gambling unless you got inside information (which is illegal). Put option bets on the decline of 9/11 related airline and insurance stocks sky rocketed by 600% just before 9/11 which strongly suggests somebody had foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon before they happened; unpreparedness my ***. The insiders mentioned above bought put options through Deutsche Bank. At that time, former executive director of the CIA, A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard was manager of Deutsche Bank.

- The business connection between the Bush and Bin Laden family go as far back as 1976. James R. Bath, friend and neighbor of George W. Bush, was used as a cash funnel from Osama bin Laden's rich father, Sheikh bin Laden, to set George W. Bush up in business, according to reputable sources from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. The connection between GW Bush, the bin Laden family, and the Bank Commerce Credit International (BCCI) is well documented.

- FBI protects Osama Bin Laden’S “Right to Privacy” in a document release as said by this article.

"Judicial Watch, the public interest group that fights government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) in which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) has invoked privacy right protections on behalf of al Qaeda terror leader Osama bin Laden. In a September 24, 2003 declassified “Secret” FBI report obtained by Judicial Watch, the FBI invoked Exemption 6 under FOIA law on behalf of bin Laden, which permits the government to withhold all information about U.S. persons in “personnel and medical files and similar files” when the disclosure of such information “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Before invoking privacy protections for Osama bin Laden under Exemption 6, the FBI should have conducted a balancing “test” of the public's right to disclosure against the individual's right to privacy."

Yeah, so its not okay to invade the privacy of an eledged terrorist mastermind that supposively plotted the worst terrorist attack in American history, but it's okay to invade the privacies of average American citizens through the patriot act? What is this bull****?

- The terrorist tracking unit sent to track Osama Bin Laden, known inside the spy agency as "Alec station," was disbanded and its analysts reassigned to other offices within the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.

- The bush administration ignores all of the advance warnings from the 9/11 attacks. Warnings from FBI agents like Colleen Rowley and from the famous Phoenix Memo were not only ignored but were suppressed. FBI Deputy director John P. O'Neill quit his job when his investigation of Osama Bin Laden was blocked.

- 2 Muslims accused of the 9/11 hijackings took their flight training at Rudi Dekkers' Huffman Aviation school in Florida. Rudi Dekkers is linked to the CIA and drug smuggling.

- One of the biggest clues is NORAD, our air defense system. In the year 2000, NORAD had undergone 67 exercises with 100% accuracy. U.S. Airforce fighter Jets were able to scramble planes in minutes after radio contact was lost just because it went a little off coarse. So why was NADA done when four suspected high jackings had occurred in U.S. air space on that day? On the day of 9/11/2001 a live flight hijack drill called vigilant warrior was being conducted at the same time of the attacks. There was only 8 available jet fighters and having to deal with as many as 22 possible hijacks they couldn't separate the wargame exercises from actual hijacks. In some of these wargames, planes being flown into buildings was a scenario. **** Cheney happened to be in control of NORAD on the morning of 9/11/2001. These are inside sources from NORAD itself.

 

My own arguments? I should hope that the ignorance of one person is of little regard when you are faced with the accumlated evidence of people not so ignorant. I may not know the arguments as deeply, i have little time to traul through it - a factor im sure we both share. Fortunatly i have the patience to not reach premature conclusions before regarding the evidence myself.

I have presented you with evidence, do what you will with it.

 

I will take a look at the link for myself, thanks Renatus. I have to agree, Higgs Boson has not shown one shred of evidence that there is no conspiracy. In relation to your "17 pages worth of links" all he has done to uphold his arguement is the samething by arguing that hundreds of peer reviewed scientific paper PROVE that there is no conspiracy when he has shown us no evidence himself coming from this material. On the other hand, it is clearly shown by your article page and thousands of others that there is peer reviewed material supporting the conspiracy. I am waiting Higgs Boson >=O

 

By your logic I can spit out couple of links to anti-9/11 conspiracy pages and be done with it. Why have a forum when all you do is spamming links to somebody elses arguments?
Either become part of the discussion and discuss the matter or dont. If you dont feel like you know enough to debate the issue then dont debate the freaking issue.

The majority of your points is just the U.S. government and CIA doing their job poorly. Bare in mind that before 9/11 terrorism in the USA was just one of many minor problems and wasn't considered a serious threat. Now add to that the CIA - a bunch of incompetent rednecks and you get fundamentalists flying planes into the buildings without much resistance form the state secuirty.

This leaves just your first point; I don't know much about stock markets. I don't know why did they make such a prediction and how likely is it to just be a coincedence hence I won't take it into account until I find a good source of information on this kind of problematic. In eyes of an amateur this indeed looks suspicious.

What is deliberate deception? Do you mean that the US ex-presidents refused to testify under oath? Or what exactly?

I am being honest. I simply dont have several free weeks to go through thousands worth of pages of claims. From the quick sweep Ive done I noticed the use of the already debunked claims. That certainly does not encourage me either as I would have to get through the old crap first before I could even start reading the newer arguments.
If you prefer me pretending that I read everything then I am sorry to disappoint you. I am not tha tkind of person. Thats exactly why I ask you to present me with your arguments which we can actually debate instead of throwing a bunch of books at me and saying 'Read all of this, proove all of it wrong and dont come back before you do!'.

Exactly. Addition to the discussion. Not subtitution.

 

You haven't debated the issue at all Higgs you just claim something that tells nothing, now that I presented you with some evidence I would like to see you debunk it. PLEASE debunk it.

 

Yes, you could, and i would be happy to read them and discuss them.

I saw you continually asking for evidence, i provided you with the best collection of evidence for a cover up that there is online, its not like i pasted a wikipedia page and pretened it was an argument.

1. I would hope that the nature of this discussion is more based on the collection of information rather than ignorant battle. I didnt pop in here to have some kind of high school debate class with you.. You know, the allegations are totally serious - i had hoped that such information being provided would be seen as a welcome addition to your discussion.

2. I offered you one piece of information that you have not made any effort to reference it did not require your 'going' anywhere or following any links: Sixty percent of the 9/11 commissioners have publicly stated that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11 and that the Pentagon was engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack. This is VERY relevant.

3. It would appear you have no patience to review the evidence but patience enough to act like there is insufficient, or that it is foolhardy rubbish, i dislike prejudical stances when discussing topics, and i dislike them even more when said topic is rather serious.

 

Thats not my job. Youre the one making claims about a conspiracy hence the burden of proof is on you.

I live in a different time zone than you. There are two of you posting links and walls of text. The fact that it takes me a while before I adress at least some of your points might be caused by those factors.

 

Renatus have you ever heard the term "argumentum verbosium"? It pretty accurately describes the goal of your link in a debate like this. Mix in some bandwagon appeal and you have your entire argument in this thread pretty accurately described.

Shogun you have what some people would say is a nice theoretical list of coincindences there. Now while I would agree if all of those things were true as you state them there would be cause for concern. Alas, there is a reason I said theoretical because I would wager some of those facts (as you call them) are likely fictional or at the very least taken out of context.

Since you guys seem to be itching to have this argument why don't you try only posting one or two smaller claims with support so we can slowly go through your proposed evidence instead of trying to make me and Higgs disprove every last random statement you come up with.

 

@ Higgs: and yet you have time to read each post and argue against them, but refuse to discuss against thier points they present.

I'm an anti-conspiracy 9/11 person. I did see that Shogun pointed out that the peer-review papers might be a source of conspiracy, my counter-arguement is that what about the papers/ etc that people found and collected supporting the conspiracy evidence? Maybe those are the fake papers and were created by others to try and convince others that there was a conspiracy, when there might not be one.

 

"Bare in mind that before 9/11 terrorism in the USA was just one of many minor problems and wasn't considered a serious threat"

Not at all. Warnings go as far back as 1996. Even before then there have been 21 major terrorist attacks targeting USA and USA interests before 9/11 dating back to 1983 and you're telling me counter terrorist agencies weren't on alert?

"CIA - a bunch of incompetent rednecks"

That's the most prejudicial statement you can make. What evidence is there that the CIA are a bunch of incompetent rednecks? Do you know them personally or do you make biased claims on what you think you know about the CIA? Bare in mind that in 1945 when the CIA was still the OSS, they began Operation Paperclip which brought over 700 Nazi scientists directly into the forming CIA, NSA, and other high-level government organizations. Since it was illegal to even allow these Nazis into the US, let alone into top-secret government agencies, the CIA convinced the Vatican to issue American passports for these 700+ Nazi scientists under the pretense that it was to keep them out of the hands of the Russians.

"and you get fundamentalists flying planes into the buildings without much resistance form the state secuirty."

Did you completely ignore my statement on NORAD? Even if the united states was not prepared, NORAD would have intercepted the flight planes that were hijacked. I will repeat again for you, in 2000 NORAD had undergone 67 exercises with 100% accuracy. U.S. Airforce fighter Jets were able to scramble planes in minutes after radio contact was lost just because it went a little off coarse. And what the hell was DlCK Cheney doing conducting wargame exercises with NORAD during the morning of 9/11?

"In eyes of an amateur this indeed looks suspicious"

In the eyes of an amateur? I never suspected anything suspicious at first but after the media scare fiasco started to die down I did my own research and came up with my own conclusions. Point being, you should do more research of your own (as evidently it shows you know little about what you support) before you listen to corporate owned media and start making wild claims supporting what they say.

Well my argument is what about the information being presented by corporate media? Do we take that as undeniable fact? Isn't it at all possible that the media's presentation of facts are just a lie? To suggest that papers/articles/etc coming from indepedent sources may just be made up but you wouldn't entirely suggest the same thing on the material presented by corporate media is as biased as it is nonfactual. EDIT - to save the debate from doing round abouts, the source of information does not just come from loopy kids on their computers, majority of it comes from insiders, journalists, researchers, professors, etc ... people who have researched, documented, and printed books on the subject.

Is that the best you can come up with to denounce my evidence? Coincidence? Really? That hardly stands as reasonable possibility in the face of this kind of evidence. Yes you can suggest it is likely fictional, but like I said to Eon, what of the information provided by corporate media? What is the premise that corporate media does not suppress valuable information? Between independent sources and corporate owned sources I would trust independent more because unlike corporate media it does not have a clearly seen obligation to its sponsers.

 

Yes it's possible, but what would the media gain from sending its viewers into combat? I tend to see most media as biased anyways. Site for both for and against conspiracies are likely to have some bit of bias or falsehoods to support thier point.

Even I admit to being biased, as I dont want to believe that the gov't I'm ruled by almost got my dad killed during some conspiracy(he was working in the Pentagon at the time of the attack, but on the other side of the building).

 

While reading what i eventually linked i came to the conclusion that the evidence provided in such was well set out, precise, organised, and helpful to such debates, my linking it here was more an effort to help you guys discuss than to present it as an argument against you.

Flucuation into an arugment was almost planned on my behalf though, i have little time tonight to discuss said points.

Tomorrow i'll help you guys out ;o.

 

Of coarse the media does not send its viewers into combat, they just feed them input to persuade them ... but yeah I understand what you mean . I honestly would not know the absolute truth to your first question. The way I see it, the media networks are like a business, a corporation. By law, corporations are oblied to their share holders. It is the shareholders that own the corporations, not the executives and CEOs. The shareholders pay the top management big money to keep the business running ... so it wouldn't be in the management's best interest to go against the agenda of the company owners. So what you really should ask is who owns the media, and what are they gaining? Also, re-read my post please, I edited the paragraph I wrote to you.

Sorry to hear about your father, its good that he was not hurt. I know what you mean too, but I think its the right of the victim's families to know who the real perpetraters are and justice be done.


Also guys, watch these videos ... it's Barrie Zwicker in a quick interview talking about his book 'Towers of Deception'

PART 1
PART 2

Worthy material to change the thoughts of you anti-conspiracy theorists.

 

Two things before I get back to this debate, first Shogun please avoid double posting. Second whether or not you support Bin Laden really isn't any of my bussiness but your signature is against the forum rules.

Now back to the debate.

First I didn't sya your points were all conicnedences even though some people may say they are. The crux of my point though is it isn't evidence yet. You listed a set of facts which you believe to be accurate, that you want us to take at face value. Why should we? What is your source?

 

I changed the word jews to zionists, happy now? Jesus Christ. And what makes you think I support Bin Laden anymore then I supported Bush?

The source is from wall street, there was an overload of put option bets in the stock market of airline and insurance companies a week prior to 9/11, and it was BIG news in the world financial press in the weeks after the attacks. You don't have to be a genious to figure out who's cashing in.

 

I am happy now, yes .

Anyways you still seem to be suffering from a lack evidence outside your own claims.

 

@ShoGun: Short reaction to your only claim that still stands (aside from the stock market which I said Ill omit and let someone else react instead).

The bottom line is that NORAD was not notified on time. In fact in case of Flight 175 NORAD was informed two minutes after estimated crash time. In other cases it was 6 and 14 minutes before crash which is a very short time for the armed forces to react.
The times of NORAD notification are derived from NEADS logs.

This comes back to what I said about relative unawerness about the threat of terrorism in the USA at the time. There is just no way that NORAD could do anything on such a short notice, especially if they had a training exercise going on at the time. People will believe that their government is so potent it can decieve entire world in a grand conspiracy rather than admiting to themselves that they can never be 100% safe.

EDIT: Ok I made a quick sweep search for the stocks arguments and according to this article I was right to doubt how unlikely it is to be just a coincedence.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_20_18/ai_87460027/
- Such 'bets' were made on day to day basis all the times. 10th of september was not abnormal according to the number of bets placed.
- The profit made from these bets was neglegable given the size of the companies. If they really knew what's going to happen and were willing to take advantage of it why would they make such a small profit?