9/11[w:236]

[mperry]

I don't really beleive that the Government had anything to do with 9/11 but I know many people do. If you do beleive then what exactly was the purpose and what was the outcome supposed to be and why?

 

[phoenyx]

re: 9/11[W:236]

I don't really beleive that the Government had anything to do with 9/11 but I know many people do. If you do beleive then what exactly was the purpose and what was the outcome supposed to be and why?

If you find someone who has that information, please let me know. In the meantime, you may want to look at the work many posters here have put in in a thread that covers 911 in general, here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/conspiracy-theories/118283-9-11-really-surprise-attack.html

 

[Thoreau72]

re: 9/11[W:236]

I don't really beleive that the Government had anything to do with 9/11 but I know many people do. If you do beleive then what exactly was the purpose and what was the outcome supposed to be and why?

One of the most plausible theories about that can be found by googling the work of 4 men. Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, V.K. Durham and Karl Schwarz have done their homework, and it is most interesting.

Long story short, to destroy evidence regarding, and facilitate the clearance of certain US Securities issued back in 1991.

 

[phoenyx]

re: 9/11[W:236]

One of the most plausible theories about that can be found by googling the work of 4 men. Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, V.K. Durham and Karl Schwarz have done their homework, and it is most interesting.

Long story short, to destroy evidence regarding, and facilitate the clearance of certain US Securities issued back in 1991.

While I like the work of Tom Flocco that I've seen, I think that your summation is way too simplistic. As I suggest in my previous post here, I have theories as to motivations, but I think that motive is perhaps the hardest thing to figure out, and not something to focus on with someone who still believes in the official story. First, I think we should try to point out the flaws in the official story; essentially, work on ground that they're familiar with. I think that only when they acknowledge that the official story is illogical should we really start working on things such as motivations behind those who truly orchestrated 911.

 

[Scott]

re: 9/11[W:236]

They went into the Middle East as soon as 9/11 happened so I think it's pretty clear that they wanted to get control of the oil there. They also say it was partly because Iraq was going to stop accepting dollars for its oil.

Here's some good info.
War Propaganda by Michel Chossudovsky
Michel Chossudovsky: Fabricating an Enemy
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/153/26162.html

That guy had a good video too but now it's off-line. There's some good info in this site.
Global Research

The US government has been stealing resources from other countries for quite a long time.
American Imperialism

I don't really beleive that the Government had anything to do with 9/11

You've got to be kidding.
The US Government Planned and Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks

 

[Thoreau72]

re: 9/11[W:236]

While I like the work of Tom Flocco that I've seen, I think that your summation is way too simplistic. As I suggest in my previous post here, I have theories as to motivations, but I think that motive is perhaps the hardest thing to figure out, and not something to focus on with someone who still believes in the official story. First, I think we should try to point out the flaws in the official story; essentially, work on ground that they're familiar with. I think that only when they acknowledge that the official story is illogical should we really start working on things such as motivations behind those who truly orchestrated 911.

I try not to get caught up in personalities. I don't know Tom Flocco from Adam. I use his name and the others only because it works in Google.

That said, I operate from the starting point that the official story is a lie, and I know that you do too. As to the precise and intricate details of how it is a lie, I'll pass, and happily defer to you and others on many of the details which I consider to be important, but somewhat trivial.

I am more interested in the big picture.

I am sure there are MANY reasons and many players who benefitted from the events of the day.

But it seems to me the theory advanced by Eastman et al, regarding the invocation of Securities And Exchange Act 12k is hugely important and quite persuasive, and that was my only point.

I understand and agree that Silverstein was in on it and personally profited, I understand the bureaucrats got a new DHS, and I understand the MIC ended up with 2 endless wars.

But the destruction of evidence regarding those securities, and the invocation of the emergency rules, is most compelling to me. Cantor Fitzgerald and NOI were taken out for a reason.

I'm with you Phoenyx on this question of the flaws of the OCT. Good grief, there are so many flaws I've lost track of them all. In my own understanding, I've moved way beyond those flaws, but it's always fun to talk about them.

I think these guys are right in their theory, and the fact that those securities were cleared anonymously the very next day is pretty compelling evidence to me.

 

[phoenyx]

re: 9/11[W:236]

I try not to get caught up in personalities. I don't know Tom Flocco from Adam. I use his name and the others only because it works in Google.

That said, I operate from the starting point that the official story is a lie, and I know that you do too.

Yes, but -mperry- doesn't, and that's who you were speaking to...

As to the precise and intricate details of how it is a lie, I'll pass, and happily defer to you and others on many of the details which I consider to be important, but somewhat trivial.

Figuring these things out is tough, and I've found that debunkers' primary tactic is to try to get us to explain every little thing concerning our alternative theories and thus bypass having to explain all the inconsistencies and even downright impossibilities of the official story.

I am more interested in the big picture.

I am as well, but I also try to keep in mind what I learnt in english class; always be aware of your audience. If your audience believes in the official story, I find that it's generally a waste of time of getting very far in explaining alternatives. They just want to find some flaw, real or perceived, in any alternatives to the official story so that they can then knock it down. Meanwhile, they don't have to examine their own official story a bit.

I am sure there are MANY reasons and many players who benefitted from the events of the day.

But it seems to me the theory advanced by Eastman et al, regarding the invocation of Securities And Exchange Act 12k is hugely important and quite persuasive, and that was my only point.

Alright.

I understand and agree that Silverstein was in on it and personally profited, I understand the bureaucrats got a new DHS, and I understand the MIC ended up with 2 endless wars.

But the destruction of evidence regarding those securities, and the invocation of the emergency rules, is most compelling to me. Cantor Fitzgerald and NOI were taken out for a reason.

I admit I haven't really examined this aspect of 9/11 too much.

I'm with you Phoenyx on this question of the flaws of the OCT. Good grief, there are so many flaws I've lost track of them all. In my own understanding, I've moved way beyond those flaws, but it's always fun to talk about them.

I've also become convinced that the official 9/11 story has many things that are extremely suspect if not downright impossible, but again, it's the issue of who we're speaking to that makes me think that we have to focus on them if we're going to try to really make those who believe the official story (or only have small doubts) into seriously considering alternatives.

I think these guys are right in their theory, and the fact that those securities were cleared anonymously the very next day is pretty compelling evidence to me.

Ok.

 

[Thoreau72]

re: 9/11[W:236]

Yes, but -mperry- doesn't, and that's who you were speaking to...



Figuring these things out is tough, and I've found that debunkers' primary tactic is to try to get us to explain every little thing concerning our alternative theories and thus bypass having to explain all the inconsistencies and even downright impossibilities of the official story.



I am as well, but I also try to keep in mind what I learnt in english class; always be aware of your audience. If your audience believes in the official story, I find that it's generally a waste of time of getting very far in explaining alternatives. They just want to find some flaw, real or perceived, in any alternatives to the official story so that they can then knock it down. Meanwhile, they don't have to examine their own official story a bit.



Alright.



I admit I haven't really examined this aspect of 9/11 too much.



I've also become convinced that the official 9/11 story has many things that are extremely suspect if not downright impossible, but again, it's the issue of who we're speaking to that makes me think that we have to focus on them if we're going to try to really make those who believe the official story (or only have small doubts) into seriously considering alternatives.



Ok.

We are totally in agreement for the most part.

And you're quite right in your comments regarding just who the audience is. I replied to mperry because he asked an intelligent question and/or offered an intelligent observation. In the end, each person must educate himself or herself. Hopefully MPerry will do just that. eace

 

[Green Balls]

re: 9/11[W:236]

There is a video taken by one of the major news stations I have been trying to find for a long time with no success. They interviewed an EMT who rushed to the WTC right after the first plane hit. He stated in the interview that the FBI was already in the building and evacuating people when he got there.

That's a very quick response by the FBI and very fishy. They would have to be in the building at the time the plane struck according to this testimony. And that indicates they knew something was going to happen to the WTC that day. Until I can find that video, it's not going to be plausible in a discussion. I am mentioning it in case someone else also saw this. It was only aired once, unlike other interviews which have been aired multiple times during that day and since then.

 

[phoenyx]

re: 9/11[W:236]

There is a video taken by one of the major news stations I have been trying to find for a long time with no success. They interviewed an EMT who rushed to the WTC right after the first plane hit. He stated in the interview that the FBI was already in the building and evacuating people when he got there.

That's a very quick response by the FBI and very fishy. They would have to be in the building at the time the plane struck according to this testimony. And that indicates they knew something was going to happen to the WTC that day. Until I can find that video, it's not going to be plausible in a discussion. I am mentioning it in case someone else also saw this. It was only aired once, unlike other interviews which have been aired multiple times during that day and since then.

I believe I have heard that some government agents (perhaps FBI) were indeed in the vicinity pretty early, but the notion that they were there when the planes struck is new to me. If you find that video, would definitely like to see it. In the meantime, you may be interested in this:

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

re: 9/11[W:236]

I believe I have heard that some government agents (perhaps FBI) were indeed in the vicinity pretty early, but the notion that they were there when the planes struck is new to me. If you find that video, would definitely like to see it. In the meantime, you may be interested in this:

So WHY wouldn't FEMA be in New York ... they already HAD offices there ???

 

[Thoreau72]

re: 9/11[W:236]

There is a video taken by one of the major news stations I have been trying to find for a long time with no success. They interviewed an EMT who rushed to the WTC right after the first plane hit. He stated in the interview that the FBI was already in the building and evacuating people when he got there.

That's a very quick response by the FBI and very fishy. They would have to be in the building at the time the plane struck according to this testimony. And that indicates they knew something was going to happen to the WTC that day. Until I can find that video, it's not going to be plausible in a discussion. I am mentioning it in case someone else also saw this. It was only aired once, unlike other interviews which have been aired multiple times during that day and since then.

I'm glad you're researching.

Keep in mind that the FBI did indeed have offices at WTC in the North Tower on the 23rd floor, according to some sources. Thus, it would not be surprising that they were already there.

And it's likely that some of the agents assigned to that office were investigating certain US securities
that were cleared the very next day under emergency rules, which allowed them to be anonymously cleared.

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

re: 9/11[W:236]

I'm glad you're researching.

Keep in mind that the FBI did indeed have offices at WTC in the North Tower on the 23rd floor, according to some sources. Thus, it would not be surprising that they were already there.

And it's likely that some of the agents assigned to that office were investigating certain US securities
that were cleared the very next day under emergency rules, which allowed them to be anonymously cleared.

PROVE what you say about these securities ... you keep "saying" stuff about them but NEVER any proof !!!

Why is that ???

 

[Thoreau72]

re: 9/11[W:236]

It is that way Lass because I am more informed than yourself. I've been studying the subject for quite a few years now, and am old enough that I still take notes on paper with pencil.

Imagine Blue, how simple it is to write on a piece of paper: FBI had offices in North Tower, 23rd floor, after reading that in a fine book written about the subject?

 

[phoenyx]

re: 9/11[W:236]

It is that way Lass because I am more informed than yourself. I've been studying the subject for quite a few years now, and am old enough that I still take notes on paper with pencil.

Imagine Blue, how simple it is to write on a piece of paper: FBI had offices in North Tower, 23rd floor, after reading that in a fine book written about the subject?

No need to even read a book on it; all you have to do is search for "FBI offices North Tower" or something to that effect. I found the relevant information in a matter of minutes. Here's a good article from Dick Eastman on the subject:
New WTC Evidence Raises Questions Of Evidence Destruction

 

[phoenyx]

re: 9/11[W:236]

I believe I have heard that some government agents (perhaps FBI) were indeed in the vicinity pretty early, but the notion that they were there when the planes struck is new to me. If you find that video, would definitely like to see it. In the meantime, you may be interested in this:

So WHY wouldn't FEMA be in New York ... they already HAD offices there ???

This isn't just a matter of FEMA being "in" New York. Did you see the clip? I've transcribed it just in case you didn't...

*****
Unknown Speaker:
"2 days after the attack on September 13. Dan Rather was interviewing a man named Tom Kenney, K-E-N-N-E-Y, who was a FEMA employee. This is 2 days, this is the 13th. And Dan Rather says to him, oh um, this fellow works for FEMA and he's been of course there working in the roads, and he said well, 'when did you get into town?' And Kenney said 'oh we flew in Monday evening and we deployed Tuesday morning'. Dan Rather didn't bother to say why did they fly you in the night before the attack? And we actually got that film clip:"

Dan Rather:
"Tom Kenney, rescue worker with the National Urban Search and Rescue, in support of FEMA"

Tom Kenney:
"To be honest with you, we arrived late Monday night and went into action on Tuesday morning. And not until today did we get a full opportunity to work the entire site, other than this part of (Church and Day?) to which we were deployed."

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

re: 9/11[W:236]

It is that way Lass because I am more informed than yourself. I've been studying the subject for quite a few years now, and am old enough that I still take notes on paper with pencil.

Imagine Blue, how simple it is to write on a piece of paper: FBI had offices in North Tower, 23rd floor, after reading that in a fine book written about the subject?

That's all nice and all HD ... but HOW does that in any way prove what you say and claim ???

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

re: 9/11[W:236]

This isn't just a matter of FEMA being "in" New York. Did you see the clip? I've transcribed it just in case you didn't...

Oh! people just don't make simple mistakes of recall in your world I see ...

FEMA's Prior Knowledge of 9-11 Put to Rest

But go ahead and explain WHY an emergency disaster agency that ALREADY had offices in the city is suspicious and somehow helps prove your inside-jobby job fantasy ???

 

[Thoreau72]

re: 9/11[W:236]

That's all nice and all HD ... but HOW does that in any way prove what you say and claim ???

In ways that are beyond your comprehension, judging from your posts here.

It's really just critical thinking and analysis, with a wee bit of dot-connecting and common sense, but so far you post as though incapable of either.

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

re: 9/11[W:236]

In ways that are beyond your comprehension, judging from your posts here.

It's really just critical thinking and analysis, with a wee bit of dot-connecting and common sense, but so far you post as though incapable of either.

So you just CANNOT provide actual hard data and proof of what you claim about securities then ... figures !!!

And so are reduced to lame attempts to goad or hurt and insult me ... yet another failure there laddie too !!!

 

[Thoreau72]

re: 9/11[W:236]

Many people have written books and articles about it Blue, but you are not aware of the work those people have done to discover the details.

Wait a minute! Maybe you DO know about the work they have done, but prefer to tell yourself they have not?

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

re: 9/11[W:236]

Many people have written books and articles about it Blue, but you are not aware of the work those people have done to discover the details.

Wait a minute! Maybe you DO know about the work they have done, but prefer to tell yourself they have not?

And WHY should I do the work of looking for the books or data YOU claim true ... SHOW these books or data ???

Simple request that you WOULD comply with IF you were honest and true ... it is after all YOUR claim ...so YOU provide the proof of what YOU say.

At least NAME the books ... it is NOT my job to look for YOUR claims, or are you trying to deflect from the reality that you CANNOT show proof of what you say here, and think dodging enough will put me off asking for it !!!

 

[Thoreau72]

re: 9/11[W:236]

And WHY should I do the work of looking for the books or data YOU claim true ... SHOW these books or data ???

Simple request that you WOULD comply with IF you were honest and true ... it is after all YOUR claim ...so YOU provide the proof of what YOU say.

At least NAME the books ... it is NOT my job to look for YOUR claims, or are you trying to deflect from the reality that you CANNOT show proof of what you say here, and think dodging enough will put me off asking for it !!!

Nor is it my job, madam, to inform you about anything.

I'll name a couple of authors of those books, just to be fair and honest, but I already know how you will respond.

Consider David Griffin, Michael Ruppert, Christopher Bollyn.

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

re: 9/11[W:236]

Nor is it my job, madam, to inform you about anything.

But it IS your job to provide proof of what YOU say though ... isn't it ???

YOU claimed securities cleared ... so WHY can you NOT back that up with factual evidence ???

Are you a liar unable to prove what YOU say ???

I'll name a couple of authors of those books, just to be fair and honest, but I already know how you will respond.

Consider David Griffin, Michael Ruppert, Christopher Bollyn.

So a THEOLOGIAN, a CONSPIRACY NUT JOURNALIST and a JEW-HATER ... that's it !!!

Sorry, but NONE of those clowns are credible ... SHOW DOCUMENTORY EVIDENCE ... not lunatics opinions.

WHY DON'T YOU HAVE FACTUAL DOCUMENTED HARD DATA ???

 

[phoenyx]

re: 9/11[W:236]

But it IS your job to provide proof of what YOU say though ... isn't it ???

Like another poster here that I dealt with recently, what you're looking for is proof via soundbite. The truth regarding 911 doesn't work that way. Furthermore, the hypocrisy of you asking for anyone to prove anything is astounding. You've made an astonishing array of unsubstantiated assertions which I keep on pointing out, but you seem utterly uninterested in proving any of them.