9/11 myths debunked . . .

i remembered watching 'the big one', a movie by michael moore a few years ago. i thought steve forbes was the guy, so i did a web search on him and 'unblinking' or 'not blink'......

fromwww.columbia.edu...
Last night I laughed out loud for the first time in months as I sat through Michael Moore's new movie, "The Big One." The biggest laugh I got was when Moore was commenting on presidential candidate Steve Forbes tendency not to blink. During this riff, we see the distinctly odd-looking Forbes staring at the TV camera during a debate. He blinked not once for what seemed an eternity. Moore called an eye, ear and nose specialist at a NY hospital and asked what the doctor he thought of someone with the ability to go for minutes without blinking. The doctor's reply was that "He doesn't sound human." This leads Moore to speculate on the possibility that the Forbes campaign is staffed by extraterrestrial aliens.

Mike MOORE is a Mossad Agent, thats why he tells "SOME" truth in his movies but gives DISinfo when it comes to the other parts.

[edit on 11-2-2005 by SiberianTiger]

Here Howard DeBunk this www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

Let me just say this.

I was starting University in September 2001. I was enrolled in Political Science.

The first week of class was scathing criticism of everything American. EVERYTHING. Economics, politics, the effects of large corporations on the 3rd world.

The rest of the year, NOTHING. Not a critical word was spoken. Why? Because 2 days into my 2nd week of class (09/11, didn't ya know), people were so shocked every single political thought they had was lost, and replaced only with sympathy and remorse.

Our discussions of Current Events turned into mere re-hashings of government news releases.

At the end of a semester of investigating the horrid effects of globalization, we were told unequivocally that we were to be under the impression that globalization had MIXED effects, and that we had just consider ourselves lucky to be on the right side of this phenomenon.

September 11 made some people inABLE of criticism( rather, critical thought), and it is obvious those effects linger to this day.

[edit on 13-2-2005 by akilles]

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Here Howard DeBunk this www.thetruthseeker.co.uk...

That theory is based, in its enttierety, on the photograph of the so-called bulge. take that away and you have nothing, I repeat nothing. As it was pointed out in the PM that is a digital photograph with some serious technical issues. In order for you to use that photograph you have to address limitiations of digital photographs and the phenomina of blooming.

That has not been done. Therefore the photograph is not valid evidence for your claim. Without the photograph, you claim is totally baseless.


Where is that bulge in this photo?







[edit on 13-2-2005 by HowardRoark]

[edit on 13-2-2005 by HowardRoark]

Howard that was a very interesting article and cleared up many things. Thank you for sharing it! The only sad part is that Conspiracy theorists will always come up with some more ridiculous things to say to try and "debunk" facts with their "facts". Basically... you can't change their minds. I'll admit that some stuff seems pretty credible and they do a good job at making things seem believable... kinda like salesmen and story tellers...

Honestly how can you beat someone who denies a fact that a commercial jets filled with civilians hijacked by terrorists slammed into the Pentagon and the WTC buildings when we watched it for weeks on our televison screens. The victims who were on the planes that crashed into the buildings even called there families to tell them what was going on so I think that by itself debunks the fact that it was remote controlled planes by the military or military cargo planes with no windows...

The whole PM thing has been debunked people!!!!!
All you had to do was look a few threads down.
Popular Mechanics Debunked!

Originally posted by SMR

The whole PM thing has been debunked people!!!!!
All you had to do was look a few threads down.
Popular Mechanics Debunked!

Ah, yes. If it has been posted on Rense, then it has to be true, Huh?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by SMR

The whole PM thing has been debunked people!!!!!
All you had to do was look a few threads down.
Popular Mechanics Debunked!

Ah, yes. If it has been posted on Rense, then it has to be true, Huh?

Ah, yes. If it has been posted on Popular Mechanics, then it has to be true, Huh?

Gimmie something better than that HR

I posted this a few pages back, seems people missed it

Originally posted by Sauron
Here is a article about the Popular Mechanics piece

Popular Mechanics Attacks Its"9/11 LIES" Straw Man by Jim Hoffman Version 1.1, February 8, 2005

The Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics magazine takes aim at the 9/11 Truth Movement (without ever acknowledging it by that name) with a cover story in its March 2005 edition.

Sandwiched between ads and features for monster trucks, NASCAR paraphernalia, and off-road racing are twelve dense and brilliantly designed pages purporting to debunk the myths of 9/11.

The article's approach is to identify and attack a series of claims which it asserts represent the whole of 9/11 skepticism.

It gives the false impression that these claims, several of which are clearly absurd, represent the breadth of challenges to the official account of the flights, the World Trade Center attack, and the Pentagon attack.

Meanwhile it entirely ignores vast bodies of evidence showing that only insiders had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack.
The article gives no hint of the put options on the targeted airlines,, warnings received by government and corporate officials,,complicit behavior by top officials,, obstruction of justice by a much larger group, ,or obvious frauds in the official story. Instead it attacks a mere 16 claims of its choosing, which it asserts are the "most prevalent" among "conspiracy theorists." The claims are grouped into topics which cover some of the subjects central to the analysis of 9-11 Research. However, for each topic, the article presents specious claims to divert the reader from understanding the issue. For example, the three pages devoted to attacking the Twin Towers' demolition present three red-herring claims and avoid the dozens of points I feature in my presentations, such as the Twin Towers' Demolition.
Link

[edit on 13/2/2005 by Sauron]

Sauron, your links are to the same old tired arguments that add up to nothing.

Why is it,that all of us 'conspiracy' cracks go out and find articles that show and prove our point,yet the ones who say we are wrong,come up with SQUAT!!!
All you guys ever say is, "thats the same old stuff" "already been debunked"
WE seem to find the holes in the lies,while YOU just go after the simple things and say "your wrong" .......... SHOW US!!!!!

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Sauron, your links are to the same old tired arguments that add up to nothing.

That’s the best you can do howard the PUT options don’t add up, the warnings don’t add up. No you don’t add up, can you not put your neo-con spin on it

I believe that some of the PUT options were investigated and it was determined that they were a legitimate hedge. Some people do that when they buy large blocks of stock, Thus if the stock price tanks, they are protected.

Some of the PUT options were never claimed. How do you know that it wasn't al-queda that placed those options?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I believe that some of the PUT options were investigated and it was determined that they were a legitimate hedge.

Wow!

That would be very interesting to confirm, and it's precisely the type of investigative contribution that is so valuable at ATS.

Link please.

[edit on 13-2-2005 by MaskedAvatar]

www.unknownnews.net...

Cogswell said most of the options trading was carried out by hedge funds with bearish outlooks. He did not name any of the funds, which pursue risky investment strategies on behalf of wealthy clients.

Market regulators in other countries opened similar investigations after the attacks, but Cogswell said he believes all have been concluded with no evidence that allies of Osama bin Laden were involved.

He said the FBI interviewed trading professionals and other witnesses, sharing its findings with the Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission.

On Sept. 10, 2001, put options on AMR were 17 times their average volume of 269 contracts. On Sept. 6, 2001, UAL put options were traded at more than four times their average volume of 711 contracts.

At the same time, some experts cautioned that because of the light volume in most option contracts, an increase can seem eye-popping.

London regulators thought they had something in the short-selling of big airline stocks before Sept. 11, but traced the activity to one of their small competitors.

[edit on 13-2-2005 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I believe that some of the PUT options were investigated and it was determined that they were a legitimate hedge. Some people do that when they buy large blocks of stock, Thus if the stock price tanks, they are protected.

Some of the PUT options were never claimed. How do you know that it wasn't al-queda that placed those options?

for you information Howard

September 6-7, 2001 - 4,744 put options (a speculation that the stock will go down) are purchased on United Air Lines stock as opposed to only 396 call options (speculation that the stock will go up).

This is a dramatic and abnormal increase in sales of put options. Many of the UAL puts are purchased through Deutschebank/AB Brown, a firm managed until 1998 by the current Executive Director of the CIA, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard.

Source: The Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism, www.ict.org.il... September 21; The New York Times; The Wall Street Journal.]

September 10, 2001 - 4,516 put options are purchased on American Airlines as compared to 748 call options. [Source: ICT
- above]

September 6-11, 2001 - No other airlines show any similar trading patterns to those experienced by UAL and American.

The put option purchases on both airlines were 600% above normal. This at a time when Reuters (September 10) issues a business report stating, "Airline stocks may be poised to take off."

September 6-10, 2001 - Highly abnormal levels of put options are purchased in Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, AXA Re(insurance) which owns 25% of American Airlines, and Munich Re.
All of these companies are directly impacted by the September 11 attacks. [Source: ICT, above; FTW, Vol. IV, No.7, October 18, 2001,
www.copvcia.com...

It has been documented that the CIA, the Israeli Mossad and many other intelligence agencies monitor stock trading in real time using highly advanced programs reported to be descended from Promis software. This is to alert national intelligence services of just such kinds of attacks.

Promis was reported, as recently as June, 2001 to be in Osama bin Laden's possession and, as a result of recent stories by FOX, both the FBI and the
Justice Department have confirmed its use for U.S. intelligence gathering through at least this summer.

This would confirm that CIA had additional advance warning of imminent attacks.

[Sources: The Washington Times, June 15, 2001; FOX News,
October 16, 2001; FTW, October 26, 2001, -
www.copvcia.com...; FTW, Vol.
IV, No.6, Sept.18, 2001 -
www.copvcia.com...; FTW, Vol. 3,
No 7, 9/30/00 -
www.copvcia.com/stories/may_2001/052401_promis.html.

September 15, 2001 - The New York Times reports that Mayo Shattuck III has resigned, effective immediately, as head of the Alex (A.B) Brown unit of Deutschebank

September 29, 2001 - The San Francisco Chronicle reports that $2.5 million in put options on American Airlines and United Airlines are unclaimed.
This is likely the result of the suspension in trading on the NYSE after the attacks which gave the Securities and Exchange Commission time to be waiting when the owners showed up to redeem their put options.

Posted originally by me
Bin Laden Met with the CIA in July and Walked Away
www.abovetopsecret.com...







[edit on 13/2/2005 by Sauron]

LOL

Just look at some of you go, seekerof, howard, OFS! Just because popular mechanics says it's debunked them, you are treat it as some kind of revelation and pat each other on the back! That was just comedy genius for me! Last time I remember talking to you about 9/11 Howard, I debunked you. Want to carry on from where we left off? There are still many questions and points you left unanswered.

[edit on 13-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by HowardRoark


Some of the PUT options were never claimed. How do you know that it wasn't al-queda that placed those options?

...and the United States of America doesn't have the technical, political, economic, or even strategic means to fully investigate the put options, according to Treasury Secretary, "there are too many 'veils' between the trades."



Uh-huh.

As it is, there are two possibilities regrding the "put option" trades.

1. The trades were made by legitimate investors as part of an established trading strategy or market hedge. It is true that both United and American airlines were the primary stocks involved in these trades, but it is also true that both of these airlines were not in the best of shape financially prior to 9/11. The overall economic bubble was about to burst and both airlines were suffering from labor problems.
   
   
2. The trades were made by someone with foreknowledge of the attacks. It is entirely plausible that someone in the al-queda organization anticipated the damage the attacks would do to the financial status of the airlines and attempted to profit from them. If so, then so what? What does this have to do with anything anyway?