It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


CHAMPIONSHIP: schrodingers dog vs souls - "September 11, 2001"

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 04:46 PM
The topic for this debate is "The Amount of Circumstantial Evidence Proves That 9/11 was a False Flag Operation."

"schrodingers dog" will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
"souls" will be arguing the "Con" position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 5 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:

Each debate must post within 48 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.

All Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by chissler]

posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 03:41 PM
As always, I would like to extend greetings and appreciation to chissler, our fellow readers, and judges who have chosen to join us in this debate final. If there were any marbles, this engagement would surely be for all of them. Also I would like to extend an earnest nod of respect to souls, for he is surely a formidable and worthy adversary.

The topic for this debate is "The Amount of Circumstantial Evidence Proves That 9/11 was a False Flag Operation." and I will be arguing the pro position.



Allow me to express a personal yet topically relevant foreword before I begin outlining my debate exposition.

The events of September 11th 2001 are ones that due to my own personal proximity/connection to that fateful day, have been ones that I have mostly avoided delving into for the last eight and a half years. A then West Village (NYC) resident, like many I lost many friends and neighbors that morning. The emotional and psychological consequences of the days, months, and years that followed made it difficult if not impossible to manage a sustained discussion of the topic from my end for a very long time. Without wishing to infuse personal emotion into the debate, for my personal experiences are surely outside the scope of such, I will link for the record the one thread I have done on the subject for the sake of personal disclosure.

I do so not to engage in any emotional pulling of strings, but to note the following … I come into this topic with a clean slate. That is to say that this debate is the first time time I have attempted to pursue my own curiosity as to the events of that day, those that preceded it, and those that were triggered as a result and in any detail. I am indeed a novice to a topic that a great deal of people and many ATS members have dedicated much of their time and energy to investigate.

The topic is vast. Too vast to include all its scope and related/relevant information into a mere seven debate posts. Too vast for me or anyone new to it to grasp within a few days of preparation for this debate. So I whilst I am secure in the fact and knowledge that once I have put before you the primary and overwhelming evidence to sustain and prevail in my debate position, I must also ask of those who have made it all but their life's work to pursue the truth as it relates to 9/11, that they forgive my academic ignorance on the matter and do not begrudge my apprentice like approach. Simply said, I am not an expert and will learn as I go.

I don't know what a 'truther' is exactly for the nomenclature seems to indicate that somehow the search for truth bears some insult within it. I have no emotional position as to which version of events would be more agreeable to me. Perhaps this lack of personal involvement into the 9/11 conversation to date will serve me well in this undertaking. It might not be the most comprehensive but I assure you it will be honest. For I would surely prefer to lose this debate that to be disingenuous to this topic of paramount importance.

With those personal notes in mind and behind us, let us begin in earnest.


False Flag

False flag operations are covert operations which are designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own.

Circumstantial Evidence

Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove.

In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence"

Legal Burden of Proof

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the accepted conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position. The burden of proof may only be fulfilled by evidence.


Most debates within this forum are undertaken under an adversarial premise. This premise usually dictates a point counterpoint structure to the debates. Whilst this element will not be absent from this debate, I am comfortable disclosing at the outset, that I will for the most part not engage in much of it.

My intention is the following … there is simply too much evidence to be presented, evaluated, for multiple locations, historical context, geo-political considerations, and all the elements that the topic commands to be addressed for my opponent and I to engage in semantic play, and argumentative distractions.

As such I shall present my work in the form of a theses. Each post shall be exclusively dedicated to either a location or aspect of my argument and once expressed I shall move on to the next one. It is my hope that by the end of the debate, the body of work presented before the judges will speak for itself. I see this process much like two lawyers arguing their position before a panel of appellant court judges, both sides have allotted time to make their case and the judges decide in one or the other's favor.

In fact, as the above outlined definitions of the terms of the debate title clearly dictate, this debate is precisely analogous to the court case metaphor and as such it is in my view the best method upon which to proceed.


At this juncture allow me to state my interpretation of what it is that I have to argue before this 'court' …

My debate position is that "The Amount of Circumstantial Evidence Proves That 9/11 was a False Flag Operation."

Please note that I am neither required to provide physical evidence, a "smoking gun," or to prove that 9/11 was an inside job. Though much of the evidence to be presented before you might lead one to the latter conclusion, namely that 9/11 was an inside job, such conclusion would be beyond my own evidentiary requirements. Indeed, all I have to argue to prevail in this debate is willful negligence. If it is evidenced by me that ANY deceit or obfuscation was involved in the events of 9/11, those preceding them and subsequent to them, from the US government and its agencies, the debate has to be awarded in my favor.

Let me be clear, I am not talking about incompetence. If all I can prove is that the US government was acting, or rather not acting out of plain incompetence, that would not constitute a 'false flag' operation on their part. But any action or inaction, from organizing the events of the day themselves, or simply allowing them to happen unimpeded to achieve an end, would constitute a clear 'false flag' operation.

Ultimately that is what this debate is all about. Was there willful intent from the 'powers that be' to either orchestrate, facilitate, or simply allow 9/11 to take place. Clear evidence as to ANY of the above permutations is a clear win for my side of the debate!


What is a stake, what clear causal paths were set in motion on that day?

- Thousands of lives lost on September 11th 2001
- Tens of thousands of soldiers' lives lost in two wars
- Hundreds of thousands of civilian lives lost in two wars
- Trillions of tax payer dollars spent
- Trillions earned by multinational corporations and the military industrial complex profiting from the war
- Loss of personal freedoms from such vehicles as 'the patriot act' and fear based population manipulation through the contrived threat of 'terrorism'
- Elections won and lost, balances of power affected.
- Global financial markets altered
- Oil Oil Oil!
- Etc, etc, etc …

We were told that the world "changed" on 9/11 … what does that mean if not that a new old order is now before us. And all this we are to believe because twenty or so guys who could barely cope with flying classes managed to pull off the greatest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor. And these events that "changed our world" were investigated at a grand budget of fifteen million bucks!

None of the above is direct evidence of course, rest assured such will be provided in amplitude in subsequent posts. Context however is a fundamental aspect of circumstantial evidence and as such, must be considered.

In the end, when all has been presented before you, there will be no doubt that "The Amount of Circumstantial Evidence Proves That 9/11 was a False Flag Operation."

I thank my opponent, chiseler, the readers, and judges for their patience in commencing this debate and leave the floor to souls.

posted on Mar, 19 2010 @ 05:37 AM
It has been more than 8 years since the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Because the majority of the people are not satisfied with the explanations given by the elected officials who are supposed to serve and protect its constituents, it is time to move on past the first stage of shock, and proceed with a clear mind into the facts of what happened on this day. I can agree that it may be emotionally overwhelming to some, but to others, the facts are now more important than ever to understand what may have actually occurred.

At this point in time, the only thing official about the 9/11 attacks is that there is no official stance as of yet as to who was responsible for the attacks on 9/11. The government of the United States has not conducted a proper investigation and therefore, any claims made up to this point are all just a conspiracy theory like any other. Their first theory was that Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks on 9/11. Because the media ran with this conspiracy theory, the opportunists within the government may have used this for their political reasons, but it does not mean that they, or the media are responsible for orchestrating the attacks, just opportunists. Not once has Osama Bin Laden claimed responsibility for the attacks on 9/11, so it leads to ask who was primarily responsible for the attacks? Did Saudi Arabia fund the operation? Did Pakistan fund the operation? What about Israel? The United States of America?

The only form of investigation supposedly made was in the form of “The 9/11 Commission Report” but today we have most of the members behind the 9/11 Commission stating that a real investigation was being impeded, and that all they were receiving was false reports and statements. This after concluding with no real evidence as to the entity primarily responsible. The only conclusion was, linking Osama Bin Laden to the supposed 19 hijackers through supposed association with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The Taliban offered Osama Bin Laden in turn for hard evidence proving his culpability, but to this day, non has been produced. It can be said that these members were genuinely asking the hard questions and were “dis-informed”, or you can say that this is their way of saving face because they see the gravy boat sinking. Regardless, any theory behind who was responsible for the attacks on 9/11 is valid as long as the circumstances all match according to the facts and direct evidence presented.

The amount of circumstantial evidence does not prove that 9/11 was a false flag operation, because the public was not deceived. There is no doubt that 9/11 was a globalist agenda, and as my opponent will definitely prove, then it can be inferred that instead, this attack was just another attempt at deceiving the public of what happened. An attempt because the people have not been deceived like before. The propaganda machine on the United States front may have deceived for some time some of the people, but not everyone, and globally, most were not convinced since the outset of the attacks and reputable entities have stated this fact as well. Because of this the 9/11 attacks cannot be a false flag operation because the definition of it does not fit the facts.

Already my opponent has taken the liberty to provide us with some quick definitions as to what a false flag operation is and what circumstantial evidence means. In part I agree with the definitions provided but would like to express my interpretation of the definitions as to how they apply to this debate. To make the claim that the amount of circumstantial evidence proves that 9/11 was a false flag operation, one must infer several points:

The first point is that the whole public must be fooled for the onset of several years. If you take into account the instances of supposed false flag operations given as examples by the Wikipedia definition, the difference between all these is that with 9/11, within the first days, months, and years, something was wrong with how the events on that day as a whole occurred, and many knew this. The attack took place in the eyes of thousands, and this was a mistake because the double edged sword that is the internet to these global influences, has prevailed in the spread of intelligent discussion to bring out the inconsistencies of that day. They may in fact have underestimated the speed of their own creation. Now after 8 years, more than half of the people agree that something else happened, it is just hard to but the facts together.

Most people cared not who was responsible, most were worried for the victims. Because of the emotional turmoil within, some chose to shut out of the event completely, and not truly see what really is happening. How can this be a false flag operation to them, if they have never looked at the facts? After a quick analysis, even my opponent, whom for several years has chosen to do this which I describe, has come to the conclusion that at least, this event was aided in part by a handful of people within the United States government, a faction of traitors.

In order to satisfy that the attacks on 9/11 were a false flag operation my opponent must show that the majority of the people were deceived by this attack for several years and that the ones intended to be subverted are clearly identified, as well as those responsible. In other words, that the falsification of the flag was successful. This is the only way the circumstantial evidence can support the direct evidence available and in turn prove that 9/11 was a false flag operation. Which brings me to my second point.

I say my opponent must link, using circumstantial evidence as a support of the direct evidence, the party actually responsible for the attacks because to have knowledge, let alone proof of the attacks being a false flag operation, one must know who conducted the operation, who was to be deceived, and the reason for the operation. The attack took place in United States soil, so the investigation rests solely on the nation attacked.

The official stance of the government is that they do not know who really funded this attack. It is a conspiracy because some were conspiring within. We can accept now, that Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban were not the entities responsible for the attacks because there is no evidence to prove otherwise. From the beginning, the Taliban made the offer to turn over Osama Bin Laden if there was direct evidence of his aiding, funding, and execution of the attacks on September 11. Through Operation Bojinka, Khalid Sheike Mohammed may have planned the attacks, and maybe someone he knew was actually successful in actually accomplishing their intended mission. He is locked away somewhere in some crevice, so who knows. This still does not prove that he carried out the attacks. He confessed to “masterminding” the attacks, but he also confessed to “masterminding” several other attacks, this after a few months vacationing in Cuba. The amount of circumstantial evidence does not support a direct link to Osama Bin Laden actually being proactive in the the execution of this Bojinka project copy in the first place.

The legal burden of proof can only be fulfilled by evidence. Evidence can only be defined as that which directly or indirectly proves a fact. When it is indirect it is circumstantial, and the only manner in which circumstantial evidence can prove the fact is if the circumstances are so strong that the fact can be clearly deduced and points to one fact. Even with this point, only circumstantial evidence that is not so easily countered can proceed. This evidence must not have an equal or greater explanation. This is important for my opponent to successfully prove, using the amount of circumstantial evidence, that 9/11 was a false flag operation.

Regardless of how this debate may proceed, my goal is to show that my opponent's stance of saying that the amount of circumstantial evidence proves 9/11 was false flag operation, in it of itself is false. Most, if not all examples claimed false flag operations have never been in the scale of the attacks on New York because no others had so many witnesses, and so much information available to scrutinize, at such speed, in order to expose the truth. If my opponent can show that there was one true entity responsible, that satisfies the amount of circumstantial evidence, than he may be successful. The attacks on 9/11 may seem like a false flag operation at first, but this is not fundamentally correct. This event was something else by definition and I will strive to use my opponent's evidence to show that rather this day is still not answered yet. There are many links to the story, and the amount of circumstantial evidence must support all of the direct evidence linking all those responsible. Willful negligence may only satisfy some of the amount of circumstantial evidence available.

posted on Mar, 20 2010 @ 11:29 PM
24hr extension.

posted on Mar, 21 2010 @ 05:54 PM


As I mentioned in my opening post I will spend very little time engaging my opponent in adversarial rhetoric and semantic minutia, the subject is simply too vast and too important to throw away valuable character and source counts in such endeavors. However, I will briefly address some of the pertinent elements of his opening post …

It seems my opponent has decided to hang his debate chapeau on a strategy of narrowing the definition of "false flag" to its narrowest point, and to do so, has decided to concede a plethora of evidence pointing to 9/11 being a false flag event in the broader interpretation of the term. I trust our fellow readers and judges will see through and reject this rather transparent attempt to reduce the entire conversation to semantics for the sake of intellectual convenience. Furthermore, and this is the last time I will address this, my opponent's interpretation is simply incorrect.

ANY overt and willful action from a government or institution to deceive the public as to the origin, cause, responsible parties, potential remedies, of an aggression to a secret end is by definition a false flag operation. As I stated in my opening post, an overt and willful act would in the case of 9/11 include anything from the US government and its agencies orchestrating the events themselves, partly assisting in their development, or simply choosing to allow them to unfold unabated with prior knowledge. For any of these permutations affecting the "official story" would institute the deception of the public to a hidden end. Such is the definition of "false flag" and this is the premise under which I will proceed.


For the sake of clarity I think it necessary to provide a general outline at the outset the structure of my pending argument:

Opening post

1st Post: Pre 9/11 evidence and information - the seeding of a false flag operation
2nd Post: continuation of the 'seeding' evidence and 9/11 in NYC
3rd Post: 9/11 at the pentagon and Shanksville
4th Post: The 9/11 commission report and other investigations
5th Post: Post 9/11 evidence and information - the reaping - problem > reaction > solution

Closing post

For the record, this is a tentative outline which I wish to pursue for the sake of argumentative clarity and compartmentalization … obviously a debate is in many ways a living thing, as such, the above outline is inherently elastic in its ultimate application.

One last note before we begin in earnest … though there is a mountain of speculative evidence surrounding the events of 9/11, much of it bearing great validity and is explored daily on the pages of ATS, I will for the sake of transparency and intellectual honesty restrict to that evidence which is verifiable and on the public record. The reason for this is bifold; First if we were to include speculative evidence as it applies to this topic we would surely need a thousand posts each to envelop our positions, second, the substantiated circumstantial evidence pointing to 9/11 being a false flag operation is readily available through verifiable msm sources, which itself bears great weight to mine being the prevailing side of the argument. So no abstract speculation or tenuous causal links required, the evidence will be there for all to crosscheck and verify.

1st Post: Pre 9/11 evidence and information - the seeding of a false flag operation

Two of the main but not exclusive sources of information from which I will draw from for this debate is the following:

History Commons - Complete 9/11 Timeline

9/11 Research 60-Page Summary
Verifiable Research on 9/11

Although both source sites have built in bias into them, they provide clear and independently sourced evidence pertinent to the events preceding, concurrent, and following 9/11. I include them at this juncture for proper bibliographical attribution and to point our fellow readers to the complete volume of evidence surrounding the events of 9/11 which is simply impossible to include in its totality within the structural constraints of our debate. Since I can only include but the most weighted circumstantial evidence, I highly encourage anyone who may wish to investigate the matter for themselves to avail themselves of the remainder of the relevant information contained within the above sources.

Let us begin ...

We were so surprised!

The official story starts with something like this: "the surprise terrorist attacks on September 11th 2001…"

Yet soon after the fact, a plethora of clear evidence started surfacing that that in fact was a lie, the first of many to come. The standard answer from government officials since this incontrovertible evidence started becoming public has been a dismissive "hindsight is 20/20" and that despite the volume of clear cut and pointedly specific warning signs as to the events that were to unfold, it was all due to a sequence of tragic errors and regrettable omissions. Cue "Patriot Act" and a slew of draconian social measures instigated to remedy future such "tragic comedy of errors" at the expense of the public's civil liberties. More on the "solution" aspect of the argument later, I point this out now for it is important to recognize at the outset what metaphorical weed it is that we are seeding to cultivate.

Whilst true, that for lack of a better expression, "Monday morning quarterbacking" is often a convenient and even often a fallacious approach to deconstruction, it is only so if it seeks to imply tenuous causality where none exists. But the football metaphor is apt … one can look back at the previous day's game and see all the mistakes that were made in earnest. But one, when the evidence is overwhelming to that effect, can also use the process with validity to recognize that the game was in fact thrown!

Thus in the context of the events preceding 9/11, a few scattered clues of what was about to happen would indeed point to an understandable predictive unavoidability. That is to say that should the circumstantial evidence be slight, the argument can be made that in hindsight, there should be no reasonable expectation from the public's end to have expected a pre-event recognition and ensuing potential preventive acts by the government and its agencies.

However, as it is about to become crystal clear through evidentiary provision, the exact opposite is in fact true. The evidence preceding and pointing to the events of 9/11 was not only overwhelming, but was also incredibly precise, had been building for years preceding the actual events, and was in possession and full knowledge in the hands of the highest American government officials, the CIA, the FBI, and other agencies. As we shall clearly see, even if one were to concede (which I am not) that the events were orchestrated as per the official story by a few Al Qaeda "terrorists," the notion that the attacks on September 11th 2001 were a surprise to the US government bears earnest ridicule.

They in fact were everything but a surprise!

Let us for the time being give the benefit of the doubt to the powers that be and pretend that the mostly failed 1993 attack on the World Trade Center by Al Qaeda operatives no less, intended to bring the towers down was in no way a foreseeable foreshadowing of things to come. And let us also for now completely forget that a similar operation codenamed Northwoods, which included false flag highjacking of US planes to instigate conflict and provoke war with Cuba is also a coinkidinkie. Hey, it's not that the combination of those two well documented operations is a perfect blueprint for the events of 9/11.

Let's instead focus on what actually transpired in the years, months, and days preceding 9/11 ...

As to the contention that the idea that hijacked civilian planes as an attack weapon were unfathomable:

In 1994, two jetliners were hijacked by people who wanted to crash them into buildings, one of them by an Islamic militant group. And the 2000 edition of the F.A.A.'s annual report on Criminal Acts Against Aviation, published this year, said that although Osama bin Laden ''is not known to have attacked civil aviation, he has both the motivation and the wherewithal to do so,'' adding, ''Bin Laden's anti-Western and anti-American attitudes make him and his followers a significant threat to civil aviation, particularly to U.S. civil aviation.''

From: A NATION CHALLENGED: WARNINGS; Earlier Hijackings Offered Signals That Were Missed

In fact there were a plethora of clues as to what was about to unfold:

Clues Alerted White House to Potential Attacks

In addition to the above we have the events surrounding Kenneth Williams and the Phoenix FBI memo which warned of Al Qaeda operatives training in American flight schools and a mountain of accurate evidence regarding the forthcoming events. A memo that although incredibly accurate, was explained away as somehow being conveniently lost in bureaucratic ether land.

Then there was the now infamous memo delivered to the president himself nearly a month before the attacks warning amongst other things that Bin Laden operatives were to hijack US planes!

At this juncture, I will pause the evidentiary flow, as I am running out of allotted character and citation space for this post. Rest assured that we are only but beginning to scratch the surface ... I urge you to read all linked sources.

tbc ...

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 05:14 PM
The time-lines painted by both referenced sites by my opponent, do show a consistent operational alliance between not only the United States CIA, but also the ISI of Pakistan, the Saudi Arabians, Iraq, Israel, Iran, the Mujaheddin, Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden and Co. in Afghanistan, even Kenya to some degree. It is a very mixed bunch of intelligence agencies all working together, and even against each other, with the corporate world of the pertaining countries. But this is no secret.

Because to this I must infer that among the parties mentioned, one if not all were responsible. In order for this to be a false flag operation, my opponent states that only the United States must have had the culpability to execute the attacks, or at least had the willful negligence to let these attacks happen. This is obvious by his stating that the official story is based on the supposed surprise of the attack that was observed there on by the officials in office and the draconian set of initiatives set in after the attacks. Then this means that only one of these entities was responsible. If it was a collaboration of all of these agencies and governments, then this was in the definition of it, not a false flag attack but something else.

If it is true the officials are lying about their knowledge, than my opponent has to prove that it was the United States government that was responsible for the attacks from drafting to the complete collapse of the World Trade center. If the security officials were lying about being surprised, then this has to mean they must be responsible for the attacks. My opponent states that he only has to prove willful negligence to prove his claim, but this is wrong because willful negligence still does not prove the complete orchestration of the attacks to have been conducted completely by United States officials who feigned surprise as part of their supposed false flag operation. The events leading up to the attacks on 9/11 show that in part, it would have been capable for Islamic extremists to pull off the attacks themselves with the help of the intelligence agencies mentioned above, as per the evidence referenced by my opponent in the 9/11 time lines. There is a substantial amount of both direct and circumstantial evidence to equally prove this point. The Islamic extremism that has been created by these countries at the time of the attacks and from its inception, has had the resources and capability to conduct such an operation. Pakistan as well as Israel have funded these extremists from time to time, as well as the United States.

Before we forget Operation Northwoods and the 1993 WTC Bombing as the perfect blueprint for the attacks on 9/11, Operation Northwoods does not support any direct evidence linking 9/11 to a false flag operation because there is equal or greater evidence suggesting the involvement, if not the complete execution of the 9/11 attacks by foreign intelligences. Yes at the time of the conflict with Cuba this was drafted as one possible way of justifying an armed conflict with the Island. But that was back in 1962 and Lyman L. Lemnitz who signed off on the proposed draft, has long since been retired. The proposals were never enacted and the information had been declassified prior to 9/11.

One aspect of Operation Northwoods is the planned “hijacking” of planes in order to use for several unprovoked attacks, or to use as disguises for covert operations. The most important thing to note in this is that the planes that would be used would be part of an elaborate plan to switch flights with remote controlled airplanes and then conduct the operations. The points that would be targeted by these planes would not be buildings like the World Trade Center, but in fact military bases in and around Guantanamo. Civilian targets are only to be targeted by destabilization and chaos efforts. They will also conduct operations to implicate the Soviets in the attacks Operation Northwoods may in fact show the extend that the military would traverse to, in order to combat Communism at the time. But this does not show an correlation that the attacks on 9/11 were an extension of this project and is irrelevant in proving 9/11 was a false flag operation, even circumstantially. Logic would have it that Operation Bojinka would me a much greater indicant of what actually took place on 9/11 if anything. This would mean that the Al Qaeda extremists did have the know how and capability to draft such a plan as took place on 9/11.

I accept that there was definite foreknowledge of an imminent attack by high ranking officials, and I also accept that there was definite obfuscation by top levels in government. At the same time there was other capable intelligences aiding these Al Qaeda members so both scenarios are equally possible, but the circumstances surrounding this may point to a joint operation by several international agencies and not just the United States. This would mean that this was something else other than a false flag operation because according to my opponent, the country mostly affected would have had to have been willfully negligent to the attacks in order to be a false flag. I say criminal complicity is much more important and the facts for now show that more than one entity may have been criminally complicit in the attacks.

Question 1: What circumstantial evidence in specific shows who among the international agencies mentioned is the ultimate perpetrator of the attacks on 9/11, and how does that circumstantial evidence clearly prove it?

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 05:14 PM

Brief rebuttal and SQ

Question 1: What circumstantial evidence in specific shows who among the international agencies mentioned is the ultimate perpetrator of the attacks on 9/11, and how does that circumstantial evidence clearly prove it?

If I understand your question correctly you are basically asking me who is responsible for the 9/11 attacks … presumably to emphasize your earlier statement that :

… my opponent has to prove that it was the United States government that was responsible for the attacks from drafting to the complete collapse of the World Trade center.

I admire your persistence in regards of attempting to frame the debate in the only way that would provide you a chance of prevailing … however the debate gods in their wisdom, fully aware that the people behind the 9/11 attacks have yet to be conclusively identified, wisely chose to prevent this straw man argument by not making it the debate topic. Thus I certainly don't have to "prove" anything of the kind for it is not the debate topic as stated. Interesting debate tactic, fallacious premise and all …

Furthermore it seems that my opponent has chosen to go for broke with this argument, conceding:

I accept that there was definite foreknowledge of an imminent attack by high ranking officials, and I also accept that there was definite obfuscation by top levels in government.

I have already stated that I will delve no further as to the definition of "false flag" as the definition is clear for all to consider as outlined in my previous posts. As such, for reasons and evidence already presented and yet to be presented, the above statement is to be considered all but an outright concession of this debate.

And to answer your question, and because as stated it is a straw man, I nor anyone else can conclusively "prove" the identity of the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. A plethora of folks much smarter than myself, on ATS and across the globe, have made it their life's work to find the answer to that question, and one day hopefully the truth will emerge … to ask me to provide it for the sake of this debate whilst at the same time conceding the fundamental premise that the US government knew of the attacks, seems a rather desperate tactical maneuver.

Nevertheless, the show as per usual must go on … as such, whilst my opponent sits in what I can only hope is a nice and comfortable corner he hath painted himself in, I shall continue presenting my case and do my best to pretend the debate hasn't been conceded, and that my opponents argument is little more than mere fallacious logic play. For adversarial resistance, real or contrived, is paramount to generate intellectual ambition on my end.

2nd Post: continuation of the 'seeding' evidence and 9/11 in NYC

The rest of this post, as per my outline, will be dedicated to the exposition of well established evidence and facts surrounding the days and hours preceding September 11th 2001. Keeping in mind once more that our debate format only allows for only the most significant of circumstantial evidence to be sourced.

Although my opponent has chosen to concede the fact that the US and its agencies had foreknowledge of the pending attacks, due diligence on my part dictates that I provide circumstantial evidence to substantiate this element of the "false flag" operation. In this regard I offer five further pieces of incontrovertible facts.

U.S. had agents inside al-Qaeda

Reports discussing the possibility of suicide bombings, plots to fly planes into buildings and strikes against the Pentagon, World Trade Center and other high-profile targets.

Electronic intercepts as late as Sept. 10 of al-Qaeda members speaking cryptically of a major attack. Two U.S. intelligence officials, paraphrasing highly classified intercepts, say they include such remarks as, "Good things are coming," "Watch the news" and "Tomorrow will be a great day for us."

Dispatches from agents who infiltrated al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies. The operatives could not crack the tightly held secret of the Sept. 11 plot but helped underscore the lengths al-Qaeda was willing to go to inflict pain on the United States.

How the FBI protected Al Qaeda’s 9/11 Hijacking Trainer

... Ali Mohamed, the close ally of Osama bin Laden and his mentor Ayman al-Zawahiri.7 It is now generally admitted that Ali Mohamed (known in the al Qaeda camps as Abu Mohamed al Amriki — "Father Mohamed the American")8 worked for the FBI, the CIA, and U.S. Special Forces. As he later confessed in court, he also aided the terrorist Ayman al-Zawahiri, a co-founder of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and by then an aide to bin Laden, when he visited America to raise money.

1) a key planner of the 9/11 plot, and trainer in hijacking, was simultaneously an informant for the FBI.

2) This operative trained the members for all of the chief Islamist attacks inside the United States – the first WTC bombing, the New York landmarks plot, and finally 9/11, as well as the attacks against Americans in Somalia and Kenya.

3) And yet for four years Mohamed was allowed to move in and out of the country as an unindicted conspirator. Then, unlike his trainees, he was allowed to plea-bargain. To this day he may still not have been sentenced for any crime.

Further evidence (not quoted because of external quote restrictions):

Egypt's warning:

Egypt Warned U.S. of a Qaeda Plot, Mubarak Asserts

Trading on United/American Airlines' stocks:

Exchange examines odd jump

And finally I refer you to the timeline link from my previous post, specifically to the numerous insider and suspicious global trading trends and anomalies on September 10th 2001 by those who had been forewarned of the pending attacks:

9/11 timeline Insider Trading

The significance of foreknowledge cannot be underemphasized in the context of this debate, for as I mentioned, the deception synonymous with a "false flag" operation must be ambitious to hidden end for the theory to be valid. As such, before we can ponder the crucial "WHY" we must be secure in the knowledge that deception has in fact occurred. If no deception can be established there is no "why" to be asked and it cannot be a "false flag" operation.

Deception alone of course does not a "false flag" operation make, an event founded on preplanned deception does, along with further deception to use the deceptive act to a hidden/deceptive end.

Did that make sense?

To clarify, in order for me to prevail in my argument that 9/11 was a false flag operation I have to in effect show three clear deceptions on the part of the US government and its agencies:

1. Deception of foreknowledge
2. Deception during the event
3. Deception as to their interpretation of the event

Only when those three elements of deception have been substantiated via circumstantial evidence can we then ponder motive and ask the question "WHY" … the "why" of course will be the subject of much elaboration on my part in the latter part of our debate.

First things first, what will follow in the next post is the presentation of equally strong circumstantial evidence substantiating deception during the event and deception of interpretation … but let us preemptively wet our respective "why" whistles and allow ourselves to ponder. Does anyone remember what Mr. Rumsfeld was talking to us about on September 10th 2001? Something about the pentagon, something about 2.3 trillion dollars, I can't really remember because the events of 9/11 made me forget. Oh well, I'm sure it will come back to me …

Deception of foreknowledge has now been presented, and in any case, conceded by my opponent, as such a major element of what is required on my part to argue that "The Amount of Circumstantial Evidence Proves That 9/11 was a False Flag Operation" is now established before our readers and judges.

At this juncture I yield the floor to my esteemed opponent.

tbc …

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 07:20 PM
This is my 24 hours time extension.

posted on Mar, 28 2010 @ 03:21 AM
It is a hard decision to make at this point of a debate. For several reasons, time, and what not, but mainly because of the way I personally feel about this debate. I have to concede to this debate because the evidence to prove 9/11 was a false flag operation is just overwhelming. I believe that many governments worked together to accomplish this goal in order to advance a global doctrine, and even this is evidence of governments deceiving the people, hence a false flag by all definitions.

There is no way I can continue a debate trying to use the disinformation shill's tactics of trying to obfuscate the truth. I believe there is definitely a war waging over the internet, a war over the minds and thoughts, and the opinion of the people.

I believe that if I continue with this debate, I will be unable to win with out committing a serious disservice to the 9/11 truth movement. Many people will read this, and is now evident to even the most skeptical of people that there is something not right with 9/11. Those who continue to persistently engage in illogical arguments must work for somebody.

I could have chosen to continue trying to put up a show, but I wish to not want to contribute to the all of the deflection and disinformation already flooding the pages on this website, and the next.

I congratulate my opponent on the win for the tournament. I have enjoyed the tournament for sure. I apologize to all of those who may have expected otherwise if any. I thank all who have participated in the realization of this tournament. Congratulations Schrodingersdog, good show.

new topics

top topics


log in