9/11 - The Untold Stories of the 9/11 Families - In their own words.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

You do know you are without question the minority population of the conspiracy moment, right? In all the time I've been posting here you're perhaps only the second person I've encountered who subscribes to that theory.

I find that very hard to believe.

Originally posted by whatsecret
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

You do know you are without question the minority population of the conspiracy moment, right? In all the time I've been posting here you're perhaps only the second person I've encountered who subscribes to that theory.

I find that very hard to believe.

I'm not the one saying this; it's coming from your fellow conspiracy proponents here. Based upon the number of posts I've seen people make here, the majority of posters here by far are those who are into that whole "secret controlled demolitions" theory, with maybe a third of them also believing the planes were all fake. You as a LIHOP supporter are running about neck and neck with the "nukes in the basement" people, but you're behind the "lasers from outer space" people and ahead of the "the towers were fake buildings" people.

As much as I acknowledge how reasonable your theory is...becuase after all, all Bush needed to do to pull off a LIHOP is "nothing",...your fellow conspiracy theorists are making sure you are being marginalized by sheer numbers. Richard Gage has a media empire that lets him outshout you with this "Building 7" propaganda just by himself. So who here is really your bigger enemy, debunkers like me or the hordes of conspiracy theorists making sure they cause a large enough distraction that noone ever pays attention to you?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by whatsecret
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

You do know you are without question the minority population of the conspiracy moment, right? In all the time I've been posting here you're perhaps only the second person I've encountered who subscribes to that theory.

I find that very hard to believe.

I'm not the one saying this; it's coming from your fellow conspiracy proponents here. Based upon the number of posts I've seen people make here, the majority of posters here by far are those who are into that whole "secret controlled demolitions" theory, with maybe a third of them also believing the planes were all fake. You as a LIHOP supporter are running about neck and neck with the "nukes in the basement" people, but you're behind the "lasers from outer space" people and ahead of the "the towers were fake buildings" people.

As much as I acknowledge how reasonable your theory is...becuase after all, all Bush needed to do to pull off a LIHOP is "nothing",...your fellow conspiracy theorists are making sure you are being marginalized by sheer numbers. Richard Gage has a media empire that lets him outshout you with this "Building 7" propaganda just by himself. So who here is really your bigger enemy, debunkers like me or the hordes of conspiracy theorists making sure they cause a large enough distraction that noone ever pays attention to you?

edit on 19-8-2013 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)

Now that's funny Dave! I don't know if it's true, but it definitely funny.

I don't consider anyone on ats as my enemy. We are all entitled to our own opinion and or beliefs.

I don't know what the actual truth of 9/11 is, but the official story does seem very contrived.
What really discourages me from accepting the OS is the attitudes of those that accept it as the gospel truth.

Why the arrogance, name calling, snarky comments and condescending rudeness?

Is that just the official style of the debunkers? I don't think it's gaining any converts to the official story.

Why the arrogance, name calling, snarky comments and condescending rudeness?

Surely, your not accusing me of such behavior. Your point is well taken as there are individuals who routinely display all 4 of those traits-which just reduces their credibility.

I am not a 'debunker'. That description is somewhat insulting as I am not for any one side against the other. I do research and I analyze it Period.

Anyone who adheres to the theory that President Bush could just 'let it happen' is totally in the dark about the US clandestine operations and the policy of plausible denial. Other than the PDB presidential daily brief given by the CIA the President is totally out of the loop and knows very little about how our counter terrorism programs functions.

The JSOP-Joint Special Operations Command is a creature of the CIA however it acts totally independently of not only the CIA but the United States Government as well. It's function is intelligence and it's not bound by the laws of the United States nor those of any other country. This Command was responsible for the intelligence of the Abbottabad compound.

The lesson here is that it is, and always will be, impossible for anyone in American government to let 'anything' happen. Our counterinsurgency and counterterrorism assets in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen are not controlled by the government. That is there fuction.

Originally posted by kaya82
Thanks for posting

Interesting that non of the resident debunkers have touched this yet

You really think they are going to spend 2 hours of their precious time giving this their full attention with an open mind? Okaayyyyyy

The evidence regarding 9/11 points to a false flag and that is why the truth will NEVER come out and why government debunkers and apologists will never deal with the plethora of issues this movie discusses.

reply to post by spooky24


Are you saying that you don't understand what a "put option" is or you don't see what that has to do with 9/11? A put option means you believe a stock will fall and thus you place a "bet" on that and you make a lot of money when it happens.

Regarding 9/11 thousands of put options were put on those airlines and I believe Boeing in general. This was an astounding unprecedented number of "Put options" with points to someone or some groups knowing a catastrophe was about to happen and these insiders in their greed could not stop themselves from making a nice profit from the attacks.

For you to say Silverstein's putting insurance on them for this exact kind of attack is irrelevant speaks to motives and foreknowledge. Then combine that with the Solomon building coming down when it was not hit, and the BBC reporting it coming down 20 minutes before it happened and Silverstein saying he gave the order to "PULL IT" shows it was all set up. You don't pull a building on the fly. That sort of event takes massive planning to bring a building down in it's own footprint!

Then you have the cops giving the crowd warning to get back because the building is coming down! It was not wobbling about or giving signs of massive collapse. IT WAS PULLED and anyone who knows demolition knows what that term means.

reply to post by spooky24

Anyone who adheres to the theory that President Bush could just 'let it happen' is totally in the dark about the US clandestine operations and the policy of plausible denial. Other than the PDB presidential daily brief given by the CIA the President is totally out of the loop and knows very little about how our counter terrorism programs functions.

I believe that anybody who researched 911 had to learn the history of governments and apply that knowledge to how our government reacted to 9/11. What I found out by studying the available information is that immediately after 9/11 they started covering up what they knew and what they did about it. It is very clear to me that 9/11 would have been prevented if the field agents were allowed to do their jobs. The question that I am unable to find an answer to is why not a single person had any consequences for not allowing the agents to do what they felt like had to be done.

It was not the policies that failed that day. Our high ranking members of government agencies really messed up and for that they somehow got rewarded by the administration. In the world I live promotions are given for a job well done, and peoples mistakes, actions or non actions which result in lost lives are usually dealt with in the court of law. Just like the bus driver who fell asleep on a highway and killed people would be held accountable. You know what I mean?

I'm forced to come up with my own theories and the most logical one is that Bin Laden was not in a position to promote Condoleezza Rice for example.

George H. W. Bush used to be the CIA director, and his son was the President on 9/11. We all know he was at a meeting at Washington's Ritz Carlton Hotel that morning and left early. At the same time George W Bush was in Florida and was kept from returning to Washington for hours while also having trouble communicating with them. The policy of plausible denial fits in pretty well. But do I have any proof? Of course not.

As George W said in a recent interview...

“Ultimately history will judge the decisions that I made and I won’t be around because it will take a while for the objective historians to show up. And so I’m pretty comfort with it. I did what I did. I know the spirit in which I did it.”

That's how things work in government.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Regarding 9/11 thousands of put options were put on those airlines and I believe Boeing in general. This was an astounding unprecedented number of "Put options" with points to someone or some groups knowing a catastrophe was about to happen and these insiders in their greed could not stop themselves from making a nice profit from the attacks.

At least look into things a bit.

Here

.A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included Buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly,much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.

Note the part about 'buying 115,000 shares on Sept 10.

reply to post by samkent


There are other financial anomalies according to the analyst at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

Bill Bergman joins us to discuss compelling financial irregularities and cases involving pre-9/11 money transfers, suspicious activity reporting, and informed securities trading, all of which remain uninvestigated and unanswered to date. This is the latest instalment in the Boiling Frogs interview series, co-hosted with Sibel Edmonds. Bergman provides us with his analyses of the extraordinary surge in currency shipments and significant increase in the number of suspicious activity reports filed by financial institutions in the summer of 2001, the long history of currency shipments in U.S. covert operations, documented false statements and conclusions by the 9/11 Commission regarding the National Money Laundering Strategy Report from the Department of the Treasury in 2001, and the performance of the ‘market fear index’ in the weeks before 9/11. Bergman discusses obstacles and climate of fear faced by public servants, the city of Chicago as the major hub for money laundering, narcotics and corruption, and more!

Originally posted by whatsecret
Now that's funny Dave! I don't know if it's true, but it definitely funny.

I don't consider anyone on ats as my enemy. We are all entitled to our own opinion and or beliefs.

Ah, but that's not true, or at least, you're not understanding that it's not true. You aren't just sitting back with a cup of coffee and thinking deep thoughts about the meaning of life, here. You are trying to unravel A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TREASON AND MURDER. Innocent people were killed on 9/11 (which the LIHOP people acknowledge are real victims rather than a bunch of secret agents hiding incognito somewhere or make believe personas)) and you're saying there's more to the story than it just being a terrorist attack.

That's as hard core real world as hard core real world as it gets, and here you are, trying to make a serious attempt to bring justice for these victims, and then a bunch of internet crackpots come out of the woodwork insisting that the the attack was a false flag masterminded by secret Satan worshipping cults. Of course, that ignites pointless arguments on all sides and noone pays any more attention to you, the one person trying to bring "the truth" to people. You're telling me you don't consider that to be horriby irresponsible?

reply to post by samkent


"no conceivable ties to al cia duh" huh? What about freaking ties to the US government?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Ah, but that's not true, or at least, you're not understanding that it's not true. You aren't just sitting back with a cup of coffee and thinking deep thoughts about the meaning of life, here. You are trying to unravel A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TREASON AND MURDER.

You are wrong about what I am trying to do. I personally have no ability to unravel any conspiracy even if I wanted to. Other people have done a pretty good job without me. What I am doing is discussing a topic which is very interesting to me and nothing more.

This website is what made me research this thing. I read alot of peoples opinions here and checked all information people link to. In my view this is the purpose of these forums, No?

Innocent people were killed on 9/11 (which the LIHOP people acknowledge are real victims rather than a bunch of secret agents hiding incognito somewhere or make believe personas)) and you're saying there's more to the story than it just being a terrorist attack.

You're right. I haven't found anything that made me believe otherwise yet.

and then a bunch of internet crackpots come out of the woodwork insisting that the the attack was a false flag masterminded by secret Satan worshipping cults.

To me there is a very thin line between letting it happen and a full blown false flag. At this time I'm on the letting it happen side, but I also acknowledge that one day I might be forced to change my mind if more evidence come out. False Flags are real and our government is no exception, they have thought about it or maybe even did it in the past.

Of course, that ignites pointless arguments on all sides and noone pays any more attention to you, the one person trying to bring "the truth" to people. You're telling me you don't consider that to be horriby irresponsible?

Worrying about pointless arguments is pointless in my opinion. I'm more concerned about people who are not paying attention than those who ignites the crazy talk.

I don't spend much time thinking about the crazy stuff, that gives me more time to think about reality. You should try that for a while, you might learn something new.

Originally posted by whatsecret

You are wrong about what I am trying to do. I personally have no ability to unravel any conspiracy even if I wanted to. Other people have done a pretty good job without me. What I am doing is discussing a topic which is very interesting to me and nothing more.

What is the difference between "tryign to unravel a case of premeditated murder and treason" and "discussing a topic that's very interesting to you"? If you already know all the answers and weren't interesting in helping other people find out the answers then you wouldn't need to be here to discuss it.

Worrying about pointless arguments is pointless in my opinion. I'm more concerned about people who are not paying attention than those who ignites the crazy talk.

What's the difference between people instigating pointless arguments and people not paying attention? You try to explain the attack was real and that the gov;t allowed it to happen, and then someone comes along and starts arguing that the plane that hit the Pentagon was faked. They're obviously listening to the drivel some conspiracy web site is pushing out, not you.

I don't spend much time thinking about the crazy stuff, that gives me more time to think about reality. You should try that for a while, you might learn something new.

HA HA HA on the contrary, it's my consistantly bringing reality into the conspiracy theories here that causes so much umbrage among the conspiracy theorists. Case in point- I need to point out your own theories suffers the exact same flaws as the other conspiracy theories; it requires many, many, MANY people to be willing co-conspirators to the conspiracy, with none of them spilling the beans in an era where people are whistleblowing the NSA is spying on everyone and Bush can't out a CIA agent without hordes of journalists tracking it back to him.

How's that for a reality check?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

What is the difference between "tryign to unravel a case of premeditated murder and treason" and "discussing a topic that's very interesting to you"? If you already know all the answers and weren't interesting in helping other people find out the answers then you wouldn't need to be here to discuss it.

Well I guess we have a different interpretation of 'talking about things we are interested in'. For instance, I also like to talk about movies, books and wonders of the universe. When I do that I do not intend to teach people about it, but if I help someone find some answers in the process, that's cool with me.

What's the difference between people instigating pointless arguments and people not paying attention?

People are entitled to their own opinion even if I thinks it's crazy. But not paying attention to everybody because somebody has a crazy opinion is... well, I don't get that type of logic.

You try to explain the attack was real and that the gov;t allowed it to happen, and then someone comes along and starts arguing that the plane that hit the Pentagon was faked. They're obviously listening to the drivel some conspiracy web site is pushing out, not you.

I don't care about that.

Case in point- I need to point out your own theories suffers the exact same flaws as the other conspiracy theories; it requires many, many, MANY people to be willing co-conspirators to the conspiracy, with none of them spilling the beans in an era where people are whistleblowing the NSA is spying on everyone and Bush can't out a CIA agent without hordes of journalists tracking it back to him.

This is your theory about what my theory requires, nothing more, nothing less.

It seems that we also interpret "whistleblowers" differently. From my point of view there are many whistleblowers, but you keep saying they don't exist. I don't know why and I don't really care.

To some people Snowden is a leaker and should be punished, I think he's a whistleblower and should be thanked.

How's that for a reality check?

That's just your version of reality Dave. It has no effect on me whatsoever.

The question that I am unable to find an answer to is why not a single person had any consequences for not allowing the agents to do what they felt like had to be done.

An excellent point.

The confusion and the misinterpretation of interagency rules on what constituted a criminal case, and what constituted an intelligence case no doubt was a dreadful case of human error. This error was compounded by childish turf wars between agencies, Having said that it must be pointed out that just like you can't anticipate a double play in baseball, you can't anticipate that adding Nawaf Alhazmi and Kahlid al-Midhar to the no fly list would have guaranteed the foiling of the plot.

I know that is a simplification and this was all part of other mistakes however creating the Department of Homeland Security eliminated any chance of this ever happening again. Punitive measures against the individual agents would solve nothing.

My time-as always is limited but I will get back to the rest of your response when I can.

Originally posted by whatsecret

 

People are entitled to their own opinion even if I thinks it's crazy. But not paying attention to everybody because somebody has a crazy opinion is... well, I don't get that type of logic.

I already told you...you're not discussing whether Picard or Kirk was the better Star Trek captain, here. You're discussing TREASON AND PREMEDITATED MURDER, and who possibly could have committed it. It's as real world as real world gets becuase if it can be proven, whoever is found responsible for it will be given a one way ticket to the grave, so when self serving characters come out of the woodwork to pollute it with all these crackpot accusations it can't NOT be irresponsible and detrimental to the discussion.

We already saw that with the Trayvor Martin shooting. Some kid high on drugs (as per the toxicology report) who had dreams of being a gangsta (as per the photos of illegal guns and drugs on his camera) elevated a confrontation with a night watchman into attempted murder and essentially instigated his own death (as per the jurors' own post-trial interviews) and yet we hear none of that. All we hear are charges of racism from that phony Al Sharpton and demands for yet even more gun laws from those gun control phonies like Mayor Bloomberg, despite the fact that neither are offering anythign which would have prevented the incident from occurring. Tell me, do you think Sharpton and Bloomberg are genuinely trying to explore what happened or do you think they're trying to rewrite what happened to their own liking in order to promote a political agenda they've had long before the Trayvor Marton shooting ever happened?

SO, when characters like Alex Jones come along and claim the towers were destroyed by secret cults of Satan Worshippers, do you think he's genuinely trying to explore what happened or do you think he's trying to rewrite what happened to his own liking in order to promote a political agenda he's had long before 9/11 ever happened?

It seems that we also interpret "whistleblowers" differently. From my point of view there are many whistleblowers, but you keep saying they don't exist. I don't know why and I don't really care.

I keep saying there are no whistleblowers becuase there are no whistleblowers. All anyone in the 9/11 conspiracy movement ever does is quote peopel out of context to drop innuendo. In many cases I've seen such "whistleblowers" being quoted despite the "whistleblowers" are sayign the exact opposite of what the people who are quoting them want to believe (NISt fire expert James Quintiere is an infamous case in point). SO, that brings us back to the same question- do you think the people who do that are genuinely trying to explore what happend or do you think they're trying to rewrite what happened to their own liking in order to promote a political agenda they've had long before 9/11 ever happened?

For every real fact we hear, there are probably three times as many fake facts being put out by people who are trying to use it for their own ends. How can you say that's not being irresponsible?

reply to post by spooky24

The confusion and the misinterpretation of interagency rules on what constituted a criminal case, and what constituted an intelligence case no doubt was a dreadful case of human error. This error was compounded by childish turf wars between agencies, Having said that it must be pointed out that just like you can't anticipate a double play in baseball, you can't anticipate that adding Nawaf Alhazmi and Kahlid al-Midhar to the no fly list would have guaranteed the foiling of the plot.

I don't believe misinterpretation of rules had anything to do with letting them enter US with expired visas. Watch the movie in the OP, they cover that in it.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

I already told you...you're not discussing whether Picard or Kirk was the better Star Trek captain, here. You're discussing TREASON AND PREMEDITATED MURDER, and who possibly could have committed it. It's as real world as real world gets becuase if it can be proven, whoever is found responsible for it will be given a one way ticket to the grave, so when self serving characters come out of the woodwork to pollute it with all these crackpot accusations it can't NOT be irresponsible and detrimental to the discussion.

You are making it sound like this forum is the criminal court or something like that. I don't look at it this way. This is nothing more than people communicating with each other on the Internet. Nothing on these boards can be used to prove anything in court. I can't call anybody irresponsible here because I don't know why these people post what they do. To them I might seem irresponsible for not talking about lasers from space.

If it bothers you so much maybe you should start your own forum and only allow discussions of what you think should be discussed.

Tell me, do you think Sharpton and Bloomberg are genuinely trying to explore what happened or do you think they're trying to rewrite what happened to their own liking in order to promote a political agenda

Of course they are trying to promote political agenda. That's what they do for a living. Anybody who doesn't understand that is extremely naive. I deal with them by not watching or listening to what they are trying to sell.

SO, when characters like Alex Jones come along and claim the towers were destroyed by secret cults of Satan Worshippers, do you think he's genuinely trying to explore what happened or do you think he's trying to rewrite what happened to his own liking in order to promote a political agenda he's had long before 9/11 ever happened?

I am unaware of Alex Jones blaming 9/11 on satan worshippers. And even though I think he talks about important issues and a lot of what he says appears to be true, I can't stand him, so I do not listen to his show.

keep saying there are no whistleblowers becuase there are no whistleblowers

There are whistleblowers In the movie I posted. You think they aren't any is probably because you don't want to look them up.

NISt fire expert James Quintiere

I Think this is a very interesting case. He criticized NIST investigation of the twin towers and brought up a lot of good points. But when he was asked about what he thought about the WTC 7 investigation he said he had not looked into it. I wish he would look into it and tell us what he thinks. Or maybe you know where he already did that?

SO, that brings us back to the same question- do you think the people who do that are genuinely trying to explore what happend or do you think they're trying to rewrite what happened to their own liking in order to promote a political agenda they've had long before 9/11 ever happened?

I have no idea what they are trying to do. I can only speak for myself, they made me look deeper into it, that's it.

For every real fact we hear, there are probably three times as many fake facts being put out by people who are trying to use it for their own ends. How can you say that's not being irresponsible?

Maybe it is. I don't buy anything from them, and I don't plan my family's future based on what they say. That would be irresponsible of me if I did.

Originally posted by spooky24

Transponders are not 'shut off' they are engaged and disengaged. It's been 8 years since I set in a 757 simulator and I still remember how to do it. A sweet computer voice tells you their status and would you like to override the auto pilot and disengage.

You're a pilot? Just asking since you said you were in a 757 sim. Anyway, there's no sweet or rude computer voice that tells you about the status of the transponders. And, the transponder is a radio function which has absolutely nothing to do with flight controls, which is what the auto pilot is used for.