911 and massive deception by the US Government

[GodisEnergy]

Huge surges in purchases of put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack -- United Airlines and American Airlines
Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack -- Munich Re and the AXA Group
Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of financial services companies hurt by the attack -- Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America
Huge surge in purchases of call options of stock of a weapons manufacturer expected to gain from the attack -- Raytheon
Huge surges in purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes

[GodisEnergy]

doubled up post how do you delete

[GodisEnergy]

Firstly, let's take a look at how the 9/11 Commission Report responded to the issue of insider trading on 9/11 (chapter 5, note 130):

Quote:

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options--investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price--surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10--highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. 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. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept. 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10-11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, "Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review," May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).

So, according to the 9/11 Commission, "Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11."

What was the reason for the Commission's claim that "the trading had no connection with 9/11"? Because these trades were made by "a single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda". That means the investigation is blocked for the reason that the trail doesn't lead to the largely mythical Al-Qaeda! What is that for an "investigation" when the result stands before the investigation has even begun?

The commission are claiming that a "single U.S.based investor... purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts".

Therefore, as this turned out to be only one company, how could such a claim be made that said trading is referred to a general fall of airline-options and a general recommendation made by a trading newsletter? That fact that 95% of the put options were purchased by one investor is proof that this options-trade wasn't result of general business. This investor had a very special interest in these put-options. Who was this single investor?

The bank which purchased 95% of the UAL-Put-options was Alex Brown Inc, headed until 1998 by "Buzzy" Krongard, who became executive director of the CIA in March 2001 (resigned December 2004). Krongard was chairman of Alex Brown Inc, America's oldest investment banking firm. Alex Brown was acquired by Bankers Trust, which in turn was bought by the German Deutsche Bank. His last post before resigning to take his senior role in the CIA was to head Bankers Trust – Alex Brown's private client business, dealing with the accounts and investments of wealthy customers around the world.

Now, as we've just seen that the Commission Report contradicts itself, let's look directly at these suspicious trades:

On Sptember 10th, 1,535 contracts changed hands on options that bring a profit if AMR stock falls below $30 per share before Oct. 20. That was more than 60 times the previous daily average, according to a Bloomberg analysis of options market data (BLOOMBERG NEWS, Sept.20, 2001, also CBS News, Sept.26,2001)

In "Unusual Options Market Activity with an Application to the Terrorist Attacks of Sept. 11, 2001" by Allen M. Poteshman of the University of Illinois, the author states:

Quote:

"When the option market activity in the days leading up to the terrorist attacks is compared to the benchmark distributions, the volume ratios and call volume indicators are seen to be at typical levels. The indicator of long put volume, however, appears to be unusually high, which is consistent with informed investors having traded in the option market in advance of the attacks."

According to Bloomberg News, Sept.20, 2001, October $30 put options for UAL soared, with 2,000 contracts traded on Sept. 6, three trading days before the attack. That was 285 times the previous average trading.

According to CBS News, Sept. 26, 2001, there has been a jump in UAL put options 90 times above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack.

The Put/Call Ratio for UAL was 25 times higher than normal:


But there were more suspicious trades before 9/11:

On 21 September 2001, the Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism, states in the report entitled "Black Tuesday: The World's Largest Insider Trading Scam?" :

Quote:

„Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45.00 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6.“

That means 719 daily average the last three day before 9/11, compared to 27 daily average. That's 26 times more than before. The report goes on:

Quote:

„Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw 12,215 October $45.00 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in these options had been 252 contracts per day“

That's 12 times more than the previous average volume.

Quote:

Morgan Stanley's stock dropped 13% and Merrill Lynch's stock dropped 11.5% when the market reopened.

Again, Bloomberg News, Sept.20, 2001:

Quote:

Citigroup Inc., which has estimated that its Travelers insurance unit may pay $500 million in claims from the World Trade Center attack, had about 45 times the normal volume during three trading days before the attack for options that profit if the stock falls below $40. Citigroup shares fell $1.25 in late trading to $38.09.

„European regulators are examing trades in Germany's Munich Re, Switzerland's Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster.... It is not clear if any trades in these stocks ring alarm bells.“

Also, note that German central bank president Ernst Welteke reports that a study by his bank indicates,

Quote:

„There are ever clearer signs that there were activities on international financial markets that must have been carried out with the necessary expert knowledge“,

not only in shares of heavily affected industries such as airlines and insurance companies, but also in gold and oil. [Daily Telegraph, 9/23/01] His researchers have found

Quote:

„almost irrefutable proof of insider trading“ [Miami Herald, 9/24/01]. „If you look at movements in markets before and after the attack, it makes your brow furrow. But it is extremely difficult to really verify it.“

Nevertheless, he believes that

Quote:

„in one or the other case it will be possible to pinpoint the source.“ [Fox News, 9/22/01]

Welteke reports

Quote:

„fundamentally inexplicable rise“

in oil prices before the attacks [Miami Herald, 9/24/01] and then a further rise of 13 percent the day after the attacks. Gold rises nonstop for days after the attacks. [Daily Telegraph, 9/23/01]

There were also other suspicious winners of 9/11:

Raytheon saw its stock rise immediately after the attack. Purchases of call options on Raytheon stock increased sixfold on the day before the attack.

Quote:

A Raytheon option that makes money if shares are more than $25 each had 232 options contracts traded on the day before the attacks, almost six times the total number of trades that had occurred before that day. A contract represents options on 100 shares. Raytheon shares soared almost 37 percent to $34.04 during the first week of post-attack U.S. trading. Bloomberg News, 10/3/01

Five-year US Treasury notes were purchased in abnormally high volums before the attack, and their buyers were rewarded with sharp increases in their value following the attack.

Quote:

The Wall Street Journal reported on October 2 that the ongoing investigation by the SEC into suspicious stock trades had been joined by a Secret Service probe into an unusually high volume of five-year US Treasury note purchases prior to the attacks. The Treasury note transactions included a single $5 billion trade. As the Journal explained: "Five-year Treasury notes are among the best investments in the event of a world crisis, especially one that hits the US. The notes are prized for their safety and their backing by the US government, and usually rally when investors flee riskier investments, such as stocks." The value of these notes, the Journal pointed out, has risen sharply since the events of September 11.Suspicious trading points to advance knowledge by big investors of September 11 attacks, wsws.org, 10/5/01

In conclusion:

1. A jump is seen in United Airlines put options. This is 90 times above normal between September 6 and September 10, and 285 times higher than average on the Thursday before the attack. In the case of the UAL put options, even Mike admits that, "[he] cannot definitively show why the UAL put options were purchased".

2. A jump is seen in American Airlines put options. This is 60 times above normal on the day prior to the attacks.

We should also consider that while the American Airlines shares were falling in price, if we look at the share prices, we will see that their decline in previous months was not as dramatic as Mike makes out:

According to Mike's chart, between July 16th and September 10th 2001, the price of AA stock fell from $38 to $29.95. However, if we review the complete history, we will see that between June 26th and July 16th, the opening price had gone from $32.50 - 38.00, where it peaked. Of course, Mike begins his chart from July 16th, thus presenting the illusion of a more dramatic, long-term decrease!

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=AMR&...=30&f=2001&g=d

From July 16th there had been a gradual decline in price, albeit very slow. Considering none of Mike's evidence suggested a huge plummet on the horizon, the sheer volume of put options purchased appears to be overly speculative.

To put this into perspective, we should consider that the price of Continental Airlines stock was also in decline. This was also the case with many other airlines. In 2001, Continental stock fell from $51.85 on July 16th, to $39.75 on September 10th. In fact, it fell further than the American Airlines stock in less than 2 months!
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=CAL&...=30&f=2001&g=d

The Continental share prices followed a similar pattern to those of American Airlines, however, no similar trades occured on this airline, or any others in the days immediately prior to 9/11.

3. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co, which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw between September 7 and September 10, an increase of 26 times in the purchase of put options on its shares. 2,157 of its October $45 put options were purchased in the three trading days before Black Tuesday. This compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. In the aftermath of the attacks, Morgan Stanley’s share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50.

4. Merrill Lynch & Co., whose headquarters were near the Twin Towers, saw a jump of more than 12 times the normal level of put opinions in the four trading days before the attacks. 12,215 of their October $45 put options had been bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day. That's an increase of 1200%!

5. A jump is seen in Raytheon call options, more than 6 times their daily average

6. Extraordinary high volumes of trading is seen in both gold and US Treasury notes.

What a coincidence! In the days prior to 9/11, a large spike is seen in the stock of American and United Airlines, together with several other businesses also to be directly affected by the disaster!

Don't you think there should be a real investigation, even if the result would be that the investors have "no conceivable ties to al Qaeda"?

[Jonnyclueless]

Please respond to one of the 100s of already existing threads that address the absurdly silly conspiracy theories about the put options. This issue was debunked to death years ago.

Did you just step out of the same time machine as Mark?

[metamars]

I finally managed to ping my server from within an emulated XP Pro computer, hosted on an XP Multi Media Center box. Afterwards, joining a domain with my emulated computer was relatively easy.

The geniuses at Microsoft decided that, although XP MMC was a variant of XP Pro, one of the deltas is that you can't join a domain. Not good.

Thank-you, Sun, bestowers of VirtualBox. I say it's the cat's meow. And it's a free cat's meow, at that. (For non-enterprise use....)

We now return you to your regularly scheduled arguments. Hopefully I'll make some time in a day or two to add something relevant to this thread.

[JoeyDonuts]

In the meantime let's try to learn a bit more about MILDEC. I really don't believe that it fits the situation you're forcing it into. What you're alleging is more of an unprecedentedly large PSYOP/disinformation campaign targeted toward the media. If you want to open that can of worms, I am more than willing to help feed them to you.

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

Yes apparently its called operation mockingbird.Also the Media in canada is controlled by corporations which are owned by small numbers of people rich people with ties to rich american people like bush...these candaian just so happen to be jews

I asked for the practical details of how such control would work. Vague accusations and "controlled by corporations" comments tell us nothing. Please explain how such control is exercised as a practical, day-to-day matter. For example, how are the competitive factors between rival news outlets to pursue a story neutralized? How are reporters told not to follow up a story without raising their suspicions? Who decides, and by what criteria, which stories are to be supressed? How is that supression request communicated to the dozens and dozens of major news outlets? How many individuals within each news outlet are functioning members of this alleged conspiracy?

The devil is in the details, so to speak, so details are very much in order.

[JoeyDonuts]

The technical side of carrying out such an operation is so mind-boggling as to be ruled out on pure ridiculousness. I've already launched a pretty lengthy treatise on another thread about why a massive news conspiracy is total garbage, citing personal experience as a television broadcast engineer, but I'm more than happy to do it again should the need arise.

[twinstead]

Wow. It seems that watching too many Matrix movies really can affect some people.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by Gravy

And Metamars, I have no idea why you think Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports are "hidden from the public" and something only privileged eyes get to see. They're part of the public record. Any decent library has them for everyone to see, and of course they're online. Very poor showing, old sport.

You can search for information on a particular web site by using this syntax in Google:

site:<website.com> <information>

Thus, you can search for Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports at the NY Times web site via


site:nytimes.com "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report"

Doing so yields exactly 8 hits, of which 5 are subscriber comments.

Here are the results:

* Oct 26, 2006 (not in article; subscriber comment October 26, 2006 )
* Nov. 1, 1995 (about NYC's CAFR, not the state CAFR)
* Nov. 1, 2006 (not in an article; subscriber comment November 2, 2006)
* Nov. 8, 2006 (not in an article; subscriber comment November 9, 2006)
* Nov 12, 1996 (about NYC's CAFR, not the state CAFR)
* Oct 30, 2006 (not in an article; subscriber comment October 31, 2006)
* November 17th, 2006 (not in an article; subscriber comment)
* "embargoed until 12:00 a.m. 12/18/07" (not sure what this is about; didn't read it)

here are the links:

http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/...-on-callaghan/
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C1A963958260
http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/...evesi-watch-3/
http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/...eaks-his-mind/
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=2
http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/...blog-blast-27/
http://news.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/1...evesis-ouster/
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...siness/pew.pdf


I think the CAFR's provide an excellent example of hiding things in plain site, completely consistent with my (and other's) take on how the Main Stream Media typically lies - it lies via framing, adoption of government-friendly terminology and talking points, and lies of omission, not by out and out falsehoods (assuming we don't count repetition of official government lies, without sufficiently critical context to allow the reader to readily detect the lie, as "an out and out falsehood").

Wouldn't right around now be an ideal time for a complete analysis of assets and liabilities controlled (or having passed through the hands of) governments in the US? Wouldn't the public be fascinated to hear that total CAFR assets makes the $700 billions rape - err, bailout - seem like small potatoes? But I don't see this. Do you?

In the case of 911, what is in plain site is not a youtube video of President Bush sitting down with special ops guys deciding which buildings in NYC to take down, or something else as revealing as that*, but rather the shabbiness of the 911 Commission report and process, the leads that weren't followed by the government that contradict government versions of 9/11, the leads that weren't followed by the main stream media itself, in the sense of performing investigative journalism, that contradicts government versions of 9/11, the fact that the government didn't prominently and repeatedly appeal to the public for any and all information regarding non-invisible associates of the non-invisible hijackers, etc., etc.


BTW, searching for

site:nytimes.com "Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports"

(i.e., "Reports" instead of "Report") yields all of 3 more hits.


* for the purposes of this post, I'm going to ignore Aaron Russo's fingering of Nick Rockefeller as having foreknowledge of the 911 "event", or at least detailed knowledge of the plans for it's aftermath. For now, suffice it to say that despite my mentioning this a few times, and adding it to my sig, debunkers have chosen to ignore it, with one exception, and that exception was not what I'd call significant.

[Elizabeth I]

Originally Posted by 16.5

"With derivatives, for every looser their is a winner on the other side. Look over the fence and you will see the effect of unrestrained government growth and power obtained."

Looser.

We have a thread devoted to an alleged expert who spells the word "loser" as "looser."

Metamars, does the complete inability of your hero to spell a basic English word not give you pause?

Good luck with the remainder of the thread. I am out of here.

Maybe he's really talking about Dylan Avery, et al...

[jsfisher]

So, let be understand this correctly:

The government has managed to keep CAFR's hidden from public view by placing them in public libraries and posting them on the Internet. Moreover, CAFR's are able to conceal massive amounts of misappropriated and misdirected funds by using the secret language of generally accepted accounting principles. Is that right?

My God! man, you'd need to be an accountant with a library card to decode all that!

Those devious bastards!.

[Mince]

Originally Posted by metamars

I think the CAFR's provide an excellent example of hiding things in plain site...

Just like when they hid my local grocery store right where everyone could see it. So, of course, I can't find it. Will somebody help me find the grocery store? I'm so hungry.

Edited by chillzero:

If you believe someone has a sock puppet, please report it and provide your evidence to the mod team. Otherwise, do not make it a personal attack.

[GodisEnergy]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

I asked for the practical details of how such control would work. Vague accusations and "controlled by corporations" comments tell us nothing. Please explain how such control is exercised as a practical, day-to-day matter. For example, how are the competitive factors between rival news outlets to pursue a story neutralized? How are reporters told not to follow up a story without raising their suspicions? Who decides, and by what criteria, which stories are to be supressed? How is that supression request communicated to the dozens and dozens of major news outlets? How many individuals within each news outlet are functioning members of this alleged conspiracy?

The devil is in the details, so to speak, so details are very much in order.

It would be great to find out the exact details,but just because we dont know the details doesnt mean it doesnt exist

[TexasJack]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

It would be great to find out the exact details,but just because we dont know the details doesnt mean it doesnt exist

Just like we don't know the "details" on Bigfoot, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

[GodisEnergy]

doesnt mean we shouldnt investigate the unknown

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

doesnt mean we shouldnt investigate the unknown

Unknown to whom?

[T.A.M.]

There is a dragon in my garage.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

TAM

[GodisEnergy]

CIA pysops deal with False Flag Conspiracy theories to fool the public.
The media controlled then continues to spread these theories and fuel them,

examples are bigfoot ,alien abductions,loch ness monster etc etc

When a real conspiracy like 911 happens the Goyim have bigfoots in their brain

[twinstead]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

CIA pysops deal with False Flag Conspiracy theories to fool the public.
The media controlled then continues to spread these theories and fuel them,

examples are bigfoot ,alien abductions,loch ness monster etc etc

When a real conspiracy like 911 happens the Goyim have bigfoots in their brain

Actually, "bigfoot ,alien abductions,loch ness" are fine examples of the fact that some people will believe just about anything on the utmost slimmest of evidence.

Sound familiar?

[1337m4n]

Originally Posted by metamars

The intellectual godfather of this thread is Are the WTC collapse-initiation mechanisms being cloaked by MILDEC. Some people (including a moderator) complained that the thread was getting side-tracked into "economics and the media".

However, debunkers have maintained, over and over, that massive deception, ala 911 perpetration and coverup by the US government, is not possible. Again and again, debunkers have presented this as a general argument, which is to be applied to the specific case of 911.

Therefore, at least those debunkers that have presented this sort of argument have no justification to whine when that general argument is contradicted. To this end, illustrating the falsity of the debunker's general argument, by drawing from government deception in a non-military context, is quite legitimate. In any event, I have made the title of this thread broader, so nobody should complain about straying from the topic. I have defined the topic, and the topic should interpreted as "Can massive deceptions by the government occur, in any context, and what can we infer about 1) the plausibility of a similarly massive deception on 911 and 2) the plausibility of a similarly massive deception in 'explaining' 9/11 (i.e., coverup)."

Nice try, but starting a new thread doesn't change your fallacy. Let's simplify what you're trying to say here:

1) Debunkers argue that 9/11 was not a conspiracy
2) Debunkers support 1 by arguing that large-scale conspiracies are generally impossible.
3) The US economy is (according to me) a large scale conspiracy.
4) Because of 3, 2 is disproven.

Your fallacy is that you are assuming 3 has already been proven correct. And it hasn't. In fact, because 3 has absolutely no evidence supporting it, it can be dismissed by the same argument you're trying to refute--that large-scale conspiracies are generally impossible!

You can't use an example X that is disproven by rule Y, as a counterexample to Y. It just doesn't work. Nor can an unproven assertion be used as a premise for a logical argument.

I compare your ludicrously bad logic to the following hypothetical argument:

Metamars: The law of conservation of matter is false!

Cooldude: Uh...do you have a counterexample?

Metamars: Yes! Bigfoot has the power to create matter out of thin air! And so does the Easter Bunny! And Santa Claus!

Logic blows, doesn't it?



Sorry, pal, but in order for your argument to work, you are going to need conclusive proof--not speculation, not cherrypicking, not "gee-this-looks-suspicious" anomalies, but CONCLUSIVE PROOF--that there is an economic conspiracy. And if you're willing to go through all the trouble to gather and present such proof, then you might as well just go ahead and prove the 9/11 conspiracy instead, cutting out this unnecessary and off-topic middleman you've created. Why don't you just do that? Why don't you just prove 9/11 was a conspiracy instead of using this dumb middleman?

[Corsair 115]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

It would be great to find out the exact details,but just because we dont know the details doesnt mean it doesnt exist

A very convenient evasion for your position. You say it exists but offer no supporting details, nor even supposition as to how this massive, global media-controlling conspiracy exercises its control.

[JoeyDonuts]

Ok, metamars. I'll step into your backyard for a moment. How, in your opinion, would this massive media conspiracy be carried out? No generalities. This is a highly technical thing you're speaking of - I'd like to know how every TV station in the greater NYC area, not to mention network affiliates across the globe carrying the coverage were ALL strong-armed by the CIA in an enormous false-flag operation.

I'm pretty sure that the Hindenburg disaster wasn't caused by an enormous fart. So I don't expect that case file re-opened because there's no evidence of that.

Just like there's no evidence of a massive 9-11 media conspiracy. Name one credible person from a news organization who has come out and said that their coverage was manipulated by the government. ONE.

[GodisEnergy]

Originally Posted by twinstead

Actually, "bigfoot ,alien abductions,loch ness" are fine examples of the fact that some people will believe just about anything on the utmost slimmest of evidence.

Sound familiar?

Yes its sounds like you beleiving the official story ,well that has no evidence for it whatsoever.


Its not convenient i would like Answers to how the global media conspiracy works.But what is known is whistleblowers who have come forth claiming media control.
The proof is in the Pudding with the media conspiracy theres just so many stories not covered by the mainstream media its impossible to beleive that its all just chance.
+ If you had watched the youtube video i had given you it had Annie mechelon ex MI5 she sayed whe worked on IOPs of information operations in the media.
Operation Mockingbird is Declassified documents about the CIA paying reporters and the Media to not print stories.It exists to this day

Anyone who followed Ron Pauls campaign now knows how bad it is !

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

Yes its sounds like you beleiving the official story ,well that has no evidence for it whatsoever.


Its not convenient i would like Answers to how the global media conspiracy works.But what is known is whistleblowers who have come forth claiming media control.
The proof is in the Pudding with the media conspiracy theres just so many stories not covered by the mainstream media its impossible to beleive that its all just chance.
+ If you had watched the youtube video i had given you it had Annie mechelon ex MI5 she sayed whe worked on IOPs of information operations in the media.
Operation Mockingbird is Declassified documents about the CIA paying reporters and the Media to not print stories.It exists to this day

Anyone who followed Ron Pauls campaign now knows how bad it is !

Your personal lack of knowledge on 9/11 does not constitute a valid reason for 9/11 being investigated again so you will not understand another investigation.

The evidence is available to people who want to understand 9/11 but you and 9/11 truth willfully deny all the evidence and base your ideas on hearsay, lies, and fantasy. The only path to understanding 9/11 includes understanding there is valid evidence you fail to acknowledge it due to lack of knowledge and bias. Why are you so biased on 9/11 issues and related subjects, and why does that keep you from figuring out 9/11?

[JoeyDonuts]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

The proof is in the Pudding with the media conspiracy theres just so many stories not covered by the mainstream media its impossible to beleive that its all just chance.

Funny. I don't see any pudding.

News directors and producers decide what stories they will and won't cover, so because those decisions will always on some level reflect the beliefs of those making them - the media will always be biased. Every media organization in the world will cover some stories at the expense of leaving others out.

But that is a far cry from deliberately airing information known to be false. Do you have any idea what kind of coordination it would take to show the same plane impact at the exact same time from multiple different camera angles and then pass it off as live? And don't even start with the live effects compositing - I work in the TV business and I know it's crap.

[GodisEnergy]

Originally Posted by JoeyDonuts

Ok, metamars. I'll step into your backyard for a moment. How, in your opinion, would this massive media conspiracy be carried out? No generalities. This is a highly technical thing you're speaking of - I'd like to know how every TV station in the greater NYC area, not to mention network affiliates across the globe carrying the coverage were ALL strong-armed by the CIA in an enormous false-flag operation.

I'm pretty sure that the Hindenburg disaster wasn't caused by an enormous fart. So I don't expect that case file re-opened because there's no evidence of that.

Just like there's no evidence of a massive 9-11 media conspiracy. Name one credible person from a news organization who has come out and said that their coverage was manipulated by the government. ONE.

Well how can they come out and say to the world thats its a media conspiracy if its a media conspiracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPlvdSQ6cAM


And guess who started and controls the cfr DAVID ROCKEFELLER> Builder of the Twin towers ,Funder of nazis,communists vietnamese and all sorts of atrocitys.

[GodisEnergy]

all the evidence .. what do you mean all the evidence points towards inside job.Baer said that hes middle east expert in terrorism.

Theres so many things that you all Debunk which only doesnt prove its wrong only say it could have been this alternative,but theres so many coincidences ananomlys bizzare happenings that all point to one thing,sure not all coincidences may be real conspiracy but at least one if not 90percent.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

The proof is in the Pudding with the media conspiracy theres just so many stories not covered by the mainstream media its impossible to beleive that its all just chance.

No, it is not "all just chance".

But neither is it a conspiracy.

For example, here is a story not covered by the mainstream media.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Now, the reason the mainstream media aren't covering these astounding revelations about the evil invaders from the Planet Nibiru is not because they are all one big conspiracy in cahoots with the Nibirubians. It's because the story is bollocks.

[JoeyDonuts]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

all the evidence .. what do you mean all the evidence points towards inside job.Baer said that hes middle east expert in terrorism.

Pump your brakes, dude. I don't believe Robert Baer ever alleged that 9/11 was an inside job. Mr. Baer was an expert in middle eastern terrorism as well as one of the only arabic-speaking CIA agents in the middle east during that time. I think he's on the level, personally. But nowhere in See No Evil did I see him point to an intentional conspiracy on the part of the US Government to actually perpetrate the attacks.

Sure, inefficiency and bad inter-agency relations and information sharing did not do us any favors and if anything allowed the attacks to happen - but senior AQ planners, including KSM, knew that and exploited it.

If you're going to quote authors, you may want to find a different one.

Might I suggest David Icke.

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

Anyone who followed Ron Pauls campaign now knows how bad it is !

While your last sentence isn't really linked to a conspiracy as such, it is one I can wholeheartedly agree with.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

all the evidence .. what do you mean all the evidence points towards inside job.Baer said that hes middle east expert in terrorism.

That is not what Baer said.

Here's some actual quotes.

“What about political profit? There are those who suggest that ... someone in that chain of command ... had pretty good knowledge that 9/11 was going to happen -- and really didn't do much to stop it -- or even obstructed efforts to stop it because they thought it would lend legitimacy to Bush's ... failing presidency.” Baer replied: “Absolutely.” Hartmann then asked, “So you are personally of the opinion ... that there was an aspect of 'inside job' to 9/11 within the U.S. government?" To which Baer replied, "There is that possibility, the evidence points at it."

He's talking about a possibility of LIHOP by "someone" in the chain of command. Sure it's possible, all we need now is the evidence.

As you can see from the rest of the transcript, he's certainly no MIHOPer, a position he rejects explicitly here.

I myself have felt the pull of the conspiracy theorists — who believe that 9/11 was an inside job, somehow pulled off by the U.S. government. For the record, I don't believe that the World Trade Center was brought down by our own explosives, or that a rocket, rather than an airliner, hit the Pentagon. I spent a career in the CIA trying to orchestrate plots, wasn't all that good at it, and certainly couldn't carry off 9/11. Nor could the real pros I had the pleasure to work with.

Quote:

Theres so many things that you all Debunk which only doesnt prove its wrong only say it could have been this alternative,but theres so many coincidences ananomlys bizzare happenings that all point to one thing,sure not all coincidences may be real conspiracy but at least one if not 90percent.

Actually, a whole collection of stuff that's wrong doesn't magically add up to something that's right.

[JoeyDonuts]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

Well how can they come out and say to the world thats its a media conspiracy if its a media conspiracy.

Well, the Loose Change pukes are still alive and kicking. To a conspiracy that would allow them to survive, as well as all the other folks who believe they've found unequivocal proof of a conspiracy, what's an anchor or producer or two?

If they can murder over 3000 people and not bat an eyelash, why didn't they kill Dan Rather when he supposedly reported on leaked negative information about Bush's service record?

Your house of cards is looking kinda shaky to me.

[GodisEnergy]

Originally Posted by JoeyDonuts

Well, the Loose Change pukes are still alive and kicking. To a conspiracy that would allow them to survive, as well as all the other folks who believe they've found unequivocal proof of a conspiracy, what's an anchor or producer or two?

If they can murder over 3000 people and not bat an eyelash, why didn't they kill Dan Rather when he supposedly reported on leaked negative information about Bush's service record?

Your house of cards is looking kinda shaky to me.

What of these are coincidences/ananomalys are wrong,theres many smoking guns and im still finding them 7years later.

Because if they killed these loose change punks It would suddenly add weight to what these punks have been saying.Dan rather would be rather obvious dont you think ,when barry jennings died i saw such a reaction from normal people of maybe 911 is inside job.The criminals are smart.Very smart and much much better than normal CIA ,its like the mafia on Speed,its much bigger money than the mafia..These black ops are real pro's ,theve had much practice in this sort of stuff.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

Because if they killed these loose change punks It would suddenly add weight to what these punks have been saying.

By the same token, they could really confuse the heck out of everyone by assassinating David Icke.

I'll bring it up at the next meeting of the NWO.

[JoeyDonuts]

That's it. Until you decide to bring something to the table more substantial than "very smart and much much better than normal CIA," I'm done here.

I wish you all the best in showing the world the truth behind these bananamolies.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

What of these are coincidences/ananomalys are wrong,theres many smoking guns and im still finding them 7years later.

[...]

The criminals are smart.Very smart and much much better than normal CIA ,its like the mafia on Speed,its much bigger money than the mafia..These black ops are real pro's ,theve had much practice in this sort of stuff.

And yet they left all those "smoking guns" lying around for you to find.

They don't sound all that smart.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by 1337m4n

Nice try, but starting a new thread doesn't change your fallacy. Let's simplify what you're trying to say here:

1) Debunkers argue that 9/11 was not a conspiracy
2) Debunkers support 1 by arguing that large-scale conspiracies are generally impossible.
3) The US economy is (according to me) a large scale conspiracy.
4) Because of 3, 2 is disproven.

Your fallacy is that you are assuming 3 has already been proven correct. And it hasn't. In fact, because 3 has absolutely no evidence supporting it, it can be dismissed by the same argument you're trying to refute--that large-scale conspiracies are generally impossible!

It's also important to note that there is another step missing. Even if the logic were correct and premise 3 were provable, the result would only be that premise 2 is disproven. The argument from impossibility is not the sole argument against 9/11 being a conspiracy, therefore its refutation cannot refute the proposal that 9/11 was not a conspiracy.

Dave

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by GodisEnergy

Yes its sounds like you beleiving the official story ,well that has no evidence for it whatsoever.

OMG...this comment alone has just earned you a place on my ignore list. I no longer have time for unintelligent, ignorant posters. Anyone who states there is no evidence to support the official version of the 9/11 attacks, is clearly ignorant.

Quote:

Its not convenient i would like Answers to how the global media conspiracy works.But what is known is whistleblowers who have come forth claiming media control.
The proof is in the Pudding with the media conspiracy theres just so many stories not covered by the mainstream media its impossible to beleive that its all just chance.
+ If you had watched the youtube video i had given you it had Annie mechelon ex MI5 she sayed whe worked on IOPs of information operations in the media.
Operation Mockingbird is Declassified documents about the CIA paying reporters and the Media to not print stories.It exists to this day

Anyone who followed Ron Pauls campaign now knows how bad it is !

yah, yah, yah. You and a group of internet hackers and investigooglists know the real truth, and we are just sheeple...have a nice paranoid life GIE.

TAM

[funk de fino]

A pathetic thread, a pathetic OP and the car crash continued on from there