75 replies to this topic

[33724]

Here are just a few topics I will debate thoroughly.

1. FBI Timeline of the events
2. Insider trading
3. CIA BinLaden meeting in Dubai
4. General Ashcroft advanced warnings
5. WTC bombing by FBI in 93



Please discuss

[Melchoire]

Shouldn't you give us your stance first so we can debate it?

[Jakerz]

I saw a video on these, makes it really look like it was an inside job. I forget most of the evidence but I'll try to find the video shortly.

Edited by Jakerz, 17 July 2008 - 02:53 PM.

[33724]

My official stance is this:

1. FBI Timeline of the events -- Inaccurate and purposfully deceptive

2. Insider trading -- Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options… Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these “insiders” would have profited by almost $5 million.
On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance;… Again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent “insiders,” they would represent a gain of about $4 million.
[The levels of put options purchased above were more than six times higher than normal.]

3. CIA BinLaden meeting in Dubai --Bin Laden, America’s most wanted criminal with a $5 million bounty on his head, supposedly receives lifesaving treatment for renal failure from American specialist Dr. Terry Callaway at the American hospital in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. He is possibly accompanied by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri (who is said to be bin Laden’s personal physician as well as al-Qaeda’s second-in-command), plus several bodyguards. Callaway supposedly treated bin Laden in 1996 and 1998, also in Dubai. Callaway later refuses to answer any questions on this matter.

4. General Ashcroft advanced warnings -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft received the same CIA briefing about an imminent al-Qaida strike on an American target that was given to the White House two months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The State Department's disclosure Monday that the pair was briefed within a week after then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was told about the threat on July 10, 2001, raised new questions about what the Bush administration did in response, and about why so many officials have claimed they never received or don't remember the warning.
One official who helped to prepare the briefing, which included a PowerPoint presentation, described it as a "10 on a scale of 1 to 10" that "connected the dots" in earlier intelligence reports to present a stark warning that al-Qaida, which had already killed Americans in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and East Africa, was poised to strike again.


5. WTC bombing by FBI in 93 -- Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building
a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center,
and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting
harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after
the blast.

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb
and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by
an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer,
Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said.

The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of
hours of tape recordings that Mr. Salem secretly made of his
talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as
being in a far better position than previously known to foil
the February 26th bombing of New York City's tallest towers

[Melchoire]

I saw a video on these, makes it really look like it was an inside job. I forget most of the evidence but I'll try to find the video shortly.

Zeitgeist?

[33724]

heres an informative documentary.

http://video.google....se change recut

Zeitgeist?

Bullshit and lies. This video was made to lable any no-planers as tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists.

Edited by 33724, 17 July 2008 - 02:58 PM.

[Just Another User]

I think it's fiction... it definately didn't happen.

[Waser Lave]

Well aeroplanes definitely hit the twin-towers, that's pretty much an indisputable fact.

[33724]

I think it's fiction... it definately didn't happen.

Please elaborate. What didnt happen?

Yeas the planes did hit. But you didnt see news reports of shape charges blasting just before impact.

[Tyler.]

I think it's fiction... it definately didn't happen.

o.o

How the fuck can you think nothing happened? xD

[Hawk]

Well aeroplanes definitely hit the twin-towers, that's pretty much an indisputable fact.

Thats pretty much all I came in to say.

As to all the other bullshit, I truly don't care any more.

Well aeroplanes definitely hit the twin-towers, that's pretty much an indisputable fact.

Thats pretty much all I came in to say.

As to all the other bullshit, I truly don't care any more.

[Just Another User]

o.o

How the fuck can you think nothing happened? xD

lol, i was joking silly title

[Melchoire]

The conspiracy theories aside, I think it's indisputable that the US had several warning signs about an imminent attack but unfortunately ignored all of them. So even if the govt. didn't cause it to happen they certainly did very little to stop it.

[Waser Lave]

The conspiracy theories aside, I think it's indisputable that the US had several warning signs about an imminent attack but unfortunately ignored all of them. So even if the govt. didn't cause it to happen they certainly did very little to stop it.

I do wonder why they didn't just shoot them down...they must have known pretty early on that they were off course.

[Melchoire]

I do wonder why they didn't just shoot them down...they must have known pretty early on that they were off course.

Yeah, that's where the conspiracy starts. There certainly is a staggering amount of evidence to support it too. To answers your question, maybe Bush was afraid of the shit he'd have to deal with when he would stand in front of the country and try to justify killing 400+ people.

Edit: nvm, bush was busy reading a book for kindergartners

Edited by FlashGM, 17 July 2008 - 03:30 PM.

[33724]

So even if the govt. didn't cause it to happen they certainly did very little to stop it.

I believe they did more than just allow it to happen.

A Report of
The Project for the New American Century
September 2000

Anyone ever read about the P.N.A.C.? and Rebuilding America's Defenses.
Here is a portion of the article.

Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a “strategic pause” while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies. Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

Interesting, considering most of the key Govt officials that assured us there were no warnings prior to the attacks were members of this same thinktank that drafted this report.

[Jakerz]

Edit: nvm lol

I don't think the movie was Zeitgeist but I can't seem to find it anywhere. Anyway it basically shows evidence, whether it's real or not I do not know, saying that the government was behind it, it was quite convincing, specially with Bush as president, but I tend to fall for things easily. Specially Doomsday omg I hope thats not real I don't want to die in 4 years!!! :'(

Edited by Jakerz, 17 July 2008 - 03:42 PM.

[Sweeney]

I do wonder why they didn't just shoot them down...they must have known pretty early on that they were off course.

I believe that would be the fact that there were many innocent people on each plane, in combination with the fact that they didn't know the planes were going to blow anything up until it was too late

[Jakerz]

I do wonder why they didn't just shoot them down...they must have known pretty early on that they were off course.

Apparently they didn't shoot them down because they needed the presidents okay, and Bush was no where to be found. Then the person decided to just shoot them down anyway but the planes happened to go to the wrong place. Not sure if any of this is true though lol just what I heard

[Tyler.]

Apparently they didn't shoot them down because they needed the presidents okay, and Bush was no where to be found. Then the person decided to just shoot them down anyway but the planes happened to go to the wrong place. Not sure if any of this is true though lol just what I heard

THat's what's in the United 93 movie

[Cory]

The conspiracy theories aside, I think it's indisputable that the US had several warning signs about an imminent attack but unfortunately ignored all of them. So even if the govt. didn't cause it to happen they certainly did very little to stop it.

This.

Could we have prevented it? To be honest I would be more pissed if we couldn't have prevented it.

[illicit]

heres an informative documentary.

http://video.google....se change recut


Bullshit and lies. This video was made to lable any no-planers as tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists.

The two kids who made that video had an interview where they blatantly admitted that Loose Change was basically bullshit. They even said something along the lines of they don't recommend it as a something that conspiracy theorists should get their facts from.

Not that I'm saying 9-11 was/wasn't legit/a hoax, just saying, if you're basing your entire argument off of loose change, find some other sources.

Edited by illicit, 17 July 2008 - 06:14 PM.

[33724]

First off....My information is coming from many reliable sources. Not just one movie. Second, show me the interview or link to ANY article substantiating this claim by the movie makers. I am not basing anything on one movie. All I am saying is that it raises some very interesting who dunnit ?'s.

And you are taking my quote out of context. Nice job changing my words around.

[Jakerz]

Didn't sound to me illicit was accusing you of anything or anything of the sort 33724, need to calm down..
Unless I mis-read your post and you are calm then just ignore this I tend to do that a lot apparently

[Cory]

Didn't sound to me illicit was accusing you of anything or anything of the sort 33724, need to calm down..
Unless I mis-read your post and you are calm then just ignore this I tend to do that a lot apparently

It does sound like he is calm. He just wants the facts that debunk the other facts.

I don't blame him for wanting to see the article where the authors say they are basically retarded. It would help in several debates where everyone wants to pull out the loose change card.