RE: [POLITICS] Conspiracy theories - evidence-based vs. non evidence-based

[Guest guest]

> I have no patience for this - just tell me - which link provides the

> best evidence that the events of 9/11 were actually planned by the

> Bush administration. I'll look at it.

Why do you keep insisting that I must provide evidence that the attacks were

*planned* by the Bush administration? I've said repeatedly that

preponderance of the evidence supports *complicity*. So let's get that

straight from the get-go. To be clear:

1. The preponderance of the evidence supports complicity of one or more

people in the gov't. Most plausibly more than one person in the CIA and at

least one if not more in the Bush administration among others. This is far

different from say " THE Bush administration planned the 9/11 attacks " .

2. The case is circumstantial just as the official story is circumstantial

(Yes I KNOW you are not defending the official story, but you are not the

only one reading this). The difference is that the gov't complicity case has

vastly more evidence supporting it.

That said, none of the videos or lectures present an ALL the evidence

supporting gov't complicity, but rather bits and pieces. The Rupport lecture

lays out solid evidence for motive, for instance, but goes less into the

physical evidence than other sources. So far Tarpley's " 9/11 Synthetic

Terror: Made in the USA " is the most comprehensive case for complicity that

I've read or heard and I recommend it to anyone interested in getting a more

detailed and broader picture than that presented in lectures and videos.

Having said that, I think Ray 's lecture " 9/11 The Myth and

the Reality " is a good starting point. http://tinyurl.com/4s3nq5

It's only 90 mins and provides some evidence of gov't complicity.

It is not the ENTIRE case though and I haven't yet found a lecture or video

that covers every piece of evidence of complicity. Maybe there is one out

there and I'm simply not aware of it.

Here is an article however, that presents 22 points that support complicity:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4582.htm

September 11th And The Bush Administration: Compelling Evidence for

Complicity Walter E. , PhD

Suze

[Guest guest]

btw - I gave up on Ray 's lecture. I didn't find him

convincing at all.

I'll check out the Tarpley reference.

>

> > I have no patience for this - just tell me - which link provides the

> > best evidence that the events of 9/11 were actually planned by the

> > Bush administration. I'll look at it.

>

> Why do you keep insisting that I must provide evidence that the

> attacks were

> *planned* by the Bush administration? I've said repeatedly that

> preponderance of the evidence supports *complicity*. So let's get that

> straight from the get-go. To be clear:

>

> 1. The preponderance of the evidence supports complicity of one or

> more

> people in the gov't. Most plausibly more than one person in the CIA

> and at

> least one if not more in the Bush administration among others. This

> is far

> different from say " THE Bush administration planned the 9/11 attacks " .

>

> 2. The case is circumstantial just as the official story is

> circumstantial

> (Yes I KNOW you are not defending the official story, but you are

> not the

> only one reading this). The difference is that the gov't complicity

> case has

> vastly more evidence supporting it.

>

> That said, none of the videos or lectures present an ALL the evidence

> supporting gov't complicity, but rather bits and pieces. The Rupport

> lecture

> lays out solid evidence for motive, for instance, but goes less into

> the

> physical evidence than other sources. So far Tarpley's " 9/11 Synthetic

> Terror: Made in the USA " is the most comprehensive case for

> complicity that

> I've read or heard and I recommend it to anyone interested in

> getting a more

> detailed and broader picture than that presented in lectures and

> videos.

>

> Having said that, I think Ray 's lecture " 9/11 The

> Myth and

> the Reality " is a good starting point. http://tinyurl.com/4s3nq5

>

> It's only 90 mins and provides some evidence of gov't complicity.

>

> It is not the ENTIRE case though and I haven't yet found a lecture

> or video

> that covers every piece of evidence of complicity. Maybe there is

> one out

> there and I'm simply not aware of it.

>

> Here is an article however, that presents 22 points that support

> complicity:

>

> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4582.htm

>

> September 11th And The Bush Administration: Compelling Evidence for

> Complicity Walter E. , PhD

>

> Suze

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Well, after all of this, our positions aren't much different. I think

> that it's very plausible that some in this administration had advance

> knowledge, much short of actually planning and executing it. I haven't

> seen any actual evidence, and don't think that there is any other than

> very, very circumstantial evidence - but certainly we haven't been

> told the truth, and certainly Cheney and the rest of the crew are not

> above having a few people lose their lives to further their agenda.

There definitely is evidence that Bush, Cheney et al knew that an al Qaeda

attack was imminent.

Some of the evidence of this:

1. said that in Jun, July and Aug, 2001, the CIA gave Bush

daily briefings warning of unprecedented indications that a major al Qaeda

attack against the US was imminent.

2. Over a dozen intelligence agencies from other countries said they

provided intelligence about the attacks.

3. Several high level US politicians were told not to fly on 9/11.

4. Prior to 9/11 bin Laden was already at the top of the Most Wanted list

for planning the bombing of the USS Cole. However, from July 4-14, 2001,

Osama gets kidney disease treatment at an AMERICAN hospital in Dubai where a

CIA official meets with him then flies home to USA.

Check out " Fabled Enemies " on Google Video - this offers more evidence of

complicity than 's lecture, which is mostly for beginners, IMO.

Suze

[Guest guest]

We can distinguish between being warned of an imminent attack, and

having foreknowledge of a specific attack.

I have heard the tale that Willie Brown, the SF mayor at that time,

was told not to fly on 9/11. The Osama kidney treatment story isn't

new either.

I don't know what really happened in both of those cases, but it seems

to me that evidence of this strength is around for alien abduction

also, as well as even more bizarre stuff. I think that while all of

this stuff would be looked into in a real, independent investigation,

it just doesn't convince me. Fascinating - like all conspiracy

theories, but I wonder how well some of this stuff would hold up.

On the other hand, I'd love to see some of these people convicted.

> > Well, after all of this, our positions aren't much different. I

> think

> > that it's very plausible that some in this administration had

> advance

> > knowledge, much short of actually planning and executing it. I

> haven't

> > seen any actual evidence, and don't think that there is any other

> than

> > very, very circumstantial evidence - but certainly we haven't been

> > told the truth, and certainly Cheney and the rest of the crew are

> not

> > above having a few people lose their lives to further their agenda.

>

> There definitely is evidence that Bush, Cheney et al knew that an al

> Qaeda

> attack was imminent.

>

> Some of the evidence of this:

>

> 1. said that in Jun, July and Aug, 2001, the CIA gave

> Bush

> daily briefings warning of unprecedented indications that a major al

> Qaeda

> attack against the US was imminent.

>

> 2. Over a dozen intelligence agencies from other countries said they

> provided intelligence about the attacks.

>

> 3. Several high level US politicians were told not to fly on 9/11.

>

> 4. Prior to 9/11 bin Laden was already at the top of the Most Wanted

> list

> for planning the bombing of the USS Cole. However, from July 4-14,

> 2001,

> Osama gets kidney disease treatment at an AMERICAN hospital in Dubai

> where a

> CIA official meets with him then flies home to USA.

>

> Check out " Fabled Enemies " on Google Video - this offers more

> evidence of

> complicity than 's lecture, which is mostly for beginners, IMO.

>

> Suze

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> We can distinguish between being warned of an imminent attack, and

> having foreknowledge of a specific attack.

Sure but when all the evidence is viewed in totality we can get an idea of

whether or not there was complicity among some in the gov't regardless of

whether we can determine that they knew the attacks would happen on that

particular day.

Among other things, I think the put options placed on the two airlines

involved as well as a few of the businesses housed on the WTC just days

before the attack, further suggests that someone in the gov't knew an attack

was imminent. Not necessarily because that person or persons actually placed

the put options (which means a stock is expected to go down), but those put

options were 600%-1200% above normal for those stocks and there was no other

abnormal trading for other airlines. But the main issue is that US

intelligence agencies track stock options in real time and so had to have

seen these outrageous put options placed between the 6th and 10th of Sept,

2001 on the airlines that were about to be hijacked. Further, the options

were placed through A. B. Brown Company, formerly owned by a former CIA

director. While that doesn't prove anything, it's certainly suspicious.

While these facts don't prove that someone in the Bush admin knew that the

imminent al Qaeda attack was going to happen on the day of 9/11, it's one

piece of a much larger body of evidence that strongly points to them knowing

an attack was imminent and that they could've taken some measures to prevent

it, if they'd wanted to. They may have had a more believable case that they

didn't know if the Pentagon had been protected as it normally is every other

day of the year. But again, it's all the pieces added together that points

to foreknowledge, whether or not they knew the specific date of the attacks.

>

> I have heard the tale that Willie Brown, the SF mayor at that time,

> was told not to fly on 9/11. The Osama kidney treatment story isn't

> new either.

>

> I don't know what really happened in both of those cases, but it seems

> to me that evidence of this strength is around for alien abduction

> also, as well as even more bizarre stuff.

That's just silly. These things are obviously not even remotely in a

category with alien abduction, but they are things that are possible to be

verified. Willie Brown, BTW, was confronted about this on camera (it's in

9/11 Truth Rising) and didn't deny it. If I were accused of being warned not

to fly on the day that the planes were hijacked and all passengers killed

along with several thousand other Americans and I were innocent, I'd be

shouting from the rafters that it wasn't true. I'd be on every major news

station and tell them that these accusations were false.

IIRC, Willie Brown wasn't the only one warned not to fly that day. As well,

AG Ashcroft had stopped flying on commercial airlines a month or two before

the attacks...when the CIA was warning the Bush Administration that attacks

were imminent. Apparently some members of the administration took the urgent

warnings seriously enough to protect themselves, but not to protect the rest

of us. If the US attorney general took the warnings that seriously, is it

really plausible that the rest of the administration didn't?

As for the kidney treatment story, it doesn't matter whether it's new or

not, it matters whether* or not it's *true. A) reportedly members of the

hospital staff are the source of this info and it's a fact that bin Laden

was a CIA asset and we have no reason to believe he still isn't.

I think that while all of

> this stuff would be looked into in a real, independent investigation,

> it just doesn't convince me.

Well the point is that it IS being looked into by real, independent

investigators and they are the ones reporting it.

Fascinating - like all conspiracy

> theories, but I wonder how well some of this stuff would hold up.

I'd say it would hold up about 1000% better than the *official* conspiracy

theory.

>

> On the other hand, I'd love to see some of these people convicted.

Because there's a growing number of people worldwide, including politicians,

who have looked closely at the evidence and believe that there is likely

some complicity within the US gov't, and because some of them are also

calling for a truly independent and international commission to

re-investigate, there is hope that we will get our new investigation and

that everyone involved in any way, shape or form with the 9/11 attacks will

be tried, convicted and appropriately punished.

Suze

[Guest guest]

I watched about 30 minutes of Fabled Enemies. A total piece of crap,

and wasn't convincing in the least.

Thus far, I believe that all of the news sources have been from Fox

News. Fox news is simply not a trustworthy source. One example of an

extremely irresponsible bit of news/documentary from Fox - the recent

hour long Obama expose using Andy as a source.

If Fabled Enemies is the best you've got, I just have to laugh.

> > Well, after all of this, our positions aren't much different. I

> think

> > that it's very plausible that some in this administration had

> advance

> > knowledge, much short of actually planning and executing it. I

> haven't

> > seen any actual evidence, and don't think that there is any other

> than

> > very, very circumstantial evidence - but certainly we haven't been

> > told the truth, and certainly Cheney and the rest of the crew are

> not

> > above having a few people lose their lives to further their agenda.

>

> There definitely is evidence that Bush, Cheney et al knew that an al

> Qaeda

> attack was imminent.

>

> Some of the evidence of this:

>

> 1. said that in Jun, July and Aug, 2001, the CIA gave

> Bush

> daily briefings warning of unprecedented indications that a major al

> Qaeda

> attack against the US was imminent.

>

> 2. Over a dozen intelligence agencies from other countries said they

> provided intelligence about the attacks.

>

> 3. Several high level US politicians were told not to fly on 9/11.

>

> 4. Prior to 9/11 bin Laden was already at the top of the Most Wanted

> list

> for planning the bombing of the USS Cole. However, from July 4-14,

> 2001,

> Osama gets kidney disease treatment at an AMERICAN hospital in Dubai

> where a

> CIA official meets with him then flies home to USA.

>

> Check out " Fabled Enemies " on Google Video - this offers more

> evidence of

> complicity than 's lecture, which is mostly for beginners, IMO.

>

> Suze

>

>

>