Couple of questions for the critics..

For those who wish to criticise the 9/11 truth movement & key peace campaigners

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Samantha J Fox
Minor Poster
Minor Poster
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:56 pm

Couple of questions for the critics..

Post by Samantha J Fox »

I don't post that often, but 9/11 is a subject that I have become somewhat entangled in over the last 5 years and its something i have discussed many times over.

Obviously there is a lot of arguing over controlled demolitions and the bigger areas of the subject. But there are still one or two things that critics of 9/11 truth never seem to discuss, or at least come up with any plausible answer.


1. If it was a completely random and unexpected attack, where did the put options come from and why had noone bothered to look in to who laid them.

2. If it was a completely random and unexpected attack, why are FEMA on record as "rolling in to Battery Park on Monday night, ready to go to work on Tuesday morning"



Also a serious question to the so called 9/11 truth critics, I assume you must have looked over all the of the different areas, problems with the 9/11 commision and so forth.

Is your stance that 9/11 happened exactly as we were told, or do you still have some contemplation that there may have been an element of LIHOP as opposed to MIHOP.
SAPERE AUDE
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 504
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:35 pm

Re: Couple of questions for the critics..

Post by Micpsi »

Samantha J Fox wrote:

1. If it was a completely random and unexpected attack, where did the put options come from and why had noone bothered to look in to who laid them.
Oh, but the investigation did start. Then the CIA stepped in and stopped it. Why? Because the company that placed put options on United Airlines stock just before 9/11 was managed, until 1998, by A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard, at the time of 9/11 in the number 3 Executive Director position at the CIA
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP110A.html

Samantha J Fox wrote: 2. If it was a completely random and unexpected attack, why are FEMA on record as "rolling in to Battery Park on Monday night, ready to go to work on Tuesday morning"
That's a red herring. FEMA people arrived the night before not because of 9/11 but because of Operation Tripod, a bioterror drill. According to a May 22, 2002 Press Release from the NYC Office of Emergency Management, the TRIPOD, or 'Point-of-Dispensing' drill, was successfully held that day. The Press Release states:

"TRIPOD had originally been scheduled to take place on September 12th, 2001, at Pier 92 - which ironically had served as the temporary home of OEM shortly after the terrorist attacks on 9/11."

http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/june200 ... bunked.htm
User avatar
Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker
Posts: 515
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: London, England

Re: Couple of questions for the critics..

Post by Alex_V »

Samantha J Fox wrote:1. If it was a completely random and unexpected attack, where did the put options come from and why had noone bothered to look in to who laid them.
The put options were investigated, and found to offer no evidence of foreknowledge of the attacks in the markets. There is a really good description of these investigations here...

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Put_Options

Obviously, as the SEC and FBI could be said to be connected to the state, their investigation is not one that is ever likely to satisfy truthers.

In my opinion Micpsi's claim about CIA involvement is not from a credible source, or provides any evidence to back up its allegations.
2. If it was a completely random and unexpected attack, why are FEMA on record as "rolling in to Battery Park on Monday night, ready to go to work on Tuesday morning"
I don't know anything about that claim - where does it come from?
Also a serious question to the so called 9/11 truth critics, I assume you must have looked over all the of the different areas, problems with the 9/11 commision and so forth.

Is your stance that 9/11 happened exactly as we were told, or do you still have some contemplation that there may have been an element of LIHOP as opposed to MIHOP.
When I first looked into 9/11 I was pretty sure in my own mind of LIHOP, but I just haven't found anything to support that idea. I think there is a possibility of LIHOP in terms of the pre-911 investigations of suspects, but it remains unproven to my satisfaction. The investigation of suspects prior to 9/11 was poorly dealt with.
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster
Posts: 504
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:35 pm

Re: Couple of questions for the critics..

Post by Micpsi »

Alex_V wrote:
Samantha J Fox wrote:1. If it was a completely random and unexpected attack, where did the put options come from and why had noone bothered to look in to who laid them.
The put options were investigated, and found to offer no evidence of foreknowledge of the attacks in the markets. There is a really good description of these investigations here...

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Put_Options

Nonsense. That was the bogus, official reason offered in order to explain why the investigations were terminated. In reality, they were blocked.

Obviously, as the SEC and FBI could be said to be connected to the state, their investigation is not one that is ever likely to satisfy truthers.

Er, yes. You could say that. LOL!

In my opinion Micpsi's claim about CIA involvement is not from a credible source, or provides any evidence to back up its allegations.

Well, that's just your opinion. Many people in the 9/11 truth movement accept Michael Rupert as a major 9/11 researcher. In going for the man, as is typical of sceptics of 9/11 truth, you ignore the fact that what he said is a matter of public knowledge, verifiable by anyone (although not by the likes of you, who just believe what they want to believe). If you don't think it is highly suspicious that A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard, 3rd man at the CIA, had been in charge of the very company someone in which is KNOWN to have placed put options on United Airlines stock shortly before 9/11 because there is still $2.5 million unclaimed, then I suggest you cannot see beyond the end of your nose.
2. If it was a completely random and unexpected attack, why are FEMA on record as "rolling in to Battery Park on Monday night, ready to go to work on Tuesday morning"
I don't know anything about that claim - where does it come from?

You really need to get yourself informed about what happened on 9/11. Your scepticism is clearly based upon ignorance of the real facts and cherry-picking of those that suit your beliefs.
Also a serious question to the so called 9/11 truth critics, I assume you must have looked over all the of the different areas, problems with the 9/11 commision and so forth.

Is your stance that 9/11 happened exactly as we were told, or do you still have some contemplation that there may have been an element of LIHOP as opposed to MIHOP.
When I first looked into 9/11 I was pretty sure in my own mind of LIHOP, but I just haven't found anything to support that idea. I think there is a possibility of LIHOP in terms of the pre-911 investigations of suspects, but it remains unproven to my satisfaction. The investigation of suspects prior to 9/11 was poorly dealt with.
Ask yourself why. The investigation was blocked at the highest levels of the FBI, that's why. Whistleblowers like Sibel Edmonds have said so.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18 ... 50126.html
But I realise why to a closed mind like yours it is not suspicious that the investigation appears to be poor.
User avatar
Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker
Posts: 515
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: London, England

Re: Couple of questions for the critics..

Post by Alex_V »

Micpsi wrote:Nonsense. That was the bogus, official reason offered in order to explain why the investigations were terminated. In reality, they were blocked.
Any evidence of this? There is none, other than vague rumours on internet sites.
Many people in the 9/11 truth movement accept Michael Rupert as a major 9/11 researcher. In going for the man, as is typical of sceptics of 9/11 truth, you ignore the fact that what he said is a matter of public knowledge, verifiable by anyone (although not by the likes of you, who just believe what they want to believe). If you don't think it is highly suspicious that A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard, 3rd man at the CIA, had been in charge of the very company someone in which is KNOWN to have placed put options on United Airlines stock shortly before 9/11 because there is still $2.5 million unclaimed, then I suggest you cannot see beyond the end of your nose.
You say it is verifiable by anyone, yet NOBODY with any sort of evidence verifies these claims. To trust Ruppert here you have to BELIEVE that he is telling you the truth without evidence - I don't like ever having to do that, and neither should you or anyone else. At the very least you should be skeptical of his claims, and seek further evidence to verify them.

Ruppert, like it or not, is an internet whistleblower-type reporter of the type that has existed ever since the net began. Wayne Madsen, Sherman Skolnick etc. None of them were/are taken seriously outside of internet conspiracy-theory circles, and all make grand claims about government corruption and NEVER EVER with the slightest shred of real evidence to back up their claims outside of 'I have heard' or 'sources tell me'. In my opinion they do what Alex Jones does except not on the radio - dish out speculative junk, probably fed by their own imaginations.

I advise you to be more thorough checking your adoration of your sources. Your recent reference to Paul Laffotey on the WTC7 thread is a case in point. One thing that nobody can deny, is that 'sources' on the internet are spouting a million different bits of 'information' on 9/11.
You really need to get yourself informed about what happened on 9/11. Your scepticism is clearly based upon ignorance of the real facts and cherry-picking of those that suit your beliefs.
I see that the allegation you refer to comes out of confusion in an interview with FEMA, where they said Monday night rather than Tuesday night for the FEMA volunteers being first assembled.

It is a nonsense claim that nobody outside of the most extreme and gullible 9/11 theorists would even consider. This is FEMA announcing that they were ready for the attacks on the night before the attacks? Do you really believe they would do that? If so, the evidence is out there somewhere no doubt - where did they stay in New York? Without evidence it remains an utterly pointless avenue of 'research' - another utterly speculative claim based on an anomaly someone found around the subject.
Ask yourself why. The investigation was blocked at the highest levels of the FBI, that's why. Whistleblowers like Sibel Edmonds have said so.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18 ... 50126.html
But I realise why to a closed mind like yours it is not suspicious that the investigation appears to be poor.
I think it is suspicious certainly, and I certainly think it is the area where 9/11 truthers ought to be basing their efforts, not on grand theories about demolition that have not been proven. However, Sibel Edmonds theory is that cases were blocked (and the 9/11 commission censored) because of their links to prominent Saudis, and NOT because the gvmt wanted 9/11 to happen. This may well be corruption at the highest level, indeed I think it probably is so, but it is not LIHOP.
bill withers
Banned
Banned
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:14 pm

Post by bill withers »

"I don't know anything about that claim - where does it come from?

You really need to get yourself informed about what happened on 9/11. Your scepticism is clearly based upon ignorance of the real facts and cherry-picking of those that suit your beliefs."


mcpsi - that^ is a legitimate question, that warrants a legitimate answer! I see no problem in asking someone for the source of their info, why so agro?

If I miss out a source on somthing I quote, or someone askes me to clarify a point, that is fine, or have you just come on here to vent your anger?
bill withers
Banned
Banned
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:14 pm

Re: Couple of questions for the critics..

Post by bill withers »

quote]

I think it is suspicious certainly, and I certainly think it is the area where 9/11 truthers ought to be basing their efforts, not on grand theories about demolition that have not been proven. However, Sibel Edmonds theory is that cases were blocked (and the 9/11 commission censored) because of their links to prominent Saudis, and NOT because the gvmt wanted 9/11 to happen. This may well be corruption at the highest level, indeed I think it probably is so, but it is not LIHOP.[/quote]

Agreed, I sit on the fence about LHIOP, I ain't read enough about it. Just starting with this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... _id=294127

Is a big leap from incompetance to complicity though, so plenty of piches of salt are being taken, but interesting read nonetheless.
Post Reply