LowerCaseRepublican Posted April 14, 2003 Share Posted April 14, 2003 http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0206/S00071.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted April 15, 2003 Author Share Posted April 15, 2003 CK, a lot of this is backed up by factual information. Look at the Terrorism 2000 Report, the NORAD time logs, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 The CIA knew of suspicious airline stock trades by September 7 Last but not least, the CIA knew a week before the attack WHICH airlines were most likely to be hijacked. The Agency maintains an advanced program called Promis, which monitors unusual stock market activity, SPECIFICALLY as a way to anticipate potential terrorist attacks. Promis provides 24-hour continuous real-time data on stock market activity and the FBI and Justice Department have both admitted that Promis was up and running all through the summer and fall of 2001. So there is no doubt whatsoever that as early as September. 7, the CIA knew that something was going down and knew which airlines were being targeted. Even a third-grader could have put this information together with the long litany of warnings above from foreign sources and come up with the conclusion that an American or United Airlines craft was going to be hijacked in the near future and most likely used to crash into a landmark, quite possibly the World Trade Center. This statement is at best stretching the truth. I worked on the floor of the Chicago Board Options Exchange at this time. I worked right across from the UAL pit. The suspicious trades that took place happened ON Friday Sept the 7th, not before. What happened was massive selling of Call Options in amounts that we out of line. There was no suspicious spike in volume UNTIL that day, not before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI1020 Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 There are too many errors and stretches in this long laborious article to mention. It's laughable because the one who posted this would have criticized Bush if he had been proactive before 9/11. 9/11 is a complex and multi layered failure of many government agencies and stretches back way way before the Bush II administration. I mean lets get real here. The implication seems to be that Bush failed to act. Yet this poster is vicious in criticizing Bush for acting aggressively now. If I handed a report like this to a client I'd expect him or her to ask for their money back. This "report" gets a D for content and an A for imagination. The author should try to write a novel. I know it may be shocking to some but most "conspiracy" theories while they may excite and get the blood to rush just do not hold up in the light of day. Out of respect for the people who died so suddenly and horribly that day why disseminate junk like this that the National Inquirerer wouldn't touch. Please don't take a job as a researcher or investigator. Why does this "Twilight Zone" type posting go virtually unchallenged???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 After reading and digesting the 25 pages of this, this really feels like the type of circumstancial evidence that most of the anti-war people were so disturbed that they felt the Bush goverment used to justify a war in Iraq. Just like the biggest arguement against Iraq, at best, there is no one big smoking gun here. It seems to me that there are many times where statements are made as facts without any real source or link being connected to them. I saw spots where newspapers were quoted, yet there were no links to them. People made supposedly public statements, yet their were no links provided to substansiate them. As I posted earlier, I know for a fact that the stock arguement is a stretch at best, and it makes me wonder if other things the author gives as source based facts are being stretched to make this theory more plausible. I'd be interested to see more physical support of the authors "facts". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI1020 Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 It's not a stretch, it's the kind of contortion that would make a Yoga master proud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted April 15, 2003 Share Posted April 15, 2003 It's laughable because the one who posted this would have criticized Bush if he had been proactive before 9/11. Yet this poster is vicious in criticizing Bush for acting aggressively now. Bravo SI..... Bra-f***in'-vo! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted April 15, 2003 Author Share Posted April 15, 2003 It's laughable because the one who posted this would have criticized Bush if he had been proactive before 9/11. Yet this poster is vicious in criticizing Bush for acting aggressively now. Bravo SI..... Bra-f***in'-vo! There is a difference between going after individual terrorists who have attacked us and going after a sovereign nation that has not done anything to us. I guess that fact is lost on SI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BridgeportHeather Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Anyone care to post the Cliff's Notes version of the article? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0206/S00071.htm what kind of reliable sorc is that. i could make a website full of bulls*** too. You need some sort of credtable sorc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 After reading and digesting the 25 pages of this, this really feels like the type of circumstancial evidence that most of the anti-war people were so disturbed that they felt the Bush goverment used to justify a war in Iraq. Just like the biggest arguement against Iraq, at best, there is no one big smoking gun here. It seems to me that there are many times where statements are made as facts without any real source or link being connected to them. I saw spots where newspapers were quoted, yet there were no links to them. People made supposedly public statements, yet their were no links provided to substansiate them. As I posted earlier, I know for a fact that the stock arguement is a stretch at best, and it makes me wonder if other things the author gives as source based facts are being stretched to make this theory more plausible. I'd be interested to see more physical support of the authors "facts". Hey Apu, do you have anymore on my questions? Just curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted April 16, 2003 Author Share Posted April 16, 2003 Hey Apu, do you have anymore on my questions? Just curious. Hey Southsider, sorry I haven't gotten to your questions. I've had a lot of stuff going down here at school. I just found out that I have to speak at a campus rally so I've been spending a lot of time into preparing a speech, etc. I promise when my schedule frees up a little bit and I have time to sit down and actually type for a while, etc., that I'll get to them. It's difficult being a college student with less than one month before final exams, 2 papers due, and a whole bunch of peace activism events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 16, 2003 Share Posted April 16, 2003 Hey Apu, do you have anymore on my questions? Just curious. Hey Southsider, sorry I haven't gotten to your questions. I've had a lot of stuff going down here at school. I just found out that I have to speak at a campus rally so I've been spending a lot of time into preparing a speech, etc. I promise when my schedule frees up a little bit and I have time to sit down and actually type for a while, etc., that I'll get to them. It's difficult being a college student with less than one month before final exams, 2 papers due, and a whole bunch of peace activism events. It's cool man. I understand being busy. I just like to look at both sides of things... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 20, 2003 Share Posted May 20, 2003 After reading and digesting the 25 pages of this, this really feels like the type of circumstancial evidence that most of the anti-war people were so disturbed that they felt the Bush goverment used to justify a war in Iraq. Just like the biggest arguement against Iraq, at best, there is no one big smoking gun here. It seems to me that there are many times where statements are made as facts without any real source or link being connected to them. I saw spots where newspapers were quoted, yet there were no links to them. People made supposedly public statements, yet their were no links provided to substansiate them. As I posted earlier, I know for a fact that the stock arguement is a stretch at best, and it makes me wonder if other things the author gives as source based facts are being stretched to make this theory more plausible. I'd be interested to see more physical support of the authors "facts". Hey anything new on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted May 20, 2003 Share Posted May 20, 2003 Well I will get flamed but I believe the thrust of the article is valid and I have thought so from the ebginning. It was well reported how Bush ignored the terrorist warnings while he was at the Crawford ranch in Texas in August 2001 because he was concerned with the fallout of his buddy Kenneth Lay and Enron. That Bush decided to brush the warnings aside is not in doubt. And I am not abouit to do anyone else's esearch on that. Just pick up all the back issues of the New Yorker that were puiblished since September 11th and it was all covered. The brush of of the terrorist warnings was even reported before September 11th. In a fairfly recent New Yorker article, there was an extensive survey of all the warnings received and placed in context with warnings that were ignored on other such occasions as the June 1967 6 day war in the Middle East, the Yom kippur war, etc., and how information is screened. I would not necessarily support the posted, linked article's contention that Bush willingly knew of the fulls cope of what was coming and purposefully allowed it, just that he very casually and dismissively disregarded the warnings because of his preoccupation with Enron,a nd counted on a percentage risk that the warnings weren;t valid. On that he was 3,000 times dead wrong. I often wonder if Gore had been sworn in, what the Republicans would be saying right now if going on 2 years since September 11 Gore had not fulfileld the vow to "get bin laden dead or alive" or even to invade Iraq and so far not come up with Saddam hussein or his sons (let alone a single weapon of mass destruction). They would be railing at presidential incompetence. And as many of us have suggested, the actioins taken by Bush have done nothing to increase security, as the latest wave of terrorists acts shows. We have increased the risk without solving anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted May 20, 2003 Author Share Posted May 20, 2003 Well I will get flamed but I believe the thrust of the article is valid and I have thought so from the ebginning. It was well reported how Bush ignored the terrorist warnings while he was at the Crawford ranch in Texas in August 2001 because he was concerned with the fallout of his buddy Kenneth Lay and Enron. That Bush decided to brush the warnings aside is not in doubt. And I am not abouit to do anyone else's esearch on that. Just pick up all the back issues of the New Yorker that were puiblished since September 11th and it was all covered. The brush of of the terrorist warnings was even reported before September 11th. In a fairfly recent New Yorker article, there was an extensive survey of all the warnings received and placed in context with warnings that were ignored on other such occasions as the June 1967 6 day war in the Middle East, the Yom kippur war, etc., and how information is screened. I would not necessarily support the posted, linked article's contention that Bush willingly knew of the fulls cope of what was coming and purposefully allowed it, just that he very casually and dismissively disregarded the warnings because of his preoccupation with Enron,a nd counted on a percentage risk that the warnings weren;t valid. On that he was 3,000 times dead wrong. I often wonder if Gore had been sworn in, what the Republicans would be saying right now if going on 2 years since September 11 Gore had not fulfileld the vow to "get bin laden dead or alive" or even to invade Iraq and so far not come up with Saddam hussein or his sons (let alone a single weapon of mass destruction). They would be railing at presidential incompetence. And as many of us have suggested, the actioins taken by Bush have done nothing to increase security, as the latest wave of terrorists acts shows. We have increased the risk without solving anything. ANTI-AMERICAN PRO-FRENCH COMMIE SCUM! YOU JUST HATE IRAQI FREEDOM! I MEAN. WE ALL KNOW THAT SADDAM WAS BEHIND 9/11! WE MUST SHUT OUR MOUTHS AND LET THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DO WHAT'S BEST FOR US! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted May 20, 2003 Share Posted May 20, 2003 ANTI-AMERICAN PRO-FRENCH COMMIE SCUM! YOU JUST HATE IRAQI FREEDOM! I MEAN. WE ALL KNOW THAT SADDAM WAS BEHIND 9/11! WE MUST SHUT OUR MOUTHS AND LET THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DO WHAT'S BEST FOR US! 1. true 2. true 3, true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted May 20, 2003 Author Share Posted May 20, 2003 After reading and digesting the 25 pages of this, this really feels like the type of circumstancial evidence that most of the anti-war people were so disturbed that they felt the Bush goverment used to justify a war in Iraq. Just like the biggest arguement against Iraq, at best, there is no one big smoking gun here. It seems to me that there are many times where statements are made as facts without any real source or link being connected to them. I saw spots where newspapers were quoted, yet there were no links to them. People made supposedly public statements, yet their were no links provided to substansiate them. As I posted earlier, I know for a fact that the stock arguement is a stretch at best, and it makes me wonder if other things the author gives as source based facts are being stretched to make this theory more plausible. I'd be interested to see more physical support of the authors "facts". Hey anything new on this? I just got a bunch recently [since I am back at home for the summer] but I am still sifting through it all...I just got a 30 page report on Bush's role in 9/11 from a friend of mine that he said has a lot of information in it. As soon as I read it, I'll let you know. And about the newspapers, there are hard copies at libraries. If you would really like to check the authenticity of them, I'm sure even a 1/2 assed quality library would have them. Also, the new movie Fahrenheit 911 will have a lot of information about the 9/11 events because it's the entire movie. It's common knowledge that bin Laden was trying to sell his airline stock pre-9/11 because he obviously knew it was going to go down with the terrorist attack. It's one of the many crimes that he is being nailed for [making the fortune from stock while screwing everybody else because he had that insider info] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 20, 2003 Share Posted May 20, 2003 It's common knowledge that bin Laden was trying to sell his airline stock pre-9/11 because he obviously knew it was going to go down with the terrorist attack. It's one of the many crimes that he is being nailed for [making the fortune from stock while screwing everybody else because he had that insider info] Don't get me wrong, I am not disputing that it happened. Like I said I worked on the floor of the CBOE right next to the pit where United options traded. I know what happened, how it happened, and the subsquent investigation afterwards. It was the timeline that was off. And about the newspapers, there are hard copies at libraries. If you would really like to check the authenticity of them, I'm sure even a 1/2 assed quality library would have them. Lol. You must have seen our library! Also, the new movie Fahrenheit 911 will have a lot of information about the 9/11 events because it's the entire movie. Is this going to be a big time theater released movie? It sounds interesting. Any idea when it is supposed to be out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted May 20, 2003 Author Share Posted May 20, 2003 Is this going to be a big time theater released movie? It sounds interesting. Any idea when it is supposed to be out? It should be a very large release movie. Right now some groups are rallying against Miramax for funding the film. But if it gets the funding, then it should be a big theatrical release. I am not 100% sure about the release date yet though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted May 21, 2003 Author Share Posted May 21, 2003 Here is some more from the Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...path=Columnists Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxplosion Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 I dont have time to read this right now, so I wont make any conclusions, but I really doubt this is gonna be true. Ill read it tommorow and say what I think. But Ive heard plenty of absurd 9/11 conspiracy theories. Jews did it, Bush let it happen, the CIA did it, bull crap... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubKilla Posted May 21, 2003 Share Posted May 21, 2003 If the government knew everything about 09/11 before it happened and arrested the hijackers on 09/10 for a crime they had yet to commit, you liberals would all be screaming about Bush being a racist and how this is yet another example of the Bush Administration trampling all over the US Constitution. Shut the f*** up already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted May 21, 2003 Author Share Posted May 21, 2003 If the government knew everything about 09/11 before it happened and arrested the hijackers on 09/10 for a crime they had yet to commit, you liberals would all be screaming about Bush being a racist and how this is yet another example of the Bush Administration trampling all over the US Constitution. Shut the f*** up already. If we want to get technical, the Terrorism 2000 report said that Al Qaeda was planning to use planes as bombs at national landmarks and international intelligence told Bush that Al Qaeda was poised to strike as late as late August...but Shrub rather played golf. And is it just me or did anybody else find it weird that after Bush knew the planes were hijacked he continued to read the book to the classroom of kids? Wouldn't you think that he'd have something more important to do....like stop the rest of the planes from hitting?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.