900 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 19 December 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

ONI and some congressional auditors were housed and working in that part of the Pentagon that was struck.  Out of all the casualties there that day, the largest portion were ONI auditors.

Use a government computer and understand why you continue to take the wrong road.

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 December 2012 - 02:28 AM.

[Babe Ruth]

Q

I must say, for a guy who understands that it was a false flag, you do not seem to be aware of the full range of criminality involved.  That is, it seems you're completely oblivious to some of the other obvious angles and goals of the operation.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 20 December 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

Q

I must say, for a guy who understands that it was a false flag, you do not seem to be aware of the full range of criminality involved.

Sure it was! Just like when they used P700 anti-ship missiles in lieu of B-767s and B-757s.

[Babe Ruth]

Sky

My last post was to Q

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 20 December 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

Sky

My last post was to Q

But, there is no evidence of a 9/11 false flag operation; never was! In case you didn't know, radar data traced the Boeing 757-200 from its takeoff from Newark, N.J., to its violent end.

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 December 2012 - 09:43 PM.

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 20 December 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

Q

I must say, for a guy who understands that it was a false flag, you do not seem to be aware of the full range of criminality involved.  That is, it seems you're completely oblivious to some of the other obvious angles and goals of the operation.

I know, sorry, I don’t buy into the range of criminality that you do.  I believe that the extensive depth of conspiracy that it inherently promotes is neither convincing in evidence or sustainable in logic.  

When we delve into so many issues, such as the ‘missing’ $2.3 trillion and ONI (which I’m sure is the last in a series of my disagreements that has prompted your objection above), it is not a fitting, and certainly not a necessary, bolt-on to the false flag operation – there was no ‘missing’ $2.3 trillion to begin, but a lack of audit control which is not such an uncommon experience in monolithic  ‘not-so-well-integrated’ government systems, most of which has since been accounted for and the rest of which could not be erased from existence through hitting the ONI.  You know, if the government wanted to siphon off so many trillion for black ops over time, there are better and apparently more legitimate ways of going about it.  I think the most that can be said is that perhaps Rumsfeld scheduled his announcement of the ‘missing’ $2.3 trillion on the day before 9/11 where he knew that bad news would be forgotten amidst the attack.  Though to be fair, it was no secret even before that.  So tying any of this intrinsically to 9/11 does not make sense and is unnecessary.

I’m afraid to say it only gets worse from there.  Didn’t you request I review a link not so long ago that the twin towers were also hit in specific locations to destroy financial records (see above for my view on that)?  And on this thread you posted a link suggesting that inside companies had some extensive control over the air defense reaction (not at all necessary given timing of the attacks in my opinion).  Then you believe there was no airliner impact/crash at either Shanksville or the Pentagon, which itself drags in a whole other level of conspirators, from whole branches of law enforcement to the ASCE to eyewitnesses to the cell who must be fabricating video and photographic evidence of the airliners and debris.  All for what?  Nothing.  It was already proven that airliners could be used at the WTC.  I find it almost distasteful when you point to the likes of Wally Miller, Lloyd England, ‘paid-off’ air passengers or numerous others, who all appear quite innocent individuals caught up in events, as liars, without in my opinion due cause, and a part of the conspiracy and cover-up.  With all of these additional people and agencies involved, it’s like you think the conspirators’ power is so all-consuming so as to control every facet of events and information down to every detail.

It is theories like that with so many unnecessary extensions, finding conspiracy at every turn, that lead some to rightly question and disbelieve that the hundreds or thousands of people necessarily involved could remain silent.  It’s a huge stumbling block and peeve of mine that ‘debunkers’ raise as I’m certain that a drawn back, minimal essentials operation, though still large-scale false flag, could be achieved through less than two dozen in the U.S. system and around fifty agents of foreign intelligence; a rather more acceptable and tight ship.

To me, it seems you have an acute distrust of general government and a belief in their iron-grip which borders on paranoia.  Whilst I believe that is going too far and in part leads to our disagreement about the range of criminality involved on 9/11, I must say it is still the safer option than those who have gone the opposite way and now somehow believe the exact reversal to that which founders of the U.S. set out, that the people should serve their government.  So whilst I criticise above, I don’t think it is you who is dangerous.

[Babe Ruth]

Q24, on 21 December 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

I know, sorry, I don’t buy into the range of criminality that you do.  I believe that the extensive depth of conspiracy that it inherently promotes is neither convincing in evidence or sustainable in logic.  

When we delve into so many issues, such as the ‘missing’ $2.3 trillion and ONI (which I’m sure is the last in a series of my disagreements that has prompted your objection above), it is not a fitting, and certainly not a necessary, bolt-on to the false flag operation – there was no ‘missing’ $2.3 trillion to begin, but a lack of audit control which is not such an uncommon experience in monolithic  ‘not-so-well-integrated’ government systems, most of which has since been accounted for and the rest of which could not be erased from existence through hitting the ONI.  You know, if the government wanted to siphon off so many trillion for black ops over time, there are better and apparently more legitimate ways of going about it.  I think the most that can be said is that perhaps Rumsfeld scheduled his announcement of the ‘missing’ $2.3 trillion on the day before 9/11 where he knew that bad news would be forgotten amidst the attack.  Though to be fair, it was no secret even before that.  So tying any of this intrinsically to 9/11 does not make sense and is unnecessary.

I’m afraid to say it only gets worse from there.  Didn’t you request I review a link not so long ago that the twin towers were also hit in specific locations to destroy financial records (see above for my view on that)?  And on this thread you posted a link suggesting that inside companies had some extensive control over the air defense reaction (not at all necessary given timing of the attacks in my opinion).  Then you believe there was no airliner impact/crash at either Shanksville or the Pentagon, which itself drags in a whole other level of conspirators, from whole branches of law enforcement to the ASCE to eyewitnesses to the cell who must be fabricating video and photographic evidence of the airliners and debris.  All for what?  Nothing.  It was already proven that airliners could be used at the WTC.  I find it almost distasteful when you point to the likes of Wally Miller, Lloyd England, ‘paid-off’ air passengers or numerous others, who all appear quite innocent individuals caught up in events, as liars, without in my opinion due cause, and a part of the conspiracy and cover-up.  With all of these additional people and agencies involved, it’s like you think the conspirators’ power is so all-consuming so as to control every facet of events and information down to every detail.

It is theories like that with so many unnecessary extensions, finding conspiracy at every turn, that lead some to rightly question and disbelieve that the hundreds or thousands of people necessarily involved could remain silent.  It’s a huge stumbling block and peeve of mine that ‘debunkers’ raise as I’m certain that a drawn back, minimal essentials operation, though still large-scale false flag, could be achieved through less than two dozen in the U.S. system and around fifty agents of foreign intelligence; a rather more acceptable and tight ship.

To me, it seems you have an acute distrust of general government and a belief in their iron-grip which borders on paranoia.  Whilst I believe that is going too far and in part leads to our disagreement about the range of criminality involved on 9/11, I must say it is still the safer option than those who have gone the opposite way and now somehow believe the exact reversal to that which founders of the U.S. set out, that the people should serve their government.  So whilst I criticise above, I don’t think it is you who is dangerous.

At some point in the investigative or analytical process, one must learn to think like a criminal.  Perhaps I am better at that than you are?  How do you know what is "fitting" and what is not?  Don't you find the invocation by SEC of emergency rules to be indicative of the type of coincidence you chide LG for not being able to recognize?

If there was no missing funds, then why had congress been investigating it since before Bush took office?  Why had ONI investigated these irregularities?

You may find my speculation distasteful, and I'm sorry your sensibilities have been offended, but it seems the very idea that a FF would be employed against the american people--a theory you seem to embrace--is far more offensive and distasteful.

As for Wally Miller, recent information discovered in the reading of Christopher Bollyn's work has finally explained what happened there.  Bollyn eventually managed to interview Miller at his funeral home in a very amicable setting.  Further, I now understand why the 2 different locations for the crash site, something that had puzzled me for years.

It seems the other crash site was in the woods, some 1800 feet separated from the crash site we were all shown on TV.  That, according to Jim Svonavec, the owner of the reclaimed mine that was the site shown on TV, who loaned certain heavy equipment to the FBI to "recover debris" at the "actual" crash site, hidden in the woods nearby.  As the property owner and loaner of heavy equipment to the feds, neither Mr. Svonavec nor his employees, nor anybody else, were allowed at the site in the woods.

The feds screwed up, and did not arrive on the scene until AFTER Wally Miller had spilled the beans to the media.  Wally was an innocent and honest man, and thus his and his assistants' statements to the media.  The feds nicely asked Wally to "be a team player", and he did.  The end result was that he as the county coroner to comply with his duties under PA law, had a provisional morgue set up at Seven Springs Mountain Resort, six miles away from the 2 crash sites.  That was reported in the PPG October 15, 2001.  In the end, Wally ended up signing death certificates for bodies that he never saw.  He did see various tissue samples and DNA samples, but not any bodies.

But being the 'team player', he did what he was told.

That you see no particular significance to the location of the strikes at WTC puzzles me, for one able to perceive the clear FF evidence.  That covert US securities were cleared the next day under first time ever emergency provisions has some sort of sinister significance.

Yeah, I guess I have much more of a criminal mind than you do Q.

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 21 December 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

At some point in the investigative or analytical process, one must learn to think like a criminal.  Perhaps I am better at that than you are?

That depends, are you aiming for Dick Cheney or... Dr. Evil?





Dr. Evil:  Scott, I want you to meet daddy’s nemesis, Austin Powers.
Scott:  What?  Are you feeding him?  Why don’t you just kill him?
Dr. Evil:  No Scott, I have an even better idea:  I’m going to place him in an easily escapable situation involving an overly elaborate and exotic death.




...

Ok, compose yourself Q, back to business...

Babe Ruth, on 21 December 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

How do you know what is "fitting" and what is not?

Through the standard of evidence, and logic.  I know that the missing $2.3 trillion is not fitting evidence of a false flag because, as I thought I’d explained, there is no evidence of a ‘missing’ $2.3 trillion in the first place, and even if there was, it could not be covered-up by crashing planes into some offices.  I find the occurrence of an unaccounted $2.3 trillion to be quite believable.  Without giving too much away... I have worked closely with government finances and have witnessed many unaccounted for transactions and untracked assets – it happens consistently and over time can add up to large amounts.  Is it remarkable that Congress asked where the $2.3 trillion was spent and the DoD turned around and said ‘we don’t know right now’?  And since have been attempting to reconcile that amount with large success (though, I’d bet, losing track in other areas, ha)?  Not at all in my experience.  So how is this unremarkable occurrence “fitting” any indication of a false flag?

Babe Ruth, on 21 December 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

Don't you find the invocation by SEC of emergency rules to be indicative of the type of coincidence you chide LG for not being able to recognize?

I don’t think the motive to invoke those rules is strong enough to enact a false flag.  Was the continued global pre-eminence of America thought to be dependent on introduction of those rules?  No, so I do not think this a good indicator that a false flag took place or reason to enact such an attack, therefore is of no value in demonstrating the case.  It is quite possible that some non-conspirator of the SEC may have later made use of the attack to their advantage, but that’s very different to complicity in the attack.  Alternatively, did invocation of the rules potentially assist success of the attack or the overall bearing in any way?  No, I do not find this at all similar to the type of coincidence I’m discussing with LG.  If you read our previous few posts and apply the ‘three questions’ test to each coincidence then you will know why.

Babe Ruth, on 21 December 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

You may find my speculation distasteful, and I'm sorry your sensibilities have been offended, but it seems the very idea that a FF would be employed against the american people--a theory you seem to embrace--is far more offensive and distasteful.

Well, I said “almost” distasteful – I wouldn’t oppose freedom of speech to make accusations at who you wish.  The difference between my theory and yours so far as accusations, is that I point the finger only at a very high and limited cadre of politicians and intelligence agents who already have a strong motive and precedent for deception, propaganda and lies on record – I think anyone taking a history lesson on Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Mossad and co. would understand where the initial distrust comes from.  In contrast, your extended theory necessarily points the finger at an ever greater number of regular citizens that permeate the U.S. at a more ground level.  I don’t like that for the implications it bears on U.S. citizens and the number of people it involves.  Take Wally Miller and Lloyd England for example, regular U.S. citizens, not involved in planning of the attacks, but who, you say, know a setup took place yet have been coerced to facilitate the cover-up of which they are aware.  If either actually said anything that indicated a false flag and could not be reconciled with an innocent comment, then I’d understand, but the fact is that neither do.  The same as a great many individuals and agencies according to your theory.   As well as finding it “almost” distasteful, it is a nonsense – one of the hundreds or thousands involved is going to spill the beans.

Edited by Q24, 21 December 2012 - 06:18 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 21 December 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

If there was no missing funds, then why had congress been investigating it since before Bush took office?  Why had ONI investigated these irregularities?

It has been brought to your attention by others, the money was not missing. Government waste is no secret, which was evident when I noticed the cost of an 1/2" X 1/2" X 2 " piece of aluminum extrusion, which was part of a TCTO. The cost of that 2-inch piece was $250.00.

The next time you go into a home improvement store, price an 8-foot section of aluminum extrusion and then calculate how many 2-inch pieces you can cut and sell at $250.00 each. That will give you an indication of government waste.

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 December 2012 - 09:00 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Q, too many times, life can be unpleasant, especially regarding what government agents do and don't do to citizens.  I don't make the rules, I just try to abide the rules, if they're just.

I have no doubt whatsoever about the veracity of your statements regarding untracked assets and such.  Your experience in that regard is superior to mine.  The thing is, that I happened to watch some minutes on CSPAN of Rummy being deposed by Cynthia McKinney from Georgia.  Watched my share of Perry Mason and been involved in a few trials myself over the years, and I have never seen as uncooperative a witness as Rummy.  And his female assistant.  In a perverse sort of way it was downright comical, they way he played with McKinney, he the cat and she the mouse, though it should have been reversed.

I wonder if you have ever enacted a FF, since you are offering judgement of theirs?  If you have not enacted a FF, then you and I are equal in assessing one.  As for me, I think they did a brilliant job.  After 11 years, some of the tactical errors are becoming apparent, but there were no strategic errors at all.  Win, win, win.

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 21 December 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

I wonder if you have ever enacted a FF, since you are offering judgement of theirs?  If you have not enacted a FF, then you and I are equal in assessing one.  As for me, I think they did a brilliant job.  After 11 years, some of the tactical errors are becoming apparent, but there were no strategic errors at all.  Win, win, win.

Now see, if you really thought like one of these criminals, you wouldn’t ask such an unfair question.  How could anyone ever answer in the affirmative?  ‘Have you ever enacted a false flag?’  ‘Oh yes, certainly, want me to tell you all about it too?’  No I have not enacted a false flag.  I just think that perhaps units can be a law unto themselves, that rules are not always adhered, that decisions and resultant actions are not always recorded, that some questions are not for asking, and that events as presented to the public, media and wider defence department may not always be what they appear and/or truth.  I think that would put anyone in reasonable position to judge elements that were behind the false flag that occurred on 9/11.  The first rule is that the deception must remain ‘in house’.  We must control information on a strict 'need to know' basis, otherwise we can forget it.  Once we include all of the agencies and individuals and go to the lengths of coercion and cover-up that you would like to enact this extensive conspiracy, it’s over.  I don’t like to give ‘debunkers’ the chance to use that as an excuse so must adhere to the minimum essentials required, which a considerable amount of the time involves disagreeing with your theories.

Anyhow... Merry Christmas everyone!  

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 23 December 2012 - 04:47 PM, said:

I think that would put anyone in reasonable position to judge elements that were behind the false flag that occurred on 9/11.  

Fantasy and speculation are not considered hard evidence.    Your false flag logic holds as much water as a bottomless bucket and to underliine that point, you have failed to provide supporting evidence.

Edited by skyeagle409, 23 December 2012 - 05:52 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

Q

I guess my point is that if indeed there was a false flag--military elements on a training exercise to achieve deception and other goals--how is anybody on the outside to know how many branches or leaves there are on the tree of deception?

That there was a FF is the point.  What all the various goals might have been, you and I can only speculate about.

You offer some suggestion that what you see as restraining conditions or limits would necessarily have been evaluated the same way by the actual perps.

I say the field is wide open--any number of goals might have been involved.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 23 December 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

Q

I guess my point is that if indeed there was a false flag--military elements on a training exercise to achieve deception and other goals--how is anybody on the outside to know how many branches or leaves there are on the tree of deception?

Please present the evidence, and remember, no evidence, no case.

Looking at the picture as a whole, the 9/11 attack did not display the hallmarks of a false flag operation.

[Q24]

Babe Ruth, on 23 December 2012 - 10:05 PM, said:

Q

I guess my point is that if indeed there was a false flag--military elements on a training exercise to achieve deception and other goals--how is anybody on the outside to know how many branches or leaves there are on the tree of deception?

That there was a FF is the point.  What all the various goals might have been, you and I can only speculate about.

You offer some suggestion that what you see as restraining conditions or limits would necessarily have been evaluated the same way by the actual perps.

I say the field is wide open--any number of goals might have been involved.

Well, I think that’s the circle complete – please refer up the page to my post #876 regarding, “extensive depth of conspiracy”.