Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 1 votes

Conspiracy Theories


  • Please log in to reply
192 replies to this topic

#46    Likely Guy

Likely Guy

    Undecided, mostly.

  • Member
  • 3,932 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Likely, Canada

  • "The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Posted 20 October 2012 - 02:09 AM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 20 October 2012 - 01:25 AM, said:


...Sibel Edmonds is a good one. There is testimony under oath she gives

Just read the Wiki entry. She does seem to have an impressive linguistic background and education before she was hired as a translator for the FBI (nine days after the attack).

And she left. Length of employment: Sept. 20, 2001 - Mar. 22, 2002.

But the only thing that I can gather about the Commission Report was that her testimony wasn't included.

I'm not sure where that supports your above assertions. Maybe I'm just a little dense right now? :) zzzzzzz...

Edited by Likely Guy, 20 October 2012 - 02:13 AM.


#47    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 October 2012 - 02:48 AM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 20 October 2012 - 12:39 AM, said:


This is a good article, thank you for sharing it.

I agree completely that this does seem to indicate that the CIA was hiding something from the commission.  But what was it that they were hiding?

Tapes of interrogations.

Are there any possible reasons that they might do this which don't equate to complicity or participation in the 9/11 attacks?

I'd say yes.

Despite the article mentioning that the commission wasn't mandated to investigate how detainees were treated, if they had been mistreated in any way (which they probably were) and this evidence surfaced to prove it (which it probably would have), those involved with the interrogations could be prosecuted.  Don't get me wrong, I do not condone abusive interrogation techniques or torture and I'm not attempting to defend them, but this seems like a reasonable explanation for why such tapes may have been destroyed and these details withheld.

Now, could it alternatively suggest that these tapes were destroyed to hide some kind of evidence for complicity or participation?  Yes, it is possible.  I find it highly unlikely, but yes I agree that it is possible.

With that in mind, what good would a new investigation do in light of these possibilities?  Would a new investigation retrieve the destroyed tapes?  Would a new investigation compel the people involved to admit to whatever they did?  If it was the hypothetical non-conspiratorial scenario that I mentioned previously, would the perpetrators admit to torturing these detainees?  If it was conspiratorial, would they admit to that?  The probable answer to both of those is likely to be a resounding No.

Could a newly empowered commission obtain access to the specific detainees in question?  Have those detainees already been re-interrogated in relation to this?  Were any of them interrogated by the FBI before the CIA?  Are they even still alive?  The two mentioned are still alive in Guantanamo, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, and they appear to have both been tortured.  What about the other 116 individuals?  Were they also tortured?  Probably.  Are they still alive?  I don't know.

It does seem as though we've had these people in custody for a long while though, and the CIA isn't the only agency who has had access to them.  The FBI was able to obtain some very good information from them in fact, if you read through the wiki articles.  Did the FBI uncover any information from these detainees that would point to an inside job?  Don't you think they'd bring that to light if they had?  I'd hope that they would, and yet I haven't seen them say anything about it beyond the blunders that we all have heard about and read about.

If this wiki article is correct, Abu Zubaydah actually was interrogated by the FBI first, and only after that did the CIA become involved with less savory methods.  Nothing about complicity came from that.

And this article talks about the destruction of the tapes themselves and the ensuing investigation.  It would seem very likely that my hypothetical about the possible reasons these tapes may have been destroyed is extremely likely.

As deplorable as such techniques are in themselves, this still doesn't point to government or CIA complicity in the 9/11 attacks.  It's horrible what we've done to these detainees, and I disagree with the court's decision to drop all charges against those involved, but it still leaves us with little of substance in support of 9/11 conspiracy claims.

I do thank you for bringing some evidence to the table though.


#48    Likely Guy

Likely Guy

    Undecided, mostly.

  • Member
  • 3,932 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Likely, Canada

  • "The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Posted 20 October 2012 - 04:16 AM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 20 October 2012 - 02:48 AM, said:

This is a good article, thank you for sharing it.

I agree completely that this does seem to indicate that the CIA was hiding something from the commission.  But what was it that they were hiding?

...but it still leaves us with little of substance in support of 9/11 conspiracy claims.

I do thank you for bringing some evidence to the table though.

This is a good thing!

At least we're off the circular debate;

"Something's fishy about 9/11!"
"Give me evidence that something's fishy about 9/11!"

We should speak and debate about points, yes?

Edited by Likely Guy, 20 October 2012 - 04:37 AM.


#49    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 October 2012 - 04:39 AM

View PostLikely Guy, on 20 October 2012 - 04:16 AM, said:

This is a good thing!

At least we're off the circular debate;

"Something's fishy about 9/11!"
"Give me evidence that something's fishy about 9/11!"

We should speak and debate about points, yes?

That's all I've been asking for.  Kudos to you for sparking that.  :tu:


#50    LucidElement

LucidElement

    Mystic Divinity

  • Member
  • 3,450 posts
  • Joined:26 Aug 2003
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Great North Woods

  • Imagination Is More Important Than Knowledge -Albert Einstein

Posted 20 October 2012 - 05:16 AM

go back to the main point lol.. stay off the 9/11 stuff. Proving my POINT WE WILL NEVERRR KNOW FOR SURE.. whats the point in stressin over it. It is what it is.. we lost a very good family friend in 9/11. but again, noone will ever know if it was a planned attack or if their was more to it... BACK TO THE POINT AT HAND

**Think about this.... Since 1776, I believe secrets were being held covered up from the people of America. All the way till now 236 years later. But check it out, we have a safe country, all things considered and its because the government keeps things hidden from us. If we know stuff, then people will tell things to other countries and yada yada things go south. I'd like to think for 236 years of hiding information for the general public has been a good thing. It keeps the secrets where they belong and it keeps our country safer. We have ONLY HAD ONE MAJOR ATTACK (SAD AS HELL 9/11 WAS) but in 236 years Id say things that are keep hidden from us is for a good part. It happens for a reason.***

"The Truth Is Out There, Its Up To Us To Find The Answers."

"Imagination Is More Important Than Knowledge." - Einstein

Avatar done by The Barman!!!

#51    Antilles

Antilles

    NCC-1701

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,181 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:2nd star from the left

Posted 20 October 2012 - 05:59 AM

You know, I have a conspiracy theory about this topic...... :alien:


#52    Sthenno

Sthenno

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,167 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2006

Posted 20 October 2012 - 07:00 AM

View PostLucidElement, on 20 October 2012 - 05:16 AM, said:

**Think about this.... Since 1776, I believe secrets were being held covered up from the people of America. All the way till now 236 years later. But check it out, we have a safe country, all things considered and its because the government keeps things hidden from us. If we know stuff, then people will tell things to other countries and yada yada things go south. I'd like to think for 236 years of hiding information for the general public has been a good thing. It keeps the secrets where they belong and it keeps our country safer. We have ONLY HAD ONE MAJOR ATTACK (SAD AS HELL 9/11 WAS) but in 236 years Id say things that are keep hidden from us is for a good part. It happens for a reason.***

Thing is, this argument only holds if you consider the wellbeing of America over the wellbeing of the world. For example, military practices might be kept secret from you... military practices that, when carried out, have a positive outcome for America. In that case, it would be easy to think that those practices were kept secret for America's benefit. But what if those practices were being kept secret not because of fears of the information getting out, but because they were unjust, immoral or illegal? As secrets, they might still keep your country safer, but at what cost?


#53    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,121 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 20 October 2012 - 07:31 AM

View PostLucidElement, on 20 October 2012 - 05:16 AM, said:

We have ONLY HAD ONE MAJOR ATTACK (SAD AS HELL 9/11 WAS) but in 236 years Id say things that are keep hidden from us is for a good part. It happens for a reason.***

You may want to crack open your history books and look up the War of 1812 and the "Burning of Washington" in 1814, when Washington DC was captured and occupied by British / Canadian troops and some of its public buildings were burned - including the White House - after the US Government fled the city.

Granted, though, that peace was achieved by the end of December 1814 with the Treaty of Ghent, but by that time, the war had pretty much reached a strategic stalemate, and the net result after settlement was no territorial gain on either side (captured lands were returned, pre-war boundaries were restored) and some fishing rights in the Gulf of St. Lawrence awarded to the Americans.

But the Burning of Washington in 1814 still stands as the first time that the American Capital was attacked, a milestone which stood until the events of 9/11, and the only time in history that the American Capital was occupied by a foreign force.

And if you weren't aware of those events, then perhaps you might want to look into the conspiracy behind why THAT truth was withheld from you.






Cz

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien
"Enquiring and doubting the "official story" are also good things .... However when these doubts require you to ignore the evidence, to dishonestly cherry pick evidence and claim it supports your case when it doesn't, when you operate a double standard; demanding proof of that which is already proven whilst making unsupported statements and personal opinions to back your own case and when you deny the truth simply because it IS the official story then you are no longer acting in a rational way. This is not the behaviour of a "different thinker", this is the behaviour of a "believer" who chooses not to rationally think about the evidence at all." - Waspie Dwarf

#54    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 20 October 2012 - 01:00 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 20 October 2012 - 02:48 AM, said:

This is a good article, thank you for sharing it.

I agree completely that this does seem to indicate that the CIA was hiding something from the commission.  But what was it that they were hiding?

Tapes of interrogations.

Are there any possible reasons that they might do this which don't equate to complicity or participation in the 9/11 attacks?

I'd say yes.

Despite the article mentioning that the commission wasn't mandated to investigate how detainees were treated, if they had been mistreated in any way (which they probably were) and this evidence surfaced to prove it (which it probably would have), those involved with the interrogations could be prosecuted.  Don't get me wrong, I do not condone abusive interrogation techniques or torture and I'm not attempting to defend them, but this seems like a reasonable explanation for why such tapes may have been destroyed and these details withheld.

Now, could it alternatively suggest that these tapes were destroyed to hide some kind of evidence for complicity or participation?  Yes, it is possible.  I find it highly unlikely, but yes I agree that it is possible.

With that in mind, what good would a new investigation do in light of these possibilities?  Would a new investigation retrieve the destroyed tapes?  Would a new investigation compel the people involved to admit to whatever they did?  If it was the hypothetical non-conspiratorial scenario that I mentioned previously, would the perpetrators admit to torturing these detainees?  If it was conspiratorial, would they admit to that?  The probable answer to both of those is likely to be a resounding No.

Could a newly empowered commission obtain access to the specific detainees in question?  Have those detainees already been re-interrogated in relation to this?  Were any of them interrogated by the FBI before the CIA?  Are they even still alive?  The two mentioned are still alive in Guantanamo, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, and they appear to have both been tortured.  What about the other 116 individuals?  Were they also tortured?  Probably.  Are they still alive?  I don't know.

It does seem as though we've had these people in custody for a long while though, and the CIA isn't the only agency who has had access to them.  The FBI was able to obtain some very good information from them in fact, if you read through the wiki articles.  Did the FBI uncover any information from these detainees that would point to an inside job?  Don't you think they'd bring that to light if they had?  I'd hope that they would, and yet I haven't seen them say anything about it beyond the blunders that we all have heard about and read about.

If this wiki article is correct, Abu Zubaydah actually was interrogated by the FBI first, and only after that did the CIA become involved with less savory methods.  Nothing about complicity came from that.

And this article talks about the destruction of the tapes themselves and the ensuing investigation.  It would seem very likely that my hypothetical about the possible reasons these tapes may have been destroyed is extremely likely.

As deplorable as such techniques are in themselves, this still doesn't point to government or CIA complicity in the 9/11 attacks.  It's horrible what we've done to these detainees, and I disagree with the court's decision to drop all charges against those involved, but it still leaves us with little of substance in support of 9/11 conspiracy claims.

I do thank you for bringing some evidence to the table though.

you make many valid and correct points. And of course we cannot 'know' everything our intelligence communities do, nor am I suggesting that we should.sometimes though you have to look at context, ommisions, whistleblowers, history, who benefits, the money trail, witnesses, witnesses who change their story, witnesses who disappera or have untimely death..... and it's kinda like a puzzle you have to put together. And obvioulsy there are sometimes sources that cannot be named or divulged. it can be quite frustrating when you know how much something is all wrong, and it happened to involve the murder of 3,000 people and you want people to open their eyes but you can't convince them, for many reasons....it is the most frustrating experience I have ever had, and my life has been one huge frustration!

At the very least there should have charges of criminal negligence. I don't think the CIA is a bunch of bumbling idiots at all And I have the highest respect and honor for all the decent ones who work there... but I believe dark and ideological forces are manipulating and abusing their powers and privileges and it ought to scare folks more, but not into submission and silence but in speaking up thinking more asking confronting, demanding better.

I think too many believe we are powerless to effect change or confront authority is why they go along to get along.....I'm a little crazy though and don't believe that for one minute.


#55    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 21 October 2012 - 04:24 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 20 October 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

Like what has been said before, not all the questions were answered when it comes to the official investigation into 9/11.

Could the investigation have been handled differently?  Sure it can, however based on the evidence presented, the conclusion is quite clear.

If any of those firefighters, families of victims, and intelligence operatives you speak of are able to present a smoking gun, back by concrete evidence, then there is no need for another investigation funded by tax payer's dollars.

If those who do not believe in the Official Narrative would put their own money aside to pay for a new investigation then by all means.

Or better yet, propose government funding for a new investigation yourself.  However, there is one thing that will stop you, evidence.



I never said that,  What I did state however is that the evidence present clearly backs the official investigation.  If you were to find the smoking gun to all this to but the case wide open again, please present it here for us to review.



Unfortunately, I have been at this longer than you have, and this is an open forum.  If i want to respond to your arguments I feel that I am free to do so.



I feel that it is necessary to respond to your posts in due kind as to not have you poison those less than verbal to post on this forum/thread.

Let's call it, setting an example, if you may.

In what way do you think the investigation could have been handled differently?


#56    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 21 October 2012 - 04:25 PM

View PostLikely Guy, on 20 October 2012 - 01:32 AM, said:

Okay, I'll look her up.

I just hope that she isn't listed in the '1500+ Engineers and Architects' list. If that's the group that I think it is (I feel that I have to warn you), I, for one, don't lend much creedance to what they say.

Could you explain why each of the 41 or so listed are not to be trusted or believed?


#57    Likely Guy

Likely Guy

    Undecided, mostly.

  • Member
  • 3,932 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Likely, Canada

  • "The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Posted 21 October 2012 - 05:56 PM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 21 October 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:

Could you explain why each of the 41 or so listed are not to be trusted or believed?
I'm not sure which 41 you're referring to.If you're referring to the Architects and Engineers it's because they are led by Richard Gage. I've read what he's said and to what his critics have said. I believe the latter.


#58    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 21 October 2012 - 06:01 PM

View PostLikely Guy, on 21 October 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

I'm not sure which 41 you're referring to.If you're referring to the Architects and Engineers it's because they are led by Richard Gage. I've read what he's said and to what his critics have said. I believe the latter.

the article had 41 people listed including Sibel Edmonds....are you suggesting even the military persons on the list are being led by Robert Gage are NOT credible?

and do you think EVERY architect and engineer disagreeing with the official account is wrong? every one of them?  I mean if there's a 'conspiracy' here.....I wanna know! lol.....inform me please.....each of the 41 tell me why they are unbelievable with the statements they make......and if you want to distrust people for who they associate with? you may not trust the Bushes, just the cozy Saudi connections are disturbing, the the bin Laden family connections....you get my drift don't you?


#59    TrueBeliever

TrueBeliever

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 578 posts
  • Joined:10 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:too cold here!

Posted 21 October 2012 - 06:08 PM

View PostLikely Guy, on 21 October 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

I'm not sure which 41 you're referring to.If you're referring to the Architects and Engineers it's because they are led by Richard Gage. I've read what he's said and to what his critics have said. I believe the latter.

here's the link again, maybe you didn't read it the first time I posted it.....several military and intelligence people who question the official 9/11 story....

http://patriotsquest...om/#Stubblebine


#60    Likely Guy

Likely Guy

    Undecided, mostly.

  • Member
  • 3,932 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Likely, Canada

  • "The problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

Posted 21 October 2012 - 06:23 PM

View PostTrueBeliever, on 21 October 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

the article had 41 people listed including Sibel Edmonds....are you suggesting even the military persons on the list are being led by Robert Gage are NOT credible?

and do you think EVERY architect and engineer disagreeing with the official account is wrong? every one of them?  I mean if there's a 'conspiracy' here.....I wanna know! lol.....inform me please.....each of the 41 tell me why they are unbelievable with the statements they make......and if you want to distrust people for who they associate with? you may not trust the Bushes, just the cozy Saudi connections are disturbing, the the bin Laden family connections....you get my drift don't you?
Okay, the first time that I linked to your article it wouldn't let me scroll down. All I got was a list of names. I'll get back to you.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users