Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,447 posts in this topic

Sky, are these people really so unaware of commonly known, well documented facts?

Disturbing. Maybe they just hang-out on "fringe-sites"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does everyone forget what happened after 911? Insurance premiums went through the roof, who profited from it? The Banks and Insurance companies!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does everyone forget what happened after 911? Insurance premiums went through the roof, who profited from it? The Banks and Insurance companies!

And your point is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky, are these people really so unaware of commonly known, well documented facts?

Disturbing. Maybe they just hang-out on "fringe-sites"

I have said before that claims of 9/11 conspiracist are ignorant-based. I have visited some of those conspiracy websites and was amazed at the high level of the disinformation and misinformation they were spewing. In some cases, I caught them outright lying.

I am retired from the USAF and have worked for defense contractors in the aviation field for well over 40 years and I can confirmed from decades of experience in aircraft maintenance and as a pilot, that much of what those CT websites have posted does not occur in the real world of aviation and they are in fact, deliberately posting false information.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have said before that claims of 9/11 conspiracist are ignorant-based. I have visited some of those conspiracy websites and was amazed at the high level of the disinformation and misinformation they were spewing. In some cases, I caught them outright lying.

I am retired from the USAF and have worked for defense contractors in the aviation field for well over 40 years and I can confirmed from decades of experience in aircraft maintenance and as a pilot, that much of what those CT websites have posted does not occur in the real world of aviation and they are in fact, deliberately posting false information.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great, so you agree this is prima facie, so why was this covered up by the 911 commission?

Go back and re-read our prima facie dialogue. it sounds like you're equivocating. At one point you meant the denotation and literal translation; at first face/look; subject to further investigation, not the usual connotation; self evident.

I already told you.

zelikow (with the cfr and the cia) wrote the document "imagining the transforming event",

p1

Right. Think tanks, think up stuff.

it was zelikow who also primarily wrote the 911 commission report which concluded "911 was a failure of imagination",
p2

I'll buy that

sothey imagined it and failed to imagine it, all at the same time, so the 911 commission report was a coverup.

(intermediate conclusion)

At the same time? The 911 commission report must necessarily come after the CFR speculative document.

So the think tank thought up one of many scenarios, the gov't read it, said thanks, and then ignored it. Happens all the time in governments. It's almost like a "a failure of imagination". Bureaucracies are not known as innovators, stuff takes a long time to get done in western democracies. /shrug, that's the price we pay.

I already told you.

Rumsfeld was the defence secretary.

Rumsfeld was helping stretcher the injured on the pentagon lawn.

Rumsfeld was in his office on the opposite side of the pentagon to the plane strike (a very large buildiing).

Rumsfeld took the time to travel from one side of the building to the other and then proceed to help the injured.

Rumsfeld was therefore not available during that period to give approval for any requests of scramble (and maybe even longer since his whereabouts were unknown previous to this period).

Ok, accounts differ as to exactly how long he was unavailable, half hour? While looking for this info, I see why he went out of the building to the crash site, same reason I would have; "He later recalled that "I wanted to see what had happened. I wanted to see if people needed help." http://en.wikipedia....Donald_Rumsfeld

It goes back to my deer in the headlight suggestion, people forget about priorities and stuff they have to do.

" Some 12 hours after the attack, Torie Clarke, Mr Rumsfeld's press secretary, asked him if he had phoned Joyce, his wifeof 47 years, to tell her he was safe. When he replied that he hadn't, she blurted out: "You son of a b****."

Mr Rumsfeld admitted: "I never did call her."

Rumsfeld knew that he had to be available to give approval of scramble orders because he was the one who changed the procedure to require his approval for scramble orders, so he cut himself out of the loop knowing his being accessible was essential for a military response. if this was a surprise attack then rumsfeld should have been available to respond to the approval requests, not involving himself with first aid duties.

"he cut himself out of the loop" ? Ok, that's your interpretation.

of course anything is possible but there's no evidence. he sat in the chair for at least seven minutes after the second crash without saying anything to anyone and without anyone saying anything to him. whether bush made the decision to stay or whether someone else made the decision to stay, the decision to stay is not consistent with the security threat, unless it was known the school was not to be a target.

I am not privy to U.S. secret protocol and plans for protecting the president. Are these online or something? lol

"The day after 9/11, Canada’s Globe and Mail commented: “For some reason, Secret Service agents did not bustle [bush] away.” The background for this comment was explained by Philip Melanson, the author of a book about the Secret Service. “With an unfolding terrorist attack,” Melanson said, “the procedure should have been to get the president to the closest secure location as quickly as possible.” That this indeed would have been standard operating procedure is illustrated by the fact that, as soon as the second strike on the World Trade Center was seen on television, one agent said to Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill: “We’re out of here. Can you get everybody ready?”

http://www.globalres...-classroom/8555

so once again we see a departure from long standing standard procedure.

Ah, so Philip Melanson has the secret protection plans. I see he was an academic at UMass, and also wrote a book about the history of the Secret Service. Well, I don't think your appeal to authority is convincing. Sure one could guess that in case of attack, the pres is whisked away as outlined in some crisis flowchart. But there are so many variables and unknowns about authority, jurisdiction, leeway, etc.

Ideally, in order to make a very strong case, your explanation would be the only one conceivable that would make sense. Sort of like Hume's criteria for a miracle. I'm not asking for that though. But If you can't see any other possible explanations to all your premises on this thread, and assumptions, then you are being dogmatic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maintaining a secret by the numbers of people it would have taken to execute such a plan is impossible imo.

How many people would it take? There are roughly 5 million freemasons in the world and they're keeping secrets.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go back and re-read our prima facie dialogue. it sounds like you're equivocating. At one point you meant the denotation and literal translation; at first face/look; subject to further investigation, not the usual connotation; self evident.

you are just wordsmithing.

prima facie - "A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved. referring to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the evidence before trial is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence presented at trial", so without substantial contradictory evidence the conclusion is valid (not necessarily true, but valid nevertheless). it reverses the burden of proof - you have to refute it or accept it.

http://legal-diction...com/prima facie

you agree that rumsfeld changed the scramble and intercept procedure to gave him control of the military defence response, and we know that the response failed.

At the same time? The 911 commission report must necessarily come after the CFR speculative document.

"all at the same time" was sarcasm, i was highlighting the contradiction. it's clear to me now you are not up for an honest discussion, or maybe you are one of the 71%.

they imagined the event and wrote about it. then the same guy wrote the commission report which concluded they failed to imagine....and you are happy with this lie?

So the think tank thought up one of many scenarios, the gov't read it, said thanks, and then ignored it. Happens all the time in governments. It's almost like a "a failure of imagination". Bureaucracies are not known as innovators, stuff takes a long time to get done in western democracies. /shrug, that's the price we pay.
ah, the dumb blond with finger in mouth defence.
Ok, accounts differ as to exactly how long he was unavailable, half hour? While looking for this info, I see why he went out of the building to the crash site, same reason I would have; "He later recalled that "I wanted to see what had happened. I wanted to see if people needed help." http://en.wikipedia....Donald_Rumsfeld
he's the secretary of defence and the nation is under attack, not some curious passer by walking the dog. his and your explanation are not believable.
It goes back to my deer in the headlight suggestion, people forget about priorities and stuff they have to do.

" Some 12 hours after the attack, Torie Clarke, Mr Rumsfeld's press secretary, asked him if he had phoned Joyce, his wifeof 47 years, to tell her he was safe. When he replied that he hadn't, she blurted out: "You son of a b****."

Mr Rumsfeld admitted: "I never did call her."

sure, that's what the secretary of defence does when the country is under attack /sarcasm. you are appealing to the absurd. forget? he had just rewritten the hijack response procedure to require his own permission for a defence response, and he forgot? do you think these procedures are not drilled?
"he cut himself out of the loop" ? Ok, that's your interpretation.
no one ordered him to make himself unavailable. his own action took himself out of the loop and that action undermined the defence response during a critical time.
I am not privy to U.S. secret protocol and plans for protecting the president. Are these online or something? lol

Ah, so Philip Melanson has the secret protection plans. I see he was an academic at UMass, and also wrote a book about the history of the Secret Service. Well, I don't think your appeal to authority is convincing. Sure one could guess that in case of attack, the pres is whisked away as outlined in some crisis flowchart. But there are so many variables and unknowns about authority, jurisdiction, leeway, etc.

oh sure its all so complicated no one really understands it /sarcasm. are you stating that the professor is not a legitimate expert? it was evidenced by the agent's statement "we're out of here" but you ignored that bit.

furthermore you are on record suggesting the appropriate response WAS to get the president out of there since you appealed to the "deer in the highlights" as an excuse for not doing so, now you are committing the appealing to ignorance fallacy in appealing to a lack of evidence. it's obvious to me your belief is driving your thinking.

Ideally, in order to make a very strong case, your explanation would be the only one conceivable that would make sense. Sort of like Hume's criteria for a miracle. I'm not asking for that though. But If you can't see any other possible explanations to all your premises on this thread, and assumptions, then you are being dogmatic.
evidence trumps speculation and appeal to ignorance. Edited by Little Fish
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are just wordsmithing.

prima facie - "A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved. referring to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the evidence before trial is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence presented at trial", so without substantial contradictory evidence the conclusion is valid (not necessarily true, but valid nevertheless). it reverses the burden of proof - you have to refute it or accept it.

http://legal-diction...com/prima facie

Morning Fish. Here's what you said on pg 40; "great, so you agree this is prima facie, so why was this covered up by the 911 commission?" Here you use the term prima facie to denote self -evident. And I told you then that it's not self evident, many people don't accept it. It is prima facie when taken to mean at first glance, subject to further investigation.

you agree that rumsfeld changed the scramble and intercept procedure to gave him control of the military defence response, and we know that the response failed.

Agreed, but other responses failed that day, starting with lax TSA screening processes that welcomed the terrorists. This is something that still needs to be seriously addressed.

"all at the same time" was sarcasm, i was highlighting the contradiction. it's clear to me now you are not up for an honest discussion, or maybe you are one of the 71%.

Ok, the sarcasm was not apparent.

they imagined the event and wrote about it. then the same guy wrote the commission report which concluded they failed to imagine....and you are happy with this lie?

I already explained. Zelikow and the CFR put out many hypothetical scenarios, that's their job. Was Zelikow responsible for approving and implementing security measures to thwart his imagined scenario? No. Like many think tank opinions and suggestions, this one was shelved. Then Zelikow wrote as part of the 911 commission that there was a failure of imagination, on the governments part. Or do you think that he meant he had a failure of imagination. Such an admission would be absurd.

he's the secretary of defence and the nation is under attack, not some curious passer by walking the dog. his and your explanation are not believable.

sure, that's what the secretary of defence does when the country is under attack /sarcasm. you are appealing to the absurd. forget? he had just rewritten the hijack response procedure to require his own permission for a defence response, and he forgot? do you think these procedures are not drilled?

You'd be surprised how people react when under tremendous stress.

no one ordered him to make himself unavailable. his own action took himself out of the loop and that action undermined the defence response during a critical time.

"no one ordered him to make himself unavailable" Aha ! So there was no conspiracy. Thank you

oh sure its all so complicated no one really understands it /sarcasm. are you stating that the professor is not a legitimate expert? it was evidenced by the agent's statement "we're out of here" but you ignored that bit.

He may be an expert in the history of the Secret Service, but he's not in a position to know what the current secret plans are to protect the pres and ensure continuity of the government.

furthermore you are on record suggesting the appropriate response WAS to get the president out of there since you appealed to the "deer in the highlights" as an excuse for not doing so,

Correct.

now you are committing the appealing to ignorance fallacy in appealing to a lack of evidence. it's obvious to me your belief is driving your thinking.

Not so. This fallacy consists of a claim where "It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false,".

I have never said that my premise p was true because it has not been proven false. I simply think your evidence does not warrant your claims, and these claims are too weak to justify your conclusion, that 911 was an inside job.

evidence trumps speculation and appeal to ignorance.

It sure does. Now show me the evidence that Rumsfeld was part of a conspiracy to disarm Americas (and Canada since they are also part of NORAD) national defense systems for a few days to facilitate a foreign attack that caused more American deaths than Pearl Harbor?

Here's what I quoted from one of my logic textbooks on the Sandy Hook conspiracy thread;

"The point is that the more a claim accords with our background beliefs, the less strong its own credentials must be. (The claim that is snowed in Minnesota in December does not need strong credentials to be accepted). The less a new claim is in accordance with these background beliefs, the stronger its own credentials must be), (The claim that it snowed in Florida in July needs very strong credentials). Any new claim, no matter how outlandish (that is, no matter how much it conflicts with our background beliefs), could conceivably turn out to be true. But some claims are so outlandish they must have extraordinary strong credentials if they are to be taken seriously." The elements of reasoning, 5th edition, Munson - Black

Or more succinctly as Carl Sagan would say, "extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence"

p.s. by background beliefs is meant the reasonable beliefs that you already hold. Of which most of them are accepted from the word of others, since we can't be experts in everything.

An example from the book; "Consider the following:

A neighbour says seven hippopotamuses have knocked down your clothesline poles.

Our background beliefs about natural habitats and the security of the local zoo make it incredibly unlikely that hippos should appear in our yard. These beliefs are so well grounded that they make it much more likely that our neighbour is mistaken in his claim (he could be drunk or a practical joker) than that the hippopotamuses are there." ibid p 198

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

Here's what I quoted from one of my logic textbooks on the Sandy Hook conspiracy thread;

"The point is that the more a claim accords with our background beliefs, the less strong its own credentials must be. (The claim that is snowed in Minnesota in December does not need strong credentials to be accepted). The less a new claim is in accordance with these background beliefs, the stronger its own credentials must be), (The claim that it snowed in Florida in July needs very strong credentials). Any new claim, no matter how outlandish (that is, no matter how much it conflicts with our background beliefs), could conceivably turn out to be true. But some claims are so outlandish they must have extraordinary strong credentials if they are to be taken seriously." The elements of reasoning, 5th edition, Munson - Black

I think the problem here is that you are debating people who have the background belief that the US Government is a completely evil organisation, therefore any accusation of responsibility for a crime doesn't need strong credentials.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<p>

I think the problem here is that you are debating people who have the background belief that the US Government is a completely evil organisation, therefore any accusation of responsibility for a crime doesn't need strong credentials.

I think you are on to something. These beliefs are fostered in universities by leftist professors and teaching assistants. I think I will start on a new thread on this Marxist agenda.

New thread here http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=241258

Edited by redhen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, but other responses failed that day, starting with lax TSA screening processes that welcomed the terrorists. This is something that still needs to be seriously addressed.

I’d let the TSA off on this one, seeing as the hijackers had at first glance legitimate VISAs, obtained from the CIA-run consulate in Jeddah. Of more note is the concerted CIA effort to prevent the FBI blocking access to the country for the terrorists (future hijackers) or having them removed from their U.S. residence thereafter for a period of months up to 9/11, despite the known ‘Al Qaeda’ connection and threat posed. It’s a long story with evidence from multiple official sources, but 9/11 would not have happened, at least not as we know it, without that assistance from the CIA, and it reaches higher into the Bush administration than that.

The above is all some of the argument I promised to run through but I didn’t want to disrupt Little Fish’s flow just yet. I must say redhen, you are providing some strange responses to his posts – particularly in regard to Zelikow and Rumsfeld.

Documents show that Zelikow and other government officials and departments who would form the Bush administration (at both high and low levels) certainly imagined the “transforming event” or “catastrophic and catalyzing event” more than once in the years prior 9/11. The intelligence that Al Qaeda wanted to attack New York and were in preparation for airliner hijackings was even on Bush’s desk the month prior 9/11. It was a nonsense for the 9/11 Commission or Condi Rice to declare the reason for not preventing the attack, “a failure of imagination”. It would have been more correct for the 9/11 Commission to declare it, “a failure to pro-actively respond to that imagined and intelligence”. And that’s at a minimum, because as initially noted in this post, it was not simply that the CIA and Bush administration did nothing, it’s that they forged in the exact opposite direction to be expected in preventing what had been imagined and presented in intelligence.

As for Rumsfeld, he made himself unavailable (it is absolutely ridiculous he was out on the Pentagon lawn with the U.S. under attack and NORAD in need of direction). The ‘conspiracy’ would therefore be between Rumsfeld and others who created and carried out the attack. Your rebuttal there was very poor.

PS Sources for all the above available on request. I hope to come back to the initial point raised in this post in a lot more detail once you and Little Fish are finished – I’d be interested to know how close it comes to meeting your standards and/or what excuses you can provide not to accept almost blatant conclusions.

I think the problem here is that you are debating people who have the background belief that the US Government is a completely evil organisation, therefore any accusation of responsibility for a crime doesn't need strong credentials.

I’m sure you’d like to absolve Neocon individuals of the Bush administration of all history and precedent; start them with a nice clean slate on 9/11, but that’s not going to happen. You know, I'd love to read your biography on Cheney, jolly kind, fair and sincere man. As Bush tried to mention, there’s an old saying: -

[media=]

[/media]

:lol:

Well shame on you.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sure you’d like to absolve Neocon individuals of the Bush administration of all history and precedent; start them with a nice clean slate on 9/11, but that’s not going to happen. You know, I'd love to read your biography on Cheney, jolly kind, fair and sincere man.

I am certainly not a fan of Cheney, particularly on account of his role in promoting the war in Iraq. However, that doesn't mean that he is automatically guilty of anything you care to accuse him of.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d let the TSA off on this one, seeing as the hijackers had at first glance legitimate VISAs, obtained from the CIA-run consulate in Jeddah. Of more note is the concerted CIA effort to prevent the FBI blocking access to the country for the terrorists (future hijackers) or having them removed from their U.S. residence thereafter for a period of months up to 9/11, despite the known ‘Al Qaeda’ connection and threat posed. It’s a long story with evidence from multiple official sources, but 9/11 would not have happened, at least not as we know it, without that assistance from the CIA, and it reaches higher into the Bush administration than that.

That doesn't make any sense because the CIA and its headquarters were a target of those terrorist, the same terrorist the CIA has been taking out with drone attacks. In other words, they were not the buddies you tried to portray them to be. :no:

The intelligence that Al Qaeda wanted to attack New York and were in preparation for airliner hijackings was even on Bush’s desk the month prior 9/11.

Thank you for confirming that there was intelligence that al-Qaeda wanted to attack New York. After all, I have brought up that fact as well, and remember, countries around the world were warning the United States that terrorist were in the stages of carrying out their attack upon America, which obviously had nothing to do with a government conspiracy. :no:

.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am certainly not a fan of Cheney, particularly on account of his role in promoting the war in Iraq. However, that doesn't mean that he is automatically guilty of anything you care to accuse him of.

Those 911 conspiracy folks continue to dream up unfounded conspiracies without evidence. One example was when asked for evidence, they posted a well known hoaxed video of WTC7, which was clearly a hoax as indicated by the reversed image of WTC7 and added flashes by the author, not to mention the UFO he pointed out. Despite the many warnings the video was a hoax, some trumpeted that video as evidence that WTC7 was demolished by explosives. A prime example as to why they cannot be taken seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d let the TSA off on this one, seeing as the hijackers had at first glance legitimate VISAs, obtained from the CIA-run consulate in Jeddah.

True, U.S. Immigration policy and officials are a joke. "Even to the untrained eye, it is easy to see why many of the visas should have been denied. Consider, for example, the U.S. destinations most of them listed. Only one of the 15 provided an actual address — and that was only because his first application was refused — and the rest listed only general locations — including "California," "New York," "Hotel D.C.," and "Hotel." One terrorist amazingly listed his U.S. destination as simply "No." Even more amazingly, he got a visa." http://old.nationalr...wbray100902.asp

Of more note is the concerted CIA effort to prevent the FBI blocking access to the country for the terrorists (future hijackers)

Source please.

or having them removed from their U.S. residence thereafter for a period of months up to 9/11, despite the known ‘Al Qaeda’ connection and threat posed. It’s a long story with evidence from multiple official sources, but 9/11 would not have happened, at least not as we know it, without that assistance from the CIA, and it reaches higher into the Bush administration than that.

You sure it wasn't just the usual government incompetence ?

It would have been more correct for the 9/11 Commission to declare it, “a failure to pro-actively respond to that imagined and intelligence”.

Agreed.

And that’s at a minimum, because as initially noted in this post, it was not simply that the CIA and Bush administration did nothing, it’s that they forged in the exact opposite direction to be expected in preventing what had been imagined and presented in intelligence.

Yeah, the government does some really stupid things, like increasing immigration and outsourcing while its citizens face mass unemployment. I hate when they do that.

As for Rumsfeld, he made himself unavailable (it is absolutely ridiculous he was out on the Pentagon lawn with the U.S. under attack and NORAD in need of direction).

You're assuming that he deliberately went missing in order to carry out a heinous attack on American citizens. There are other, more plausible explanations which I have already mentioned.

The ‘conspiracy’ would therefore be between Rumsfeld and others who created and carried out the attack. Your rebuttal there was very poor.

So, it's much more believable that Rumsfeld went missing in order to carry out a heinous attack on American citizens (for some vague reason; money, power, oil) rather than posit that he temporarily lost his focus as a plane slammed into the building he was in?

PS Sources for all the above available on request. I hope to come back to the initial point raised in this post in a lot more detail once you and Little Fish are finished – I’d be interested to know how close it comes to meeting your standards and/or what excuses you can provide not to accept almost blatant conclusions.

The first constitutive rule of argumentation is the truth seeking principle. 911 truther claims are in the realm of possibility, most claims are except for contradictory and self refuting claims. So we have to examine the warrants for these claims to infer the best explanation. I don't think the the 911 conspiracy hypothesis is the best explanation.

I’m sure you’d like to absolve Neocon individuals of the Bush administration of all history and precedent; start them with a nice clean slate on 9/11, but that’s not going to happen. You know, I'd love to read your biography on Cheney, jolly kind, fair and sincere man. As Bush tried to mention, there’s an old saying: -

I don't give Republicans a free pass. They have done much I don't agree with.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d let the TSA off on this one, seeing as the hijackers had at first glance legitimate VISAs, obtained from the CIA-run consulate in Jeddah. Of more note is the concerted CIA effort to prevent the FBI blocking access to the country for the terrorists (future hijackers) or having them removed from their U.S. residence thereafter for a period of months up to 9/11, despite the known ‘Al Qaeda’ connection and threat posed. It’s a long story with evidence from multiple official sources, but 9/11 would not have happened, at least not as we know it, without that assistance from the CIA, and it reaches higher into the Bush administration than that.

The above is all some of the argument I promised to run through but I didn’t want to disrupt Little Fish’s flow just yet. I must say redhen, you are providing some strange responses to his posts – particularly in regard to Zelikow and Rumsfeld.

Documents show that Zelikow and other government officials and departments who would form the Bush administration (at both high and low levels) certainly imagined the “transforming event” or “catastrophic and catalyzing event” more than once in the years prior 9/11. The intelligence that Al Qaeda wanted to attack New York and were in preparation for airliner hijackings was even on Bush’s desk the month prior 9/11. It was a nonsense for the 9/11 Commission or Condi Rice to declare the reason for not preventing the attack, “a failure of imagination”. It would have been more correct for the 9/11 Commission to declare it, “a failure to pro-actively respond to that imagined and intelligence”. And that’s at a minimum, because as initially noted in this post, it was not simply that the CIA and Bush administration did nothing, it’s that they forged in the exact opposite direction to be expected in preventing what had been imagined and presented in intelligence.

As for Rumsfeld, he made himself unavailable (it is absolutely ridiculous he was out on the Pentagon lawn with the U.S. under attack and NORAD in need of direction). The ‘conspiracy’ would therefore be between Rumsfeld and others who created and carried out the attack. Your rebuttal there was very poor.

PS Sources for all the above available on request. I hope to come back to the initial point raised in this post in a lot more detail once you and Little Fish are finished – I’d be interested to know how close it comes to meeting your standards and/or what excuses you can provide not to accept almost blatant conclusions.

I’m sure you’d like to absolve Neocon individuals of the Bush administration of all history and precedent; start them with a nice clean slate on 9/11, but that’s not going to happen. You know, I'd love to read your biography on Cheney, jolly kind, fair and sincere man. As Bush tried to mention, there’s an old saying: -

[media=]

[/media]

:lol:

Well shame on you.

C'mon guys, is this a serious conversation or what?

Both you and RedHen reference the failure of TSA.

Guys, TSA did not exist on 11 September. :cry:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon guys, is this a serious conversation or what?

Both you and RedHen reference the failure of TSA.

Guys, TSA did not exist on 11 September. :cry:

You are right. In that case it was whatever agency that oversaw airline screening. But the bigger failure was the lax attitude towards militant Islam even after the first attack on the WTC, U.S.S. Cole and embassies. I submit that this attitude was fostered by Leftist professors and college admin who indoctrinated students with "multiculturalism", "Critical Theory", "diversity" and "political correctness".

See my thread here http://www.unexplain...howtopic=241258

And, yes, even though I did not look up the creation date for the TSA until just now, this is still a serious discussion.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RH

What's funny, interesting, is that the company providing security at Logan Airport on that day was Huntleigh International or one of its subsidiaries. I think it's a British firm.

And that company was sued by one Ellen Mariani, whose husband vanished that day whilst on United 175. But, through terrific intercession by Congress and the Federal Judiciary, suits against those companies were not allowed. Congress gave immunity of some sort to a variety of companies, and somehow or other forbade lawsuits against them. Judge Hellerstein saw to it that such suits were frustrated and unsuccessful.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Morning Fish. Here's what you said on pg 40; "great, so you agree this is prima facie, so why was this covered up by the 911 commission?" Here you use the term prima facie to denote self -evident. And I told you then that it's not self evident, many people don't accept it. It is prima facie when taken to mean at first glance, subject to further investigation.
morning.

again you seem to be wordsmithing. i never used the words "self evident" - you did. you are projecting your own interpretation on to my words, i said "prima facie". I already gave you my meaning - " "A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved. referring to a lawsuit or criminal prosecution in which the evidence before trial is sufficient to prove the case unless there is substantial contradictory evidence presented at trial", so without substantial contradictory evidence the conclusion is valid (not necessarily true, but valid nevertheless). it reverses the burden of proof - you have to refute it or accept it.

http://legal-diction...com/prima facie

the commission did not examine this pima facie evidence. if a man's gun (norad stand down) is found at the murder scene with his prints on it (he took control of the defence response) and he had prior wished the victim dead (PNAC documents which rumsfeld signed his name to), then that is prima facie evidence. he now has the burden of proof to prove his innocence or he going to be convicted. he has to offer a better evidenced explanation as to why his gun with his prints on it was at the murder scene of the person he threatened to kill, otherwise the court is going to convict him whether he did it or not. if he just sits there and refuses to answer questions, he will further implicate himself. if his defence is unevidenced speculation (like your response), again he will be convicted.

Agreed, but other responses failed that day, starting with lax TSA screening processes that welcomed the terrorists. This is something that still needs to be seriously addressed.

which does not negate the prima facie evidence that rumsfeld was a signtatory to pnac documents which desired a pearl harbour, rumsfeld took control of the defence response in june 2001 and then disabled the defence response on 911, and then changed the defence response back to automatic after 911. if you want to know how the named hijackers got into the country then google-youtube "michael springman".

I already explained. Zelikow and the CFR put out many hypothetical scenarios, that's their job. Was Zelikow responsible for approving and implementing security measures to thwart his imagined scenario? No. Like many think tank opinions and suggestions, this one was shelved. Then Zelikow wrote as part of the 911 commission that there was a failure of imagination, on the governments part. Or do you think that he meant he had a failure of imagination. Such an admission would be absurd.
the document "imagining the transforming event" was co written with a cia director John Deutch, not just zelikow, so the cia and cfr had imagined it and failed to imagine it all at the same time /sarcasm.

you also dismissively misrepresent the cfr as just a "think tank" dreaming up theoretical scenarios (you might be confusing the cfr with the rand corporation). the cfr is the american branch of the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), which itself is the product of cecil rhodes legacy, rothschild money setup cecil rhodes to take control of foreign resources, gold and diamonds etc, his vast fortune was left in his will to setup a secret network to continue his legacy, it became known as the milner group, the clivedon set, but we know it today as the RIIA and cfr (and other councils across the world). To understand the cfr and RIIA you need to read the books of carol quiqley "the anglo american establishment" and "tragedy and hope", he even tells you that left-right democracies are a sham to fool the people into thinking they choose their leaders and have a say in policy. to dismiss their influence on world affairs in the way you did shows a serious gap in your knowledge on how and who runs and controls the world. quiqley was a cfr insider who had access to the cfr archives, he even believed in their goals and championed them (an unelected world government run by them and their councils), his only disagreement with them was that their activities should be public so he wrote his books and they document the activities (or conspiracies as some would put it) of these people which were more foul than fair. the larouche-ites say american is controlled by britain, the us patriots say it is controlled by "international bankers", others say the rothschilds or the 14 families or illuminati, they are all saying and describing the same thing differently in my opinion. bill clinton even paid homage to quiqley during his presidential victory speech to his supporters.

so you should not dismiss quiqley's works, you should take any cfr document very seriously. however I don't expect you to take any of this seriously given your responses, but the information is there for anyone with the energy to research and read it.

You'd be surprised how people react when under tremendous stress.
sure, he "forgot" he was in charge of hijack response procedures TWO HOURS after he knew there were several hijacked jets flying around slamming into buildings /sarcasm. remember the hijacks started at 7:30am (memory?) and he was walking around on the lawn after the pentagon incident ~9:37am
"no one ordered him to make himself unavailable" Aha ! So there was no conspiracy. Thank you
wordsmithing again. rumsfeld took himself out of the loop disabling the defence response.
He may be an expert in the history of the Secret Service, but he's not in a position to know what the current secret plans are to protect the pres and ensure continuity of the government.
you ignored that the professor's view is evidenced by the agent in the school with bush who was in a position to know and said "we're out of here", but it did not transpire that they were "out of there".
Not so. This fallacy consists of a claim where "It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false,".

I have never said that my premise p was true because it has not been proven false. I simply think your evidence does not warrant your claims, and these claims are too weak to justify your conclusion, that 911 was an inside job.

it amounts to the same thing. you are suggesting speculation as an answer without any evidence, and it seems you are requesting that its up to me to disprove your unsupported speculation instead of you evidencing it.
It sure does. Now show me the evidence that Rumsfeld was part of a conspiracy to disarm Americas (and Canada since they are also part of NORAD) national defense systems for a few days to facilitate a foreign attack that caused more American deaths than Pearl Harbor?
I already did several times, pretending i didn't won't fool a jury.

just prior to 911, he handicapped the defence response by HIS change to procedure which required HIS order to initiate the response, then went awol at the crtitical time. he also signed off on PNACs desire for a pearl harbour tragedy prior to 911.

Here's what I quoted from one of my logic textbooks on the Sandy Hook conspiracy thread;

"The point is that the more a claim accords with our background beliefs, the less strong its own credentials must be. (The claim that is snowed in Minnesota in December does not need strong credentials to be accepted). The less a new claim is in accordance with these background beliefs, the stronger its own credentials must be), (The claim that it snowed in Florida in July needs very strong credentials). Any new claim, no matter how outlandish (that is, no matter how much it conflicts with our background beliefs), could conceivably turn out to be true. But some claims are so outlandish they must have extraordinary strong credentials if they are to be taken seriously." The elements of reasoning, 5th edition, Munson - Black

Or more succinctly as Carl Sagan would say, "extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence"

p.s. by background beliefs is meant the reasonable beliefs that you already hold. Of which most of them are accepted from the word of others, since we can't be experts in everything.

An example from the book; "Consider the following:

A neighbour says seven hippopotamuses have knocked down your clothesline poles.

Our background beliefs about natural habitats and the security of the local zoo make it incredibly unlikely that hippos should appear in our yard. These beliefs are so well grounded that they make it much more likely that our neighbour is mistaken in his claim (he could be drunk or a practical joker) than that the hippopotamuses are there." ibid p 198

all you are doing here is convincing me that you are rejecting the evidence because it does not fit your own background beliefs. you are letting your beliefs drive your thinking. As i said to you before, your background beliefs are a composite of the information you are exposed to. you are claiming that the seats of power are incapable of such a thing like sandy hook and 911, but the evidence is contrary to your belief.

fact - NATO's operation gladio - hundreds of women and children killed to further a political agenda.

fact - operation northwoods outlined a plan to kill US citizens to further a political agenda.

fact - goverments kil ltheir own citizens to further a political agenda.

fact - nearly every war is started by a false flag that usually involves a government killling its own citizens.

so your sagan argument relies on and is limited by your own limited depth of knowledge, it is an argument from incredulity fallacy.

I do see a glimmer of light though because you've moved your goalposts from "evidence" to "extraordinary evidence"

Edited by Little Fish
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the cfr is the american branch of the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), which itself is the product of cecil rhodes legacy, rothschild money setup cecil rhodes to take control of foreign resources, gold and diamonds etc, his vast fortune was left in his will to setup a secret network to continue his legacy, it became known as the milner group, the clivedon set, but we know it today as the RIIA and cfr (and other councils across the world).

That's all very interesting, filthy rich people getting together to form a "Society of the Elect". That's quite plausible.

To understand the cfr and RIIA you need to read the books of carol quiqley "the anglo american establishment" and "tragedy and hope", he even tells you that left-right democracies are a sham to fool the people into thinking they choose their leaders and have a say in policy.

lol, I don't need a book to convince me of that. The closest thing to a real democracy is Switzerland, where the citizens put California to shame with the number of referendums held for propositions, and the liberal use of recall for their politicians.

to dismiss their influence on world affairs in the way you did shows a serious gap in your knowledge on how and who runs and controls the world...... the larouche-ites say american is controlled by britain, the us patriots say it is controlled by "international bankers", others say the rothschilds or the 14 families or illuminati, they are all saying and describing the same thing differently in my opinion.

All describing the same thing. Hmm. So 911 was planned and controlled by Britain, "international bankers", The Rothschilds, the "Illuminati". Damm, just as I was starting to warm to your ideas.

so you should not dismiss quiqley's works, you should take any cfr document very seriously. however I don't expect you to take any of this seriously given your responses,

I have not read quiqley's work. However these familiar conspiracy groups have been around for a long time, but you left out a few. No Rosicrucians or Knights Templars? I'm sure there's a tie in somewhere.

wordsmithing again. rumsfeld took himself out of the loop disabling the defence response.

Agreed

you ignored that the professor's view is evidenced by the agent in the school with bush who was in a position to know and said "we're out of here", but it did not transpire that they were "out of there".

So someone heard a secret service agent saying "we're out of here", yet because they did not immediately flee, it's very strong evidence that Bush knew he was safe because he was in on the whole murderous plot. That's what you're claiming. I really don't know how you can expect people to swallow that.

it amounts to the same thing. you are suggesting speculation as an answer without any evidence, and it seems you are requesting that its up to me to disprove your unsupported speculation instead of you evidencing it.

I think you are confusing argument with debate. You wrote a reasoned argument. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

all you are doing here is convincing me that you are rejecting the evidence because it does not fit your own background beliefs. you are letting your beliefs drive your thinking.

No, I'm rejecting the evidence because it is weak.

As i said to you before, your background beliefs are a composite of the information you are exposed to. you are claiming that the seats of power are incapable of such a thing like sandy hook and 911, but the evidence is contrary to your belief.

Not so, The U.S. government is certainly capable of of using military and covert violence to further their goals and aid big business. There is plenty of strong evidence that establishes the fact that the U.S. was complicit in several central and south american coups and invasions.

fact - NATO's operation gladio - hundreds of women and children killed to further a political agenda.

From what I see on wiki, this was just a resistance/guerrila strategy in an imagined occupied Europe.

fact - operation northwoods outlined a plan to kill US citizens to further a political agenda.

One of many whacky plans dreamed up, which was never acted upon.

fact - goverments kil ltheir own citizens to further a political agenda.

Indeed. We see this everday in dictatorships and oligarchies. Not so much in democracies.

fact - nearly every war is started by a false flag that involves a government killling its own citizens.

nearly every war? That's your uninformed opinion, unless of course you have credible stats.

so your sagan argument relies on and is limited by your own limited depth of knowledge, it is an argument from incredulity fallacy.

Not so. I am willing to entertain your argument. It is a live option for me, it's just that your chain argument, where different claims rest upon other claims is tenuous, and the warrants for these claims are weak.

I do see a glimmer of light though because you've moved your goalposts from "evidence" to "extraordinary evidence"

Yes, I quoted the logic textbook and Sagan to show other UM readers that I'm not just being stubborn. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But I haven't seen any in this thread that would lead me to believe that 911 was an inside job.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'mon guys, is this a serious conversation or what?

Both you and RedHen reference the failure of TSA.

Guys, TSA did not exist on 11 September.

Right you are BR. Tsk... that’s the last time I listen to redhen :lol:

But obviously the reference was to whoever dealt with border/airport screenings at the time.

redhen, thank you for the response, I’ll be back to reply to your post when possible.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RH

What's funny, interesting, is that the company providing security at Logan Airport on that day was Huntleigh International or one of its subsidiaries. I think it's a British firm.

And that company was sued by one Ellen Mariani, whose husband vanished that day whilst on United 175.

He vanished on United 175. Where is he now, and what happened to the airframe of United 175?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's all very interesting, filthy rich people getting together to form a "Society of the Elect". That's quite plausible.
its a documented fact, not speculation. read the reviews if you don't want to read the books.

http://www.amazon.co...howViewpoints=1

http://www.amazon.co...carroll quigley

All describing the same thing. Hmm. So 911 was planned and controlled by Britain, "international bankers", The Rothschilds, the "Illuminati". Damm, just as I was starting to warm to your ideas.
you have cartoonised what i said.

you asked who and why, and i said the network for empire and world government. others have their descriptive words but they amount to the same thing, since these people which quiqley talks about are dominant in banking. britain is the banking hub of the world, financial instruments are hypothecated through london to infinity, the US has limits which means their banking practices usually end up pushing their risk through london, that's why london is the hub. quiqley documents how the british empire moved its centre to washington in the form of an alliance. "international bankers" is a phrase used by quiqley. rothschilds setup the BIS to monetise germany's war reparations, it is now the central bank to all other central banks, the lender and leader of last resort. it is a private entity. all these wars we are seeing are against countries whose central bank is not part of the BIS group, there are only a few left countries now. the 14 families are the ones who own and control the central banks, the mass media, pharmaceuticals and the other main large corporations. I'm making the point here that words used to describe the same interlocking networks can be misleading but they amount to the same thing, you want names and addresses when you should be asking who rumsfeld, kissenger and brzezinski work for. you already admitted it isn't for the people.

I have not read quiqley's work. However these familiar conspiracy groups have been around for a long time, but you left out a few. No Rosicrucians or Knights Templars? I'm sure there's a tie in somewhere.
the only connection is a parallel in that the templars were the central bankers of their day, they enslaved nations and their peoples which eventually lead to their execution by king philip (?) but again I can see you cartoonising which is an appeal to ridicule fallacy. quiqley's book's expose the network, would you like me to read to you from them?
So someone heard a secret service agent saying "we're out of here", yet because they did not immediately flee, it's very strong evidence that Bush knew he was safe because he was in on the whole murderous plot. That's what you're claiming. I really don't know how you can expect people to swallow that.
the person who made the decision to stay at the school was not necessarily and unlikely to be bush. it was more likely the person in charge of the president's security (head of SS?) or someone giving that person orders.
I think you are confusing argument with debate. You wrote a reasoned argument. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
you are putting forward speculations that are not evidenced, that's as good as you "making a claim". evidence trumps speculation. I could speculate that the dead man stole the accused's gun and shot himself, this won't get the accused off the hook unless you evidence it.
No, I'm rejecting the evidence because it is weak.
you are confusing evidence with proof. your opinion that it is weak is based on your belief that the US government would not do such a thing. it is belief based thinking. if you think it is weak based on a reasoned argument, then where is your reasoned argument that takes account of all the facts?
Not so, The U.S. government is certainly capable of of using military and covert violence to further their goals and aid big business. There is plenty of strong evidence that establishes the fact that the U.S. was complicit in several central and south american coups and invasions.
but you believe not against US citizens? and you need to define "government" because that term implies congress, the senate and the president to most people, and that's not what i'm talking about.
From what I see on wiki, this was just a resistance/guerrila strategy in an imagined occupied Europe.

again you are unjustifiably minimising.

there is nothing imaginary about it and what it was eventually used for.

gladio has been active for decades and committed many atrocities against citizens NATO was meant to be defending. here's another book you can read written by an european MP:

http://www.amazon.com/Gladio-NATOs-Dagger-Heart-Europe/dp/1615776877/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358532259&sr=1-1&keywords=gladio

One of many whacky plans dreamed up, which was never acted upon.
it was approved up to the joint chiefs. only a president with integrity stopped it, but it demonstrates the top echelons of the US government are willing to kill their own citizens.
Indeed. We see this everday in dictatorships and oligarchies. Not so much in democracies.
you are on record stating the US is no longer a democracy and I agree with you.
I haven't seen any in this thread that would lead me to believe that 911 was an inside job.
define what you would accept as credible, because you have left the door open to dismiss anything because it upsets your belief system. do you want cheney or kissenger to break down in tears confessing?
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't had a chance to read all the posts, but I hope someone has mentioned what was in WTC 7, and how it just fell down.

Very interesting stuff.

And consider who held the insurance on those buildings.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.