Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiVery Serious 9/11 Untruths
Every month I get a few e-mails from people who want to reveal to me the real truth about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The truth, according to my correspondents, always involves some incredibly elaborate conspiracy theory in which the U.S. government staged the attacks to justify the so-called war on terror and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
These theories are invariably absurd on their face (for one thing, they assume a genuinely superhuman level of malevolent competence on the part of the Bush administration). Yet despite all their superficial absurdity, the claims of the 9/11 Truthers touch on a deeper truth, which is as ironic as it is disturbing.
That deeper truth is contained in their claims that the real meaning of 9/11 has very little to do with the standard account given by our government and media. While the 9/11 Truth movement is easy to dismiss as a product of various paranoid delusions, the irony is that the respectable version of what happened on 9/11 is itself a reflection of strikingly similar patterns of thought.
The respectable version -- the version that was more or less accepted by all Very Serious People at the time of the invasion of Iraq -- goes like this: The 9/11 attacks were merely an early strike in a war against the United States. This war is being carried out by something called Radical Islam, of which the al-Qaida terrorist network is only one small branch.
Radical Islam is a global conspiracy, made up of a significant minority of the world's more than 1 billion Muslims. It includes the governments of nations like Iran and Syria, and one of its key supporters was Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime.
The goal of Radical Islam is world domination through the creation of a global caliphate, which requires, among other things, the complete destruction of the United States and the conversion of our surviving population to the most extreme form of Islamic fundamentalism, as practiced in nations such as Saudi Arabia.
Iraq had to be invaded because Saddam Hussein was trying to build atomic weapons -- weapons that he might well give to terrorist groups that were his allies in Radical Islam's quest to destroy America.
This, I repeat, was (and to a significant extent still is), the respectable interpretation of the meaning of 9/11. When anyone questioned the evidence for this view, Very Serious Politicians like Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would say things like "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
Meanwhile, Very Serious Opinion Makers like Charles Krauthammer of The Washington Post argued (and continue to argue) that America must also go to war against Iran because we could wake up one day to the news that nuclear weapons have been detonated in several American cities, by order of suicidal mullahs who turned over their soon-to-be-acquired nuclear arsenal to the vast shadowy global jihadist network.
That the respectable interpretation of 9/11 remains respectable in so many important places should not obscure the fact that it is a paranoid fantasy of the first order -- one as utterly unhinged from reality as the most extravagant imaginings of the 9/11 Truthers.
It's easy to lose sight of this because while the 9/11 Truthers remain quarantined on obscure Web sites, the paranoid conspiracy theorists currently in charge of American foreign policy continue to appear regularly on network television and on the opinion pages of our leading newspapers.
There, they make crazy arguments, such as that denying the president the right to throw people in prison for the rest of their lives without ever having to explain why exposes our nation to the risk of annihilation by terrorists. Meanwhile, almost nobody ever points out that these arguments are actually insane.
And that's the real truth about 9/11.
Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be reached at paul.campos@colorado.edu.
© 2008 The E.W. Scripps Co.
394 Comments so far
Show All*shudder*
because people in power and
"you can't handle the truth"
Hey Crayon Boy, why do you keep changing your ID?
___________ J _ A_ K _ E ___________
|
|
|____________ I _ S ________________|
|
|
|__ V E R Y _ SERIOUS _ 9 ! ! ______|
|
|___U _ N _ T _ R _ U _ T _ H _ S___|
"You have claimed someone lied, it is up to *you* to support the claim with evidence. I have made nos such claims one way or the other"
And this of course is besides the point of your use of the Ad Homenem.
"Stick to the argument at hand Jake"
Back at you. No one is obliged to respond to false arguments such as you have offered, pointing it out is not copping out.
"my exact words were they have "lied to us on a continual basis since 9/11″."
You have claimed someone lied, it is up to *you* to support the claim with evidence. I have made nos such claims one way or the other.
"I can prove I WASN'T at the scene of a crime by providing an alibi."
LOL! That's not proving a negative. It is proving a positive that you were in fact some other place, which of course is a positive. There is no analogy to proving that some group "did not" fund some other group, or that someones behaviour "is not" suspicious..
You could have avoided this embarassment by looking up the term:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
While you are at it you should research all the Logical Fallacies, the Nizkor website is pretty good. You will thank me one day.
"The fact that Silverstein is back in court trying to get 12+ billion dollars out of the airlines, is also of interest."
Nothing at all suspicious about that, in fact it is standard behaviour to use the courts to gain the maximum settlement you can if you feel you can make the case, or to at least aim high.
"Of course you did, you said we shouldn't believe anything from an agency linked to the Bush admin."
You need to read more carefully, my exact words were they have "lied to us on a continual basis since 9/11".
Prove me wrong.
"Total bullshit. Proving a Negative is a well established Fallacy of Logic centuries old."
Also a centuries old cop-out. I can prove I WASN'T at the scene of a crime by providing an alibi. I can prove I don't have blond hair, I can prove I'm not a man, I can prove I was not in New York at the time of the 9/11 attacks.
"I already conceded *individual* Saudis are doing so. Your continued use of the term "Saudi Arabia" instead of refering to any specific individual is dishonest."
If I was being dishonest Jake, I wouldn't have provided links or told you where to find the information. I provided a link yesterday that showed how the Saudi Royals are doing this, and yet you continue to attack the method of argument rather than the argument itself. I've noticed when you can't win an argument this is the tactic you resort to.
"Does too."
How old are you ?
"The link provided an argument that there is nothing "suspicious" about buying insurance against terror attack against a building thet had ALREADY BEEN ATTACKED BY TERRORISTS BEFORE. Duh!"
And I've brought up several more points that make Silverstein's behavior look suspicious, which you have not addressed. The fact that Silverstein is back in court trying to get 12+ billion dollars out of the airlines, is also of interest.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/nyregion/27rebuild.html?fta=y
Stick to the argument at hand Jake, quit deflecting and dodging the questions by arguing about how to argue.
" 3000 people killed in one go, and we believe he will do it again"
I don't. I say he shot his wad and is insignificant.
""Prove it false without resorting to Ad Homenem"
"Which I have never done."
Of course you did, you said we shouldn't believe anything from an agency linked to the Bush admin.
""Refused, can't prove a negative."
"Cop out."
Total bullshit. Proving a Negative is a well established Fallacy of Logic centuries old. If you don't know the rules, maybe you shouldn't play the game.
"Prove that the evidence that finds that Saudi Arabia is funneling money to terrorists is false."
I already conceded *individual* Saudis are doing so. Your continued use of the term "Saudi Arabia" instead of refering to any specific individual is dishonest.
"You've just never given any reason for me to believe otherwise- "read my whole link" doesn't cut it."
Does too. The link provided an argument that there is nothing "suspicious" about buying insurance against terror attack against a building thet had ALREADY BEEN ATTACKED BY TERRORISTS BEFORE. Duh!
"Cut the sarcastic crap. Get on with the argument……
*You* proceed to step three, stop wallowing around at step one. You are unprepared.
"Not that well, do you even know why!?!? It was explained nicely in the links *you* provided! LOL!"
I understand why, it doesn't mean I agree. LOL. When a human being kills another human being, and is a known threat to do it again, do we ever stop looking for him/her ? Do they appear on the FBI's most wanted list ? Yet, 3000 people killed in one go, and we believe he will do it again, and it's just to much effort, again, WTF ?!?
"Have you ever heard of cost vs. benefit?"
See my above comment.
"Now you are trying to say there is evidence of a non-something!?!? Ever hear of "proving a negative"?"
Go ahead and prove the flip-side then, show me how the search for Osama is coming along, prove that the agency man was right- they're still looking in 2008. I'll be waiting for your links.
"Step 1: Side A asks a question or makes a charge ( with or without supporting evidence)."
I have posted evidence of all my assertions.
"Step 2: Side B provides an answer to the question, or counters the charge by poking holes in the argument ( if provided ), or provides a counter argument to the argument (if provided) or asks for the evidence of the charge to be bolsterd by an argument (if not provided)."
Which YOU have NEVER done. "Saying my link proves you wrong." wouldn't hold water in court, and it doesn't here.
Evidence of Osama being looked for-
"Provided already."
Where ? One agency man saying the hunt would continue 2 years ago. What have they been doing since then ? Post a link.
"Prove it false without resorting to Ad Homenem"
Which I have never done.
"Refused, can't prove a negative."
Cop out. Prove that the evidence that finds that Saudi Arabia is funneling money to terrorists is false.
"Prominent members of the Saudi royal family continue to supply millions of dollars to al-Qaida and related groups, U.S. officials said, according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence service"
http://www.ji had watch.org/archives/001296.php
"Refused, same reason. *You* must prove he behaved in a manner that would be called "suspicious"."
I've already done this. If you don't agree, fine. "Suspicious" is a subjective value, you can't prove it wrong. You've just never given any reason for me to believe otherwise- "read my whole link" doesn't cut it.
See how this works?
Cut the sarcastic crap. Get on with the argument......
""Proof that Silverstein did not act suspiciously before or since 9/11."
Refused, same reason. *You* must prove he behaved in a manner that would be called "suspicious"."
And I already did so anyway, you just refused to read the link provided. And in any case "suspicious" would always be a metter of *opinion*, a factor you seem to have a weird problem with.
"You tell me, how's the search for Osama going, now they've disbanded the organizations assigned to find him, "
Not that well, do you even know why!?!? It was explained nicely in the links *you* provided! LOL!
Have you ever heard of cost vs. benefit?
"One guy from the agency *snip* says "We're still looking" and contrary to all the evidence"
Now you are trying to say there is evidence of a non-something!?!? Ever hear of "proving a negative"?
"You provided links to people's opinion of other people's opinions."
Which you never read, and had you done so you wouldn't have been able to characterize it quite like you did just now. This leaving us with *your* problem that you repeat charges and questions and ignore explanations and answers. Here. let me help, here is the correct sequence:
Step 1: Side A asks a question or makes a charge ( with or without supporting evidence).
Step 2: Side B provides an answer to the question, or counters the charge by poking holes in the argument ( if provided ), or provides a counter argument to the argument ( if provided) or asks for the evidence of the charge to be bolsterd by an argument (if not provided).
Step 3: Side A now must either specifically explain why the answer in Step 2 is inadequate, or provide the argument as requested in Step 2, poke holes in the counter argument in Step2, or show why the hole poking from Step 2 is incorrect.
"If you still think that's a valid debate tactic, there's no point in continuing."
If you think simply repeating Step 1 as I outlined above instead of progressing to Step 3 is a valid debate tactic, there's no point in continuing.
"Evidence of Osama being looked for."
Provided already. Prove it false without resorting to Ad Homenem or other fallacies, such as you already have in your last post.
"Proof of Saudi Arabia (yes, including the government) not being complicit in money funneling to terrorist organizations. "
Refused, can't prove a negative. Shameful "Shift Burden of Proof" tactic on your part, just like David Ray Griffin.
"Proof that Silverstein did not act suspiciously before or since 9/11."
Refused, same reason. *You* must prove he behaved in a manner that would be called "suspicious".
See how this works?
"Are you just *guessing* now?"
You tell me, how's the search for Osama going, now they've disbanded the organizations assigned to find him, Bush states he's not a priority, and all our resources (both human and financial) are tied up in two pointless wars ? If I was guessing- I'd say my guess is better than your one comment from an agency shill who says- "Sure we're still looking for him".
"No, but *you* just proved one of *my* points right."
One guy from the agency (who are part of an administration that has lied to us on a continual basis since 9/11), who under scrutiny says "We're still looking" and contrary to all the evidence, you believe
him ?!? " OJ said he was innocent too......
"I provided counterpoints to your points, you admitted that you didn't read them."
You provided links to people's opinion of other people's opinions. If you still think that's a valid debate tactic, there's no point in continuing.
Still, you have proven nothing.
Here's your challenge-
Evidence of Osama being looked for.
Proof of Saudi Arabia (yes, including the government) not being complicit in money funneling to terrorist organizations.
Proof that Silverstein did not act suspiciously before or since 9/11.
"Like they were going to admit to the public he was no longer a priority "
Are you just *guessing* now?
"you have not proved any of my points wrong yet……"
No, but *you* just proved one of *my* points right. I provided counterpoints to your points, you admitted that you didn't read them. *shrug*
"I am still looking at these formulations, from both sides, because I am still troubled that progressive collapse proponents seem to use maximum assumptions for the top block, and minimum assumptions for the bottom block, to "prove" their case."
Thank you, see you in the next thread then.
C'mon Jake this is getting boring, you have not proved any of my points wrong yet......
"Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority,"
"So the answer as to whether the CIA is looking for OBL is "yes". Thanks for the link!"
Like they were going to admit to the public he was no longer a priority even though program/budget cuts (Not to mention our illustrious leader's admissions) tell the real story ? How's that hunt going by the way ? The search is still strong, there should be plenty-o-links, of all that they've accomplished......
Jake,
I looked at the critics of the Ross paper on Momentum transfer, and they are correct to point out the error he made in the kinetic energy transfer.
Ross used the LOSS of kinetic energy of the top block due to impact, when he should have used the GAIN of kinetic energy to the lower block. In inelastic collisions, these two terms are not equal, and in particular, the difference is still available for other energy sinks (such as pulverization).
I am still looking at these formulations, from both sides, because I am still troubled that progressive collapse proponents seem to use maximum assumptions for the top block, and minimum assumptions for the bottom block, to "prove" their case.
From the NYT article:
"Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority,"
So the answer as to whether the CIA is looking for OBL is "yes". Thanks for the link!
"You never posted any, you never got that far"
Why would I bother when I've already explained these sites are he said/she said ?
"Are you serious? The CIA and the military. Duh."
Are you serious ? "Duh" is all you got ?
"C.I.A. Closes Unit Focused on Capture of bin Laden"
July 4, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html
"The fourth and final factor is the lack of resources devoted to the hunt. Given Afghanistan's sheer size and extraordinarily mountainous terrain, the current level of forces available to the U.S.-led coalition appears inadequate to perform all the tasks it has been assigned."
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2373678
"You keep saying "Saudi Arabia"."
Do some research !!
"By the same token you are ignoring the debunking's debunking. "
You never posted any, you never got that far.
"Who else IS looking for him ?"
Are you serious? The CIA and the military. Duh.
"Why don't you address my comments about Saudi Arabia's "
I have no doubt that *individual* Saudi's may be involved. You keep saying "Saudi Arabia".
"You ask the same questions asked while ignoring the years old debunking argument."
By the same token you are ignoring the debunking's debunking.
"Like Silverstein made a windfall as one example. Check the link I posted on that, and tell me why that explanation doesn't hold water. Don't just repeat the original question."
I didn't/haven't. That being said however, I believe Silverstein has been fighting to get as much money out of the deal as possible, but then again who wouldn't ?
"Who says we aren't looking for him? Your concern was *limited* to the FBI."
Who else IS looking for him ? GW Bush obviously (as stated) doesn't care about him.
"Why don't you post the links with spaces like I did?"
Why don't you address my comments about Saudi Arabia's involvement with funneling money to Al Qeada ?
"Who's ignoring anything ?"
You. You ask the same questions asked while ignoring the years old debunking argument. Like Silverstein made a windfall as one example. Check the link I posted on that, and tell me why that explanation doesn't hold water. Don't just repeat the original question.
"3000 people killed on American soil, and we're not even looking for the man who masterminded it ?!? "
Who says we aren't looking for him? Your concern was *limited* to the FBI.
"(this site won't let me post the links"
Why don't you post the links with spaces like I did?
"You should be able to explain why you beleive something. On this subject, there are various answers/counter arguments to your questions/explainations. If you want to just ignore them in a public forum, fine."
Who's ignoring anything ? There are as many facts as there are rebuttals to facts, and rebuttals to the rebuttals. I've told you just a few of the things that make me suspicious of the official story, and you have not managed to give men any information to change my position. If you think someone's opinion of the facts is good enough for you, fine, have at it. I haven't even mentioned the stalling and blocking of the facts that our current administration engaged in after 9/11. Usually if a crime is committed you look first to the people (person(s)) who most benefitted from the crime.
"And why shouldn't he (Silverstein) have done that (taken out new insurance to cover terrorism)" ?
Why shouldn't a husband take out a life insurance policy on his wife, sometimes she'll accidentally die a few months later ? If her death is suspicious however, the husband is the first one you look to. Sure it can all be a coincidence, but his complicity must be ruled out.
"Certain Saudi individuals, not the central government."
Well I didn't say the "government" (not that I'm ruling them out). Google Saudi Arabia and terrorism (this site won't let me post the links) and you'll see how complicit the Saudi government has been in turning a blind eye (at best) to the money trail to terrorist organizations. Here's a google link to follow, hopefully CD let's it through.
http://www.google.com/search?q=saudi+funding+od+terrorism&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B2GGFB_e...
"So what?"
3000 people killed on American soil, and we're not even looking for the man who masterminded it ?!? WTF ?!?
"He's either the big bad booboo or nobody in particular."
Are you actually trying to make a case that anyone at the FBI thinks OBL had nothing to do with the attacks? Or that any of any number of agencies are *not* looking for him?
If you ask me, OBL's doom is coming from a drone fired Hellfire missile, and yes, some civilians will die too. Or not, and it really wouldn't matter. He has little operational significance at this point.
Is this really all you have after all of this?
… well perhaps because the linchpin of repuklican neocon conspiracy theory is based on OBL being the culprit.
He's either the big bad booboo or nobody in particular.
It the first case,
… one might expect the Prez' taunts starting wars in two countries to "get him" were actually based upon real evidence, and the guilty would be punished, like by 31 Dev 2001.
IN the 2nd case,
… who the hell cares -- which is why he IS NOT a wanted terrorist for destroying the WTC towers, and then one has to wonder why we did start two wars of unilateral aggression -- with nothing to support it.
So what now ?
"I believe what I believe, "
You should be able to explain why you beleive something. On this subject, there are various answers/counter arguments to your questions/explainations. If you want to just ignore them in a public forum, fine.
"I've shown you that Silverstein had specific terrorism clauses written into his new insurance policies "
And why shouldn't he have done that?
"Saudi Arabia was and is still a major funding issue for al qeada "
Certain Saudi individuals, not the central government.
"I've also shown you that Osama isn't wanted for 9/11 by the FBI. "
So what?
"If you are going to assert in public that 911 was an inside job, it's in your own best interest to study up on what your opposition says."
Why ? I believe what I believe, why does discussing it make any difference because it's in public ?
Anyway, you haven't proven anything I've said wrong. I've shown you that Silverstein had specific terrorism clauses written into his new insurance policies when he took over the WTC (which took years to be hammered out in court BTW) and that Saudi Arabia was and is still a major funding issue for al qeada (just research Jihad Watch on World Net Daily). I've also shown you that Osama isn't wanted for 9/11 by the FBI. None of these points you have been able to refute.
I don't believe I've ever stated 9/11 was an inside job. I've stated that the official story seems to resemble swiss cheese, with all the holes in it, and that does lead one to suspect that there is something being hidden (for whatever reason) and I have never stated what I believe that is, in fact I've stated numerous times I believe the truth is probably far worse.
"Never* have I said this, never ever, in all the the different threads on this subject I've participated in. In fact, all I've ever done is ask for proof or support of the various assertions that you guys say mean there was an inside job." -Jake
Perhaps you haven't come right out and said that, but your arguments lead one to that conclusion. Even the phrase "you guys" shows that you are on the opposite side of what you think people here believe.
"They simply developed the most likely theory as to what happened."
"Most likely" in who's opinion Jake? Obviously yours, you are taking a position whether you claim it or not.
If you are going to assert in public that 911 was an inside job, it's in your own best interest to study up on what your opposition says.
"You say the 9/11 story as presented by our current admin is correct,"
*Never* have I said this, never ever, in all the the different threads on this subject I've participated in. In fact, all I've ever done is ask for proof or support of the various assertions that you guys say mean there was an inside job.
"seems like you've got a lot more proving to do than me,"
Not even NIST was charged with "proving" anything, let alone me. They simply developed the most likely theory as to what happened. They were *never* charged with bombproofing the theory against every single possible remainig question, np investigation ever does that. Eventually, it goes to a jury.
"and you won't even post sources, that's annoying."
Go to 911myths and see the sources there.
"Any site worth it's salt Jake, will give you their source."
Right, such as the two I use most.
"Post the link to the source, not the "debunking" or the "debunking the debunking" sites,"
How inconvenient. Where one site organizes various sources that help make a point, why not just link to such a site anf let the researcher follow those links themselves?
Any site worth it's salt Jake, will give you their source. Post the link to the source, not the "debunking" or the "debunking the debunking" sites, without the original sources it's all he said/she said and worth nothing. Why would one expert's opinion be better than any other's if their conclusions are different ?In case you haven't noticed the debunking sites have been debunked, how about if I just post the most recent debunking orfthe debunkers ? The last or latest word does not make it right, whether your side or mine.
FWIW, I say 9/11 looks suspicious, that's an emotional argument unable to be proven- You say the 9/11 story as presented by our current admin is correct, seems like you've got a lot more proving to do than me, and you won't even post sources, that's annoying.
"So no, I will not read your de-bunking site, "
And yet that is the easiest way to find the counter argument to "Silverstein stood to gain" or "there was molten steel" or "no way WTC7 collapsed from fire alone". Yet over and over the questions are asked without acknowledging the existing counter arguments. Ignorance at best, disengenuous at worst. Can you not see how it would we annoying?
Jake,
You could have just said that in the first place, my post that has the links to Saudis Arabian funding for Al qeada is still awaiting moderation.
I don't use 9/11 truth or debunking sites as they tend to cherry pick their information, they are a good starting point for what you're interested in, but the information needs to be backed up with neutral sources. So no, I will not read your de-bunking site, and neither will I ask you to read the truther sites.
I've already shown you that Silverstein had specific, new items written into his clauses regarding terrorism when he took over the leasing of the building. In fact the details had not been worked out yet for many of the re-insurers regarding the terrorism issues, and Silverstein has had a long battle claiming that the plane crashes in both buildings were two "occurences" and not "an occurence" as appears in the verbiage of the contracts with the largest underwriter. What that proves, I can't say. I have repeatedly said it looks suspicious, not that it proves anything.
"How about putting the energy into posting a viable link, rather than trying to be cute."
You are of course aware that the moderation software does not allow all sites? Why do you think I went through all that? C'mon.
Jake-
How about putting the energy into posting a viable link, rather than trying to be cute.
I already posted a link that shows what we are discussing- new provisions against terrorism were written into the lease when Silverstein took over.
Now it's your turn.....
"C'mon Jake, if you're going to provide a link- highlight the specific passage that proves your point, and then edit the link yourself. Just saying "Well this link proves you wrong" seems awfully lazy. "
I don't claim it proves you wrong. I am claiming that it's an answer to your original charge and it's many years old now, and you can't keep making those claims over and ignore the debunking argument.
Now tyoe:
www
then
.
then
911myths
then
.
then
com
And read the whole site before repating the pld claims again.
JAKE
Methinks that you're not so dumb as your appear, as the scourge of scion-istas and neoCON-jobsters everywhere -- works very hard to get to where I AM NOT.
It's just one of those PROM_IZeries thing, the misery of being so well noticed, and then simply LOVeD to death -- through the amazing powers of virtual nonexistence.
"Namaste got in. Cut and paste yo a text editor, remove the spaces, cut and paste into browser address line."
C'mon Jake, if you're going to provide a link- highlight the specific passage that proves your point, and then edit the link yourself. Just saying "Well this link proves you wrong" seems awfully lazy.
My link that proves you wrong about Saudi Arabia being the chief financial source for Al Qeada is still awaiting moderation, for some reason.
Look at that, all of Namaste's posts are gone. He's always changing his login, I wonder why? Very strange.
"Just who is jakenewton June 23rd, 2008 8:11 pm
responding to ?"
Namaste. As if that's his real name.
"Your link did not work Jake. "
Namaste got in. Cut and paste yo a text editor, remove the spaces, cut and paste into browser address line.
Your link did not work Jake.
"The World Trade Center was valued at $1.2 billion this spring when the Port Authority, which owns the complex, leased the buildings for 99 years to a consortium led by Larry A. Silverstein for $3.2 billion."
"It is unclear what the effect of the collapse of the buildings will have on the consortium's obligations to the Port Authority. One executive who had reviewed the lease said that the contract included a provision that specifically addresses terrorism, effectively letting the consortium out of the contract. Mr. Silverstein declined to comment yesterday."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE3DE1238F931A2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewante...
Well that's an unfairly difficult challenge,
as much of the postings have been sup.presenced
SO too, for Itz a NTAzi werld -- gone gone gone
Just who is jakenewton June 23rd, 2008 8:11 pm
responding to ?
"Coffee"
New guy, doesn't read the thread before posting.
Paul Campos is in denial! Paul Campos is a paid Necon shill! Every thing about the 9/11 Omission Commission has been rervealed and proven to be a lie. Looks like someone needs to go do their homework.
Where was George Bush on 9/11? What a Piece of Shit!
Coffee
"It is rather odd though that Silverstein changed his insurance policy to include acts of terrorism only months before the attacks,"
Covered in that same link. Are you not aware of these counterarguments to all the points you guys bring up? They've been around for years.
"Thanks the link, it illustrates exactly want I was attempting to convey."
You agree then with the gist of the article then, that there was no clear windfall? Well how about that.
"You improperly assume that he was the BUILDING OWNER,"
Conceded
"while he was merely the LEASE HOLDER, "
Which said lease is a very valuable asset, given that he had it insured and is due a big payout on the *loss* of that asset. So the payout must be seen to balance against the red ink of this lost asset. Kind of like when your car is totaled, you get a payout for it's retail value. That payout is weighed against the lost value of the car.
Ah, I'm awaiting moderation : keywords Saudi and Bush. lets see if this goes through.
Hmmm i had a lovely post completed but can't post it, this is a test.
Here's a discussion about Silverstein's so called windfall:
w w w . 9 1 1 m y t h s . c o m / h t m l / w i n d f a l l . h t m l
"Oh, for sure. Let's deduct the $ 150 Million he paid to acquire the WTC leases ( 6 mo prior to 9!! ), "such a deal" he must have known somebody or something, ehh ?"
You are saying someone just *gave* him the rest and he didn't owe on a note for it!?!? I'll need for you to now provide a full accounting for the WTC deal.
"Official sources? Official sources! Haven't we all been lied to enough by 'official sources' these *snip* "
I was talking about money from the Saudi *government*. There was none. If you want to prove the US government has any ties at all to *underground* sources of money for AQ, I'll go make some popcorn.
*troll*
You seem to have no idea what a troll is. When you show that CD is supposed to be nothing more than a back slappin' high fivin' Agreement Festival then I'll admidt I'm a troll.
RE: jakenewton June 22nd, 2008 11:05 pm
"Incidentally the Saudis were the primary source of funding for Al Qaeda,"
I don't believe this is true, not through any official channels anyway.
Official sources? Official sources! Haven't we all been lied to enough by 'official sources' these past years to be highly suspect these 'official sources' are shoveling loads of crap at us right & left? Next I guess you'll be trying to convince us George Bush has never lied to us either. I take it back, you aren't daft, you're suffering from dementia.
Hey, if it acts like a troll, writes like a troll, and thinks like a troll, well damn, I bet it's a troll ;-)
"I don't believe this is true, not through any official channels anyway."
Whether by "Official channels" or not, it is a well known fact by both liberal, conservative and foreign organizations, the only entity that doesn't seem to be doing much about it is the group that claims they are in a "War on Terror". (Yeah right- War on Terror as long as it's where they can get their grubby hands on oil).
Just Google "Saudi funding of Al Qaeda".
http://www.google.com/search?q=saudi+funding+of+al+qeada&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B2GGFB_en...
or "Saudi Arabia and terrorism"
http://www.google.com/search?q=saudi+arabia+and+terrorism&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B2GGFB_e...
I'm with Mike, the wars we have started since 9/11 are about oil, 9/11 was either committed by, or exploited by, our current admin. as a means of relieving others of their resources for our own benefit. Thousands upon thousands of lives- American, Afghan and Iraqi have been sacrificed for this end, this in itself is criminal. Do I believe our current admin is capable of plotting a crime that would kill 3000 individuals on American soil ? Sure, why not- they're responsible for the deaths of over 4000 American soldiers, and half a million Iraqis. And people wonder where these conspiracies come from.
The truth is far worse, IMO.
"Scheiber is my last name, "
I was only kidding about the "if thst's your real name" thing.
"Incidentally the Saudis were the primary source of funding for Al Qaeda,"
I don't believe this is true, not through any official channels anyway.
Yes, these wars are about OIL, not democracy. Check out the article here at CD -
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/06/22/9805/
"All* presidential administrations have had a certain "relationship" with the Saudis since the early forties when oil was discovered there."
True, and governmental corruption has been picking up speed ever since then. The Bushes have taken it to a new low.
Incidentally the Saudis were the primary source of funding for Al Qaeda, and yet we kissed them and sent them all home with impunity. Don't even get me started on what we did to Afghanistan......
"C'mon scheiber6923, as if that is your real name"
Scheiber is my last name, I don't remember being asked for my full name when I chose a member name for this site. This is also my screen name on multiple sites I visit. Google it and you'll probably see a few that I frequent, it's also the beginning part of my e-mail address, but is any of this important to the arguments at hand ? I am a real person with real opinions and questions, what else needs to be known ?
"I really don't think this whole line of Silverstein not knowing about the legalitiea is going to be very fruitful for you."
Well, I suppose if that was my argument, probably not, my argument is that Silverstein's behavior and comments is/are suspicious, in light of everything else that stinks about 9/11 and the blocked investigations of the truth, it's just one more chink in the armour. Actually I think the conspiracy theories have been left to fester and become the object of ridicule, because they block far more devious truths.
"Whats that, a Neo-Fascist suppository?"
There you go again thinking this has anything to do with political idealology.
A part of "innuendo" is suggesting impropriety without ever demonstrating it. A poor substitute for reasoned argument.l
I'll have only limited access to this site over the workweek, just so you know.
Jake, did you watch that short video about Marvin Bush, Securacom and Kroll? It's only 4 minutes and it's funny, but it also contains some good info about interconnections of people in the system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqaY975BPKE
Innuendo? Whats that, a Neo-Fascist suppository?
You guys need to look up "innuendo" and realize that using it is a poor substitute for reasoned argument.
"The link between the Bushes and the Saudis is more than a little disconcerting."
*All* presidential administrations have had a certain "relationship" with the Saudis since the early forties when oil was discovered there.
John O'Neill was "in charge" of WTC security and died 9/11/2001.
"Hmmm, what's the old saying - "Better to beg forgiveness than ask permission."
I like that line.
C'mon scheiber6923, as if that is your real name, I really don't think this whole line of Silverstein not knowing about the legalitiea is going to be very fruitful for you.
"George Bush's younger brother, Marvin Bush's company, Securacom, was in charge of security for both the World Trade Center and United Airlines.
Quite a coincidence don't you think?"
Wrong, he was on the board for a company who was in charge of WTC security along with a bunch of other things. Are you really going to try and say he had any operational function there? Besides it's debunked, cut and paste after removing spaces:
w w w . 9 1 1 m y t h s . c o m / h t m l / s t r a t e s e c . h t m l
I think if you dig a little, you'll find that KuAm (a Saudi firm) is/was a financial backer for Securacom. The link between the Bushes and the Saudis is more than a little disconcerting.
schreiber6923, actually George Bush's younger brother, Marvin Bush's company, Securacom, was in charge of security for both the World Trade Center and United Airlines.
Quite a coincidence don't you think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqaY975BPKE
"Well thanks for finally clarifying that but I don't buy that Silverstein didn't know he wasn't supposed to blow up his buildings. He would have found out right away as he began to research it from the "legit" method, the demolition guys would tell him."
If the demolition guys were your everyday Americans, you mean ?
Hmmm, what's the old saying - "Better to beg forgiveness than ask permission."
Don't you think the EPA people would have told Bush that putting people's lives at risk due to poor air quality was not only illegal, but immoral ? Shouldn't he have listened, shouldn't somebody have come forward, after all people are dying ? Is he being held accountable for his criminal negligence ?
Our corporate government and it's affiliates operate above the law. Laws are for people.....
sdemetri June 22nd, 2008 5:14 pm
"One of the best presentations I have seen yet:"
Thanks, sdemetri, for the link. I watched it, and I agree with you.
When you say, jake, "People heard loud noises. There is nothing there proving explosive devices were involved, and certainly nothing consistent with a top down controlled demolition."
Was the record of these witnesses, many of them Firemen with military backgrounds, entered into the 911 report...I doubt it. These are people who know the difference between normal explosions on a fire scene, and unusual ones, which is displayed in the surprise when they are making their on-the-scene filmed statements. Many people, also are commenting on lower & sub-level explosions, and how many are using the words 'secondary explosion' or 'bomb'? One huge explosion is even in the audio, while some firemen are interviewed on video. Even some of the MSM commentators from the media deviants from Fox news (and others) are saying it looked like a demolition.
Like I said, if it walks, looks, and quacks like a duck, it probably is!
Jake, saying 'vast conspiracy is an oxymoron' doesn't make it true. Example: The Holocaust was a conspiracy, right? Wasn't it also vast, right?
How can you say Silverstein didn't benefit? He walked away with about $1.5 billion profit on a building he had insured against exactly what happened in around a year, didn't pay the premiums but 6 months, didn't own them that long, and some estimates for asbestos amelioration ran in the $10-20 billion range. In fact some said the buildings needed to come down in toto. Check the records and you will find it not uncommon in the US for business owners to have a 'mysterious' fire to resolve financial problems.
The only difference here is the amounts involved. The asset he will gain will be brand new buildings instead of 30 years old, and without the asbestos liability on the spreadsheet of the previous ones. If you subscribe to such things the largest expense to him will be when he meets his maker, and I wouldn't trade my impoverished shoes for his earthly wealthy ones, no way, no how.
As far as his 'casual' comment about 'pulling it' goes, when he was on the site and initially made that comment, I don't believe he realized the implications of his filmed/recorded words.
BTW, I find no interest whatsoever in mystery novels since history, when factual, is much more intriguing.
One more item:
"Explosives are fedarally controlled. Any construction or demolition projects that take place in *Downtown Manhatten* is subject to regulations, permits etc."
Are you daft man? Since when has a black-op criminal endeavor ever gotten permits, or worried about 'regulations'. Also, for an illegal operation such as this don't you suppose they could set up their own (outside the law) manufacturing process for the explosives used? Hell, the anthrax sent to people in congress (all Democrats, BTW) was from a government project. The famous movie line, "We don't need no stinkin' badges" seems appropriate here, doesn't it?
One of the best presentations I have seen yet:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8244438572422398880
Graeme McQueen's talk at Waterloo University in March of this year.
Paul, maybe you should lay off the mystery novels. :-)
Seriously though, I am not so sure this thing is adding up so profitably for Silverstein, and would be interested in seeing some accounting on it. The new buildings are going to cost twice as much as the insurance pay out for one thing, and the way things are going he's going to be down 15 years in rents.
I don't claim Silverstein was the sole, or even primary, funder of whatever went down, just that he had a significant motive to have "terrorism" insurance cover the costs of his "white elephant".
Costs don't matter to these people (whatever dark cabal they comprise), since they are not playing with their own money. And whatever the cost, it would be chump change compared to the profits (trillions) that have ensued directly from this action.
Probably the psy-op was paid for out of "black" budgets of our numerous rogue "intelligence" agencies.
Hijacking planes is operationally easier, but has absolutely no chance of accomplishing the dropping of the towers. Hence, I think it much, much more likely that this was a distraction from the main action, one that provided a ready made scapegoat among the crazy Ay-rabs.
I now see the earlier post you are referring to about Silverstein:
[scheiber6923 June 21st, 2008 11:30 am]
"Silverstein owns the building, why would he think destroying it, especially to save lives, would have been a crime ?"
An unfortunate and confusing thing to post. Ignores the prep-work that would be implied by a decision to "pull it" on the apparent spur of the moment, which Silverstein would certainly have known to be illegal.
"Done covertly, there would be a 1000% premuim on that price."
Add another 1000% premium fro the risk of getting causght and prosecuted for an extremely heinous capital crime.
"People are killed every day for the latest sneakers."
Agreed, but I would venture to say that most of the time those are crimes gone wrong.
"Billions of dollars is certainly sufficient motive to break any conceivable law."
Perhaps for some, but compared to your sneaker example the level of evil is greatly magnified, and then we are to beleivew that Silverstein just casually admits to it.
"YOU seem to be arguing that Silverstein *couldn't* have had the alleged involvement *because* such action would be illegal."
And another thing, it would have been much more inexpensive I think to just take care of the asbestos. Instead we are to believe that three buildings were wired for demolition, any one of which would be the supreme acheivement in that industry. The price would have been way past the previous record if it were done in the legal manner. Done covertly, there would be a 1000% premuim on that price. And we still haven't heard from anyone involved. What an acheivement. Can't you see why men with boxcutters hijacking planes is much easier to believe in terms of operational planning?
"OK, that's your opinion. IMO"
OK, this is it: Explosives are fedarally controlled. Any construction or demolition projects that take place in *Downtown Manhatten* is subject to regulations, permits etc. Do you really have any doubt about this?
"No one is arguing whether Silverstein's alleged action would be illegal or not."
Scheiber did specifically, you must have missed it. He asked me to prove it was ileagal to blow up his buildings.
"YOU seem to be arguing that Silverstein *couldn't* have had the alleged involvement *because* such action would be illegal."
No, I never said that and don't beleive it, just to be clear.
"Many criminal corporate entities are not so much bothered by what is or isn't legal, but by what appears to be legal, after all it is only what one can be caught at that gets prosecuted."
Well thanks for finally clarifying that but I don't buy that Silverstein didn't know he wasn't supposed to blow up his buildings. He would have found out right away as he began to research it from the "legit" method, the demolition guys would tell him.
Jake,
No one is arguing whether Silverstein's alleged action would be illegal or not. Another of your strawmen.
YOU seem to be arguing that Silverstein *couldn't* have had the alleged involvement *because* such action would be illegal.
People are killed every day for the latest sneakers. Billions of dollars is certainly sufficient motive to break any conceivable law.
"Cui Bono" (who benefits?) is the first question in forensics and law enforcement.
"I refuse to discuss with you whether or not Silversteins alleged role in blowing up his buildings is legal or not. That is an insult to *all* of us."
OK, that's your opinion. IMO, it is that attitude that keeps us blinded to the realities of the Corprotocracy in charge. You have a problem believing in Silverstein's role in blowing up his own buildings, but seem to have no outrage on the government sacrificing the health and lives of it's citizens by lying to them. That's an insult. Corporations put us at risk constantly and bargain with the government to not hold them responsible. Why would Silverstein demolishing his own buildings be such a stretch ? I'm not saying it happened, I'm saying reasonable people have doubts.
"Sorry I missed that link. Could you post it again, keeping in mind the famous quote, "
Sorry, I was mistaken. Cut and paste into your browser after removing the spaces:
w w w . 9 1 1 m y t h s . c o m / h t m l / l o s i n g _ m o n e y _ a t _ t h e _ w t c _ . h t m l
"Thanks for the non-answer, you're bailing because you can't answer my questions."
I refuse to discuss with you whether or not Silversteins alleged role in blowing up his buildings is legal or not. That is an insult to *all* of us.
"You know if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, & quacks like a duck why are you so intent on the belief it's a tiger?"
Beacause it looks, walks, and roars like a tiger.
"jakenewton, how do you explain what all these eyewitnesses had to say? Huh, huh, huh?"
It added nothing to what we already know. People heard loud noises. There is nothing there proving explosive devices were involved, and certainly nothing consistent with a top down controlled demolition.
My favorite though was the label on it, "Total Proof that Bombs were Planted in the Buildings!" Well that Totally settles it! The 911 movie that is Totally undebunkable! These guys should not take their cues from the Loose Change punks.
As for "missing money" as a motive? Several problems, the situation on that is not "settled" specifically, flying a plane into a building would be a very unreliable way to destroy evidence, shredders an degauzers would be much better, and the piling on of additional and disparate motives for the crime only make your case more awkward to handle, what with the additional participants required. Remember, "Vast Conspiracy" in an oxymoron.
"Let me know when you want to have a serious discussion."
Thanks for the non-answer, you're bailing because you can't answer my questions. Corporate crimes are committed all the time Jake, why ? Because they can be, because the general public assumes everybody plays by the same rules. (Check out this link for more info http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/) This is THE serious discussion we need to have, IMO. There is an entire sub-set of organizations and individuals that act without interference, for the good of their organizations and entities only. This is why we need a thorough investigation of 9/11, IMO.
For instance (just so you don't think I'm not serious) it would be illegal for a government to lie and put individuals at risk due to dangerous air quality resulting in death, right ? Did our government do what was right because it would be illegal to do otherwise ? No.
I'd also like to address you comment about OBL NOT being wanted by the FBI, you said it was because they have no jurisdiction overseas. That is an incredibly weak argumen. Here is what the FBI's most wanted page says about OBL-
"USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD."
So you are trying to tell us that he is wanted for overseas terrorist attacks, but not wanted for an attack on our own soil ?
RE: jakenewton June 22nd, 2008 10:09 am
"...I concede only in the broadest theoretical sense that there was some other cause, but not based on evidence or reasonable plausability."
You were going pretty good there, jake, until you got to the comma. You know if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, & quacks like a duck why are you so intent on the belief it's a tiger?
Thanks Mike for this:
MikeBinSC June 22nd, 2008 4:19 am
"Another good site on the missing money -"
http://www.solari.com/learn/articles_missingmoney.htm
A site Woodward & Bernstein would have been estatic to have had.
jakenewton, how do you explain what all these eyewitnesses had to say? Huh, huh, huh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw
Another good site on the missing money -
http://www.solari.com/learn/articles_missingmoney.htm
I am getting SO tired of seeing this when I try to post here at CD -
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Here is the YouTube link on the missing $2.3 Trillion -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU
Paul, I have watched video, either CSPAN or YouTube, where Rummy is being grilled in hearings by Rep. Cynthia McKinney regarding the missing Trillions at the Pentagon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rRqeJcuK-A