|
Actually the terror level was in either orange or yellow at the time that the 9-11 attacks happened. The fact is, things like this aren't splayed across the mainstream media, because that would have people living in a panic.
As for the short-selling, your site is not a credible source. It takes its information from sites that are, but that doesn't mean that everything on there is cohesive and complete. In other words, there may have been alternative reasons for short-selling; such as the fact that vacation season was coming to an end, and flying would be less frequent. I'll look into that this weekend.
There are large numbers of credit card transactions every day. Whats more, your link for the credit cards is about hard drive recovery for a nearby building.
And if you really want to debate this, please stick to fact, or at least things that you can back up in some form - not flighty rumor.
|
sigh maybe i didnt make it clear enough... but then again u just contradicted yourself... Gas prices went down because the strike ended... yes, but shouldnt gas have gone down even further now that our president has so much oil???? well it hasnt.. so obviously he's taking the money for himself... wow u really are dumb, if i meant venezuela i would have mentioned it
Let me explain something - oil is not money. Oil has to be sold in exchange for money. If we had a ton of surplus oil, from Iraq, prices would drop extravagently. But they haven't so obviously the oil is not being used for us. Ok then, where is it being used? Who is buying it?
|
lmao duh.. i said the oil isnt being used for us.. its being sold to a foreign company.. but i dont work for Cheney so i dont know
|
Actually the terror level was in either orange or yellow at the time that the 9-11 attacks happened. The fact is, things like this aren't splayed across the mainstream media, because that would have people living in a panic
the color coded terror alerts were not concieved until after 9-11. isreal is attacked by "terrrorists" on a regular basis, are they in a panic? it hurts there economny but the country still functions. the fact is, the government knew something was coming, it involved plans, they did not get a warning.
As for the short-selling, your site is not a credible source. It takes its information from sites that are, but that doesn't mean that everything on there is cohesive and complete. In other words, there may have been alternative reasons for short-selling; such as the fact that vacation season was coming to an end, and flying would be less frequent. I'll look into that this weekend
do look into this... major news source:
cnn
of course they only suggest osama would have profited... \
(is a reuters article, but copied to another page)
reuters
sfgate
telegraph
BBC
(wallstreet journal, but copied to web)
wallstreet journal
notice most only blaim osama for potential profits.. interesting..
let me quote my original link on the matter:
"Most of these transactions were handled primarily by Deutsche Bank-A.B.Brown, a firm which until 1998 was chaired by A. B."Buzzy" Krongard, who later became executive director of the CIA"
|
On September 02 2003 21:42 DeMoNiC wrote: Show nested quote +On September 02 2003 17:33 BlackJack wrote: On September 02 2003 02:42 DeMoNiC wrote: On September 02 2003 02:02 BlackJack wrote:
That was probably the stupidest post I have ever read. Iraq has been selling us oil for years. There is always so much oil on the world market. If Japan decides to buy oil from Iraq, and not from Iran, than there will be excess oil in Iran and we can buy it over there. The only time gas prices go up is when Oil stops being put into the world market, for example that bs over there in venezuala. We didn't need to go to war with Iraq to get their oil. We didn't need to spend billions. We didn't need to murder thousands of citizens. Or hurt our airlines (not really).
You probably don't know this because the media won't tell you it since 98% of the media is liberal. Try listening to Talk Radio.
So now you have no evidence, self-contradicting links, and no motive. Please continue. lol i dont know what to say about ur respose -_-... did u even read what i said??? dude their not giving the american population the oil.. have u seen gas prices go down??? their making themselves richer.. once again plz stop and think, these people are mad men, and money meens power.. their after power u idiot.. not looking for the better of the american people gas prices went down because the strike in Venezuala ended, idiot. sigh maybe i didnt make it clear enough... but then again u just contradicted yourself... Gas prices went down because the strike ended... yes, but shouldnt gas have gone down even further now that our president has so much oil???? well it hasnt.. so obviously he's taking the money for himself... wow u really are dumb, if i meant venezuela i would have mentioned it
Lol that is very sad. We aren't stealing Iraq's oil. We are buying it and we only buy as much oil as we need. The only time oil prices go up is when they are pumping less oil into the world market (venezual) so there isn't as much oil to go around. By raising the prices, less people buy oil. It is common sense that the more rare something is, the more valuable it is. Your theory about Cheney stealing Iraq's oil is the stupidest thing I have ever read.
|
On September 02 2003 21:43 DeMoNiC wrote: Show nested quote +On September 02 2003 17:35 BlackJack wrote: On September 02 2003 03:14 DeMoNiC wrote: On September 02 2003 03:03 Klogon wrote: On September 01 2003 18:24 BlackJack wrote:
Perhaps if you were president.. you probably would have given the command to shoot down a plane with 50 civillians without hesitating. And what if they had engine trouble, and their radios weren't working.. Too bad? Uhh after recieving all the warnings from everybody, I'd just might. And even if I didn't shoot down the first one, I'd sure as hell shoot down other 3. true, if they had engine troubles they were going down anyway lol, and if there radios werent working it could be assumed that terrorists cut the radio links off, and on top of that bush told people not to fly this day or week.. so if a plane was acting up it could be assumed THIS was the terrorist atk he knew about for MONTHS if not years Very inaccurate. lol do explain. kind sir
If the radios aren't working, you can't assume it is terrorists ESPECIALLY before 9/11. Also, Bush didn't know about this terror attack, end of discussion. He might have got wind that there might be a terror attack involving planes or something which might be why he told people not to fly, but he didn't know that 19 muslims were going to hijack 4 planes and crash them into shit. I don't even recall him telling people not to fly on planes, so if you could give me a link or something it might be makes your post more "accurate."
|
I personally think that people made some mistakes before 9/11. I think more could have been done to prevent it, but before 9/11 Terrorism wasn't a really large threat to the United States. Airplane security wasn't a large threat to the United States. And people crashing planes into buildings has never been done before and on the day of September 11th nobody woke up saying "Today is the day we need to protect those airplanes."
Did Bush know it was possible for terrorists to hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings. Sure. I am certain he also knew it was possible to put a bomb in a suitcase and blow up a mall, or make a truck bomb and blow up the WTC, or throw a bomb onto a tunnel or a pipeline or put anthrax in the water supply or go into an airport with an AK-47 and start shooting everyone or steal a tank and drive through residential neighborhoods, or steal gum from a grocery store. The fact is, no matter WHAT the terrorists did you can always say that "Bush knew about this."
Maybe the CIA passed up some small details or the FBI. Maybe Norad made a mistake by dispatching after the first plane hit or whatever. You can blame who you want. Just pick an agency and have fun. Blaming someone isn't going to bring back the 3,000 people though.
As for the people who think our government intentionally let terrorists hijacks our planes and kill our civillians..... You are just wrong, don't feel bad.
And for the people who think that our government planted bombs underground to blow up the World Trade Center. give me a break.
|
On September 03 2003 00:20 BlackJack wrote: Show nested quote +On September 02 2003 21:43 DeMoNiC wrote: On September 02 2003 17:35 BlackJack wrote: On September 02 2003 03:14 DeMoNiC wrote: On September 02 2003 03:03 Klogon wrote: On September 01 2003 18:24 BlackJack wrote:
Perhaps if you were president.. you probably would have given the command to shoot down a plane with 50 civillians without hesitating. And what if they had engine trouble, and their radios weren't working.. Too bad? Uhh after recieving all the warnings from everybody, I'd just might. And even if I didn't shoot down the first one, I'd sure as hell shoot down other 3. true, if they had engine troubles they were going down anyway lol, and if there radios werent working it could be assumed that terrorists cut the radio links off, and on top of that bush told people not to fly this day or week.. so if a plane was acting up it could be assumed THIS was the terrorist atk he knew about for MONTHS if not years Very inaccurate. lol do explain. kind sir If the radios aren't working, you can't assume it is terrorists ESPECIALLY before 9/11. Also, Bush didn't know about this terror attack, end of discussion. He might have got wind that there might be a terror attack involving planes or something which might be why he told people not to fly, but he didn't know that 19 muslims were going to hijack 4 planes and crash them into shit. I don't even recall him telling people not to fly on planes, so if you could give me a link or something it might be makes your post more "accurate."
LMFAO.... dude the fact that u said bush didnt know about this attack is the funniest thing i've heard in a LONG time... and u call my theory Cheney stealing iraqs oil (which he isnt since he was GIVEN the deed to all that oil... its his companies now.. NOT iraqs) stupid... lol u really are hard headed.. BUSH KNEW.. BUSH KNEW... BUSH KNEW. sigh, why am i even trying.. im done posting becuz if u cant even accept the FACT that bush knew about 9-11 then theres no way in HELL u can believe what im telling u.. however i do commend u for being a loyal patriot who is behind bush at all costs GL to u sir
|
oh and btw u asked for linKS??? dude wtf.. if u actually checked any of psylos links u'd already be informed of him telling people not to fly -_-, and for the 3rd fucking time CHECK http://www.Infowars.com
its all fucking there... although i dont know if someone with your ignorance can handle this type of site since it shows Bush in a light ur incapable of recieving
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On September 03 2003 00:32 BlackJack wrote:
As for the people who think our government intentionally let terrorists hijacks our planes and kill our civillians..... You are just wrong, don't feel bad. Well they let thousands die in Pearl Harbor didn't they? I'm assuming the US government will allow this type of action if they think this is what is really the best for the country or something like that. But even though all those died in Pearl Harbor, if that didn't happen, maybe all of Europe would be bowning down to Hitler... so some (most if not all) of you guys say it was a good thing for Roosevelt to let it happen.
But it still doesn't change the fact that there was deception of the public. Maybe Bush did know about this. Maybe he did let it happen. And at this time, you might think "omg that dirty bastard" just as people back in the day would have thought Roosevelt was a bastard for letting Pearl Harbor happen. But then again, maybe our grandkids will be learning of this in school and say "it was a good thing Bush let this happen".
Because remember, it's happened before....
|
On September 03 2003 01:48 Klogon wrote: Show nested quote +On September 03 2003 00:32 BlackJack wrote:
As for the people who think our government intentionally let terrorists hijacks our planes and kill our civillians..... You are just wrong, don't feel bad. Well they let thousands die in Pearl Harbor didn't they?
oh my god. Psylo it must not be hard for you to brain wash people into thinking that Bush is the largest mass murderer in American history. Look at the kind of intelligence that agrees with you.
and btw Klogon, just in case that wasn't the worst joke I have ever read... no, we didn't. We were attacked. Much like in 9/11.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On September 02 2003 21:24 ObsoleteLogic wrote:The N. Korean army is at least twice that of the S. Korean, with much better technology and equipment. If they stormed the DMZ and managed to bring a nuclear device into a major S. Korean city, it would be a catastrophe. And who would take the blame, I ask you? Thats right, the good old US of A.
The N. Korea army is about 2 times bigger, but they are not more effective. The North has old Soviet technology while the South have the latest from the West (effect of having the worlds super power as a friend eh?). The US has just proved how well the newer techonolgy is compared to the old ones in both of the gulf wars.
You hear all the time of N. Korea spending 30% of their budget on military, but what you don't hear often is that even though the South only spends in the single digits (3-5% i think...), the South accually spends MORE MONEY than the North. This is because the South is 100 folds richer than the north, thus having more resources to spend. If the sides were not so damn close to each other, I personally think the South would have a far better chance in winning in a long drawn out war. But because they are so damn close, the war (if it started) would be over in less than 2 weeks (if no allies interfered) because of all the artiliary fire that would devastate both sides. They'd both take so much damage, that it might end up on another stalemate and another treaty.
A military campain by either N. Korea or S. Korea to take out the other is suicide. And suicide doesn't usually look like a very good option for the power hungry leaders of any country.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On September 03 2003 01:55 BlackJack wrote: Show nested quote +On September 03 2003 01:48 Klogon wrote: On September 03 2003 00:32 BlackJack wrote:
As for the people who think our government intentionally let terrorists hijacks our planes and kill our civillians..... You are just wrong, don't feel bad. Well they let thousands die in Pearl Harbor didn't they? oh my god. Psylo it must not be hard for you to brain wash people into thinking that Bush is the largest mass murderer in American history. Look at the kind of intelligence that agrees with you.
I could flame the same way with almost the same words. I'll make bold the ones that I will change:
oh my god. Bush it must not be hard for you to brain wash people into thinking that you are the greatest. Look at the kind of intelligence that agrees with you.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
But wow, notice how politics makes us all hate?
I mean usually on other topic on this forum we can all get along and stuff, but once we get into issues that people are serious about (religion, politics, drugs, homosexuality etc), people always tend to resort to low-class flaming.
Sorry I did that as well..... but where's all the love guys? 
|
heh, klogon--i've never seen a discussion on this board about anything that didn't result in some flaming--no matter how innocent the topic. there's something about the game that breeds flamefests.
The thousands dying in pearl harbor--roosevelt didn't believe that the japanese would be nearly so effective. we were heavily rascist(in some places still are, sadly) and it influenced our thinking, thus we totally underestimated them. as it occured, we nearly lost the war in the pacific as a result of that act of carelessness.
It is quite possible, in fact entirely likely, that we underestimated osama in the same way.
|
On September 03 2003 01:42 DeMoNiC wrote: Show nested quote +On September 03 2003 00:20 BlackJack wrote: On September 02 2003 21:43 DeMoNiC wrote: On September 02 2003 17:35 BlackJack wrote: On September 02 2003 03:14 DeMoNiC wrote: On September 02 2003 03:03 Klogon wrote: On September 01 2003 18:24 BlackJack wrote:
Perhaps if you were president.. you probably would have given the command to shoot down a plane with 50 civillians without hesitating. And what if they had engine trouble, and their radios weren't working.. Too bad? Uhh after recieving all the warnings from everybody, I'd just might. And even if I didn't shoot down the first one, I'd sure as hell shoot down other 3. true, if they had engine troubles they were going down anyway lol, and if there radios werent working it could be assumed that terrorists cut the radio links off, and on top of that bush told people not to fly this day or week.. so if a plane was acting up it could be assumed THIS was the terrorist atk he knew about for MONTHS if not years Very inaccurate. lol do explain. kind sir If the radios aren't working, you can't assume it is terrorists ESPECIALLY before 9/11. Also, Bush didn't know about this terror attack, end of discussion. He might have got wind that there might be a terror attack involving planes or something which might be why he told people not to fly, but he didn't know that 19 muslims were going to hijack 4 planes and crash them into shit. I don't even recall him telling people not to fly on planes, so if you could give me a link or something it might be makes your post more "accurate." LMFAO.... dude the fact that u said bush didnt know about this attack is the funniest thing i've heard in a LONG time... and u call my theory Cheney stealing iraqs oil (which he isnt since he was GIVEN the deed to all that oil... its his companies now.. NOT iraqs) stupid... lol u really are hard headed.. BUSH KNEW.. BUSH KNEW... BUSH KNEW. sigh, why am i even trying.. im done posting becuz if u cant even accept the FACT that bush knew about 9-11 then theres no way in HELL u can believe what im telling u.. however i do commend u for being a loyal patriot who is behind bush at all costs GL to u sir
I am sorry if you think hard headed means telling someone "Bush Knew" 20 times and they don't believe you. Let's try some facts here. Oh wait that is right.. you don't have any.. you just agree with psylo.
|
On September 03 2003 01:45 DeMoNiC wrote: oh and btw u asked for linKS??? dude wtf.. if u actually checked any of psylos links u'd already be informed of him telling people not to fly -_-, and for the 3rd fucking time CHECK http://www.Infowars.comits all fucking there... although i dont know if someone with your ignorance can handle this type of site since it shows Bush in a light ur incapable of recieving
RoFL he gives me a website not a link. Be a little bit more specific buddy because I can't find it. That is like me saying I have proof that it isn't a conspiracy. www.NYTimes.com It is all there. The truth is you probably don't even have the link and you are just copying that website from when psylo posted it earlier..
|
On September 03 2003 01:59 Klogon wrote: Show nested quote +On September 03 2003 01:55 BlackJack wrote: On September 03 2003 01:48 Klogon wrote: On September 03 2003 00:32 BlackJack wrote:
As for the people who think our government intentionally let terrorists hijacks our planes and kill our civillians..... You are just wrong, don't feel bad. Well they let thousands die in Pearl Harbor didn't they? oh my god. Psylo it must not be hard for you to brain wash people into thinking that Bush is the largest mass murderer in American history. Look at the kind of intelligence that agrees with you. I could flame the same way with almost the same words. I'll make bold the ones that I will change: oh my god. Bush it must not be hard for you to brain wash people into thinking that you are the greatest. Look at the kind of intelligence that agrees with you.
He doesn't brain wash people. People knew what happened before he even made his speech much later that night. It's called logic. Being able to put 2 and 2 together.
Psylo honestly believes that Bush planted bombs underground without anyone knowing and anyone finding out, and blew up the WTC, while he was at a school reading books to kids. And for that, I feel sorry for him and I am sure all the educated people who read this forum and don't feel like responding feel sorry for him as well.
You obviously don't know the facts since you think we murdered our own troops in Pearl Harbor. and I was simply saying that if people got you to believe that we killed our own troops in Pearl Harbor simply so we could go to war with Japan than it wouldn't be hard for someone to make you believe that we bombed our own civilians to go to war with Iraq.
The funniest thing about all of the posts read is that Psylo continues to say "we dont know who to blame for the hijackings" etc. even after Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden admin to it. I honestly believe that if Osama Bin Laden debated psylo 1on1, he wouldn't be able to get psylo to believe that he destroyed the towers and not Bush.
|
Have any of you people ever heard of Hitler's Pope written by John Cromwell? Its a book passed off as fact that Pius XII was anti-semitic. Cromwell claimed to spend years in the Vatican archives researching it. Vatican records show he spent small amounts of time there over the period of two weeks. Pius XII was praised in the NYTimes and by the Jewish community for his service to them after the war. Jews were taking refuge in the Vatican during the Italian occupation of Rome. Pius XII paid ransom for them.
What I'm trying to say is that just because someone writes a book, doesn't mean they're telling the truth, or even close to it.
|
On September 02 2003 08:20 mensrea wrote:
Not trying to take sides. Just an observation:
It seems to me that at least Psylo's done his homework - which is quantum leaps more than I can say for his detractors. Whether he turns out to be right or not, he's very obviously put some serious thought and research into this. Not so his opponents - at least it doesn't seem so on the face of it. Nothing more than acid-laced appeals to personal opinion, petty personal insults and deconstructionist over-analyses. Where are the counter-arguments? Not YOUR counter-arguments, but the kind that have seen print? What are the sources?
C'mon. I know the flag-waving, super-patriots among you can do better than this. Where the hell is Hades (aka "The Canadian Captain America") when you need the bastard...
I don't bother arguing with psylo, because its like trying to argue with a war 3 player which is better SC or war3. So if psylo's mind has a pre-determined view on this, then let him prove it to me, cause honestly if he had all angles covered than I would buy into his view, but I still have too many doubts, like please for the love of god give me GOOD SOLID points proving that the US governement had FAR MORE to gain than to lose, because it sure as hell appears to be quite the opposite.
I mean honestly leg is right, who wants to argue with the rinky dink sites that he posts. I mean I am tempted to just create a random website and fill it with bullshit than call it fact. Than I can use my "facts" and argue against anothers opini.. err I mean "fact".
Sure major news angencies tend to spin or give half the story, but at least if you have a half-assed brain you can deconstruct the story and get more from it than intended.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
