911 Truth Movement | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

911 Truth Movement

Do you think the US government should hold an independent investigation into the events surrounding


  • Total voters
    63
Soda said:
Where is the evidence? So all these people knew al Qaeda was going to hijack planes, fly them into the WTC on Sep 11 but somehow none of them could alert the public? None of them went to the press? And none of them have subsequently provided any real actual evidence of this specific forewarning? And why has David Schippers not been on TV with this story? If he was to get bumped off now I'm sure it would raise a few eyebrows, he would be the safest man in the US. He's just not credible IMO.

Eyewitness testimony is evidence. What were you hoping for? Recordings of conversations? Emails?

This evidence is corroborated by William Grigg. Both these guys are as credible as you could ask for and have no apparent motive to lie.

Schipper describes trying very hard to get this information into the right hands. How do you know they both didn't do everything they could?

The mainstream media is silent on most evidence towards complicity. Major facts that should be big news are routinely ignored.

The critical question here is why weren't Schipper, Grigg and all those agents interviewed by the 9/11 commission?

Soda said:
Here is the transcript of Schippers with Alex Jones (I now know why he hasn't been on TV), read that and tell me you think he's got a bona fide story. You note that nowhere does he say there was specific info about the date/time of the attacks.
http://www.infowars.com/transcript_schippers.html

He has a bona fide story.

That wasn't the entire interview so maybe the date/time was mentioned earlier in the interview. Griffin also cites The Indianapolis Star and Judicial Watch as sources for that information so it seems highly unlikely he's making it up.
 
Disco08 said:
What were you hoping for? Recordings of conversations? Emails?

This evidence is corroborated by William Grigg. Both these guys are as credible as you could ask for and have no apparent motive to lie.

Schipper describes trying very hard to get this information into the right hands. How do you know they both didn't do everything they could?

The mainstream media is silent on most evidence towards complicity. Major facts that should be big news are routinely ignored.

The critical question here is why weren't Schipper, Grigg and all those agents interviewed by the 9/11 commission?

He has a bona fide story.

1. Yes. Eyewitnesses report seeing the Virgin Mary, you believe them too? Despite a large number of people knowing about these attacks no one has bothered to keep any documentation or records as proof of this knowledge?

2. No motive you know of, I'm sure I could start some conjecture about why they might lie.

3. If he had a bona fide story there would be any number of journo's desperate to tell it. You don't think he's been approached by plenty of journalists looking for a big story? If he could prove his story it would have been told. (other than journalist Alex Jones).

4. Can you elaborate on these routinely ignored big news stories?

5. How do you know there stories were not investigated? Maybe they decided they did not have the time to interview every conspiracy theorist before preparing their report?
 
This followed the Schipper discussion:

The Put Options: The government also would have had foreknowledge of the attacks because of an extraordinarily high volume of “put options” purchased in the three days before 9/11. To buy put options for a particular company is to bet that its stock price will go down. These purchases were for two, and only two, airlines–United and American–the two airlines used in the attacks, and for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, which occupied 22 stories of the World Trade Center. The price of these shares did, of course, plummet after 9/11. As the San Francisco Chronicle said, these unusual purchases, which resulted in profits of tens of millions of dollars, raise “suspicions that the investors . . . had advance knowledge of the strikes.”23
For our purposes, the most important implication of this story follows from the fact that US intelligence agencies monitor the market, looking for signs of imminent untoward events.24 These extraordinary purchases, therefore, would have suggested to intelligence agencies that in the next few days, United and American airliners were going to be used in attacks on the World Trade Center. This is fairly specific information.


Pretty amazing at face value. What's more amazing though is that this is yet another thing not properly investigated by the 9/11 commission.
 
Soda said:
1. Yes. Eyewitnesses report seeing the Virgin Mary, you believe them too? Despite a large number of people knowing about these attacks no one has bothered to keep any documentation or records as proof of this knowledge?

2. No motive you know of, I'm sure I could start some conjecture about why they might lie.

3. If he had a bona fide story there would be any number of journo's desperate to tell it. You don't think he's been approached by plenty of journalists looking for a big story? If he could prove his story it would have been told. (other than journalist Alex Jones).

4. Can you elaborate on these routinely ignored big news stories?

5. How do you know there stories were not investigated? Maybe they decided they did not have the time to interview every conspiracy theorist before preparing their report?

Ugh.

1 - How do you know documentation of these warnings wasn't suppressed or destroyed the way so much other evidence was?

2 - Go on then.

3 - Not true at all. His story and Grigg's were published in newspapers/journals at the time. They may have no way of proving what they're saying but you need a reasonable motive to dismiss them out of hand.

4 - No. Google it.

5 - These are not conspiracy theories. They're crucial eyewitnesses who are not mentioned at all in the commission report.
 
Disco08 said:
Eyewitness testimony is evidence. What were you hoping for? Recordings of conversations? Emails?

This evidence is corroborated by William Grigg. Both these guys are as credible as you could ask for and have no apparent motive to lie.

Schipper describes trying very hard to get this information into the right hands. How do you know they both didn't do everything they could?

The mainstream media is silent on most evidence towards complicity. Major facts that should be big news are routinely ignored.

The critical question here is why weren't Schipper, Grigg and all those agents interviewed by the 9/11 commission?

He has a bona fide story.

That wasn't the entire interview so maybe the date/time was mentioned earlier in the interview. Griffin also cites The Indianapolis Star and Judicial Watch as sources for that information so it seems highly unlikely he's making it up.
Eyewitness testimony to what?

There's eyewitness testimony for the prosecution too your honour! But we,ll strike them off the record I guess.
W
Yes, emails, taped phone calls, letters....something! ...it's called proof or evidence not just more of your conjecture or coincidences or theories.

William Grigg, yeah, googled him. , he believes that white Leninists desired to send millions of Mexicans into USA to kill 10 Americans each? He who often speaks of many a conspiracy? Nah, why would this man have conspiracy theory about Bush an 911?

So since 1995 they were warned about a possible attack. Do you know how many possible terrorist attacks were mentioned in that 6 year period? And in the 11 years since. Do you know the specifics of these warnings?

Ans I love the way you simp,y absolve yourself from proving more about mainstream media being silent with any evidence on complicity. Yep, a conspiracy to protect the conspiracy.... It's genius, no proof needed. But how can you prove it. It's being covered up! :spin
 
Disco08 said:
This followed the Schipper discussion:

The Put Options: The government also would have had foreknowledge of the attacks because of an extraordinarily high volume of “put options” purchased in the three days before 9/11. To buy put options for a particular company is to bet that its stock price will go down. These purchases were for two, and only two, airlines–United and American–the two airlines used in the attacks, and for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, which occupied 22 stories of the World Trade Center. The price of these shares did, of course, plummet after 9/11. As the San Francisco Chronicle said, these unusual purchases, which resulted in profits of tens of millions of dollars, raise “suspicions that the investors . . . had advance knowledge of the strikes.”23
For our purposes, the most important implication of this story follows from the fact that US intelligence agencies monitor the market, looking for signs of imminent untoward events.24 These extraordinary purchases, therefore, would have suggested to intelligence agencies that in the next few days, United and American airliners were going to be used in attacks on the World Trade Center. This is fairly specific information.


Pretty amazing at face value. What's more amazing though is that this is yet another thing not properly investigated by the 9/11 commission.

And what does this prove? Again, nothing! It only allows the hair brained theorist to suggest some people in the trading game were tipped off. With the documentation of who made the put options why haven't they been investigated? Oh, that's right...conspiracy to cover the conspiracy!

After 11 years no one has even remotely been investigated over this irrelevance. To which you will say "isn't that odd in itself" to which I'll say "no". Because IF there was some sort of inside trading someone not involved with the traders or whoever from the government who "tipped" them off would have uncovered them!
 
Disco's conspiracy within a conspiracy is a very cunning manouvre indeed, definitely playing for the stalemate. :hihi
 
bullus_hit said:
Disco's conspiracy within a conspiracy is a very cunning manouvre indeed, definitely playing for the stalemate. :hihi
True, as I said its genius. Why can't the conspiracy be revealed? Well there's a conspiracy to cover the conspiracy. Endgame.
 
Disco08 said:
This followed the Schipper discussion:

The Put Options: The government also would have had foreknowledge of the attacks because of an extraordinarily high volume of “put options” purchased in the three days before 9/11. To buy put options for a particular company is to bet that its stock price will go down. These purchases were for two, and only two, airlines–United and American–the two airlines used in the attacks, and for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, which occupied 22 stories of the World Trade Center. The price of these shares did, of course, plummet after 9/11. As the San Francisco Chronicle said, these unusual purchases, which resulted in profits of tens of millions of dollars, raise “suspicions that the investors . . . had advance knowledge of the strikes.”23
For our purposes, the most important implication of this story follows from the fact that US intelligence agencies monitor the market, looking for signs of imminent untoward events.24 These extraordinary purchases, therefore, would have suggested to intelligence agencies that in the next few days, United and American airliners were going to be used in attacks on the World Trade Center. This is fairly specific information.


Pretty amazing at face value. What's more amazing though is that this is yet another thing not properly investigated by the 9/11 commission.

Wrong. Another myth.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Put_Options
 
tigertim said:
Eyewitness testimony to what?

There's eyewitness testimony for the prosecution too your honour! But we,ll strike them off the record I guess.

Really. Eyewitnesses testimony saying there were no specific warnings about impending al Qaeda attacks? Do tell.

Or do you mean eyewitness testimony that generally support non-complicity? If so can you give an example.

tigertim said:
Yes, emails, taped phone calls, letters....something! ...it's called proof or evidence not just more of your conjecture or coincidences or theories.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.


Perhaps you don't realise this but part of the critisicm of the 9/11 commission investigations is that so much evidence was withheld, suppressed or destroyed.

tigertim said:
William Grigg, yeah, googled him. , he believes that white Leninists desired to send millions of Mexicans into USA to kill 10 Americans each? He who often speaks of many a conspiracy? Nah, why would this man have conspiracy theory about Bush an 911?

So since 1995 they were warned about a possible attack. Do you know how many possible terrorist attacks were mentioned in that 6 year period? And in the 11 years since. Do you know the specifics of these warnings?

Ans I love the way you simp,y absolve yourself from proving more about mainstream media being silent with any evidence on complicity. Yep, a conspiracy to protect the conspiracy.... It's genius, no proof needed. But how can you prove it. It's being covered up! :spin

So you can Google.

Grigg is an author and journalist. He's a credible witness no matter what his political leanings are. To discredit him as you do only shows your bias against anything suggestive of complicity.

David Schippers, the House Judiciary Committee’s chief investigator in the Clinton impeachment trial and the lawyer for FBI agent Robert Wright since September 1999, will later claim that he was warned about an upcoming al-Qaeda attack on lower Manhattan in May 2001 (see May 2001). After May, Schippers continues to get increasingly precise information about this attack from FBI agents in Chicago and Minnesota


http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=david_schippers

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&complete_911_timeline_key_events=complete_911_timeline_key_warnings

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SMI402A.html

http://www.inquisitr.com/327265/911-revelation-bush-administration-knew-much-more-about-terrorist-plans-than-originally-reported/

Yes there are often warnings of terrorist. To suggest the amount leading up to 9/11 was even close to normal and the fact that no action was taken becauase of them was normal serves only to demonstrate a substantial level of ignorance.

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=mainstream+media+silence+9%2F11&oq=mainstream+media+silence+9%2F11&gs_l=hp.3..33i21.816.12002.0.12049.35.31.3.1.1.1.485.9141.2-20j6j4.30.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.3.psy-ab.g1Dj8OvoqKw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42553238,d.dGI&fp=9314d7ab122d032b&biw=1366&bih=592
 
Disco08 said:
Really. Eyewitnesses testimony saying there were no specific warnings about impending al Qaeda attacks? Do tell.
Or do you mean eyewitness testimony that generally support non-complicity? If so can you give an example.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.


Perhaps you don't realise this but part of the critisicm of the 9/11 commission investigations is that so much evidence was withheld, suppressed or destroyed.
So you can Google.
Grigg is an author and journalist. He's a credible witness no matter what his political leanings are. To discredit him as you do only shows your bias against anything suggestive of complicity.

David Schippers, the House Judiciary Committee’s chief investigator in the Clinton impeachment trial and the lawyer for FBI agent Robert Wright since September 1999, will later claim that he was warned about an upcoming al-Qaeda attack on lower Manhattan in May 2001 (see May 2001). After May, Schippers continues to get increasingly precise information about this attack from FBI agents in Chicago and Minnesota
Yes, you told me to go and Google and I did now you mock me for it! Geez you're hard to please Dancer. And look, you can link the meaning of "evidence", congrats.
Yes, i discredit him and that shows my bias. But of course you're not biased at all........ :help
 
Calling me Dancer while avoiding any number of questions eh?

I'm not that biased. I'll admit something when it's plain as day. You on the other hand........
 
Disco08 said:
This followed the Schipper discussion:

The Put Options: The government also would have had foreknowledge of the attacks because of an extraordinarily high volume of “put options” purchased in the three days before 9/11. To buy put options for a particular company is to bet that its stock price will go down. These purchases were for two, and only two, airlines–United and American–the two airlines used in the attacks, and for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, which occupied 22 stories of the World Trade Center. The price of these shares did, of course, plummet after 9/11. As the San Francisco Chronicle said, these unusual purchases, which resulted in profits of tens of millions of dollars, raise “suspicions that the investors . . . had advance knowledge of the strikes.”23
For our purposes, the most important implication of this story follows from the fact that US intelligence agencies monitor the market, looking for signs of imminent untoward events.24 These extraordinary purchases, therefore, would have suggested to intelligence agencies that in the next few days, United and American airliners were going to be used in attacks on the World Trade Center. This is fairly specific information.


Pretty amazing at face value. What's more amazing though is that this is yet another thing not properly investigated by the 9/11 commission.
I CBF trawling through all the U.S stock charts post 9/11 but I'd be willing to bet there would be a lot better stocks than Morgan Stanley to buy Put options in if you genuinely knew there was going to be a terrorist attack.

In fact a lot better, and less easily detectable way to profit, would have been to sell index futures. Or better still buy Put options on index futures.
 
Disco08 said:
Calling me Dancer while avoiding any number of questions eh?

I'm not that biased. I'll admit something when it's plain as day. You on the other hand........
I learned from the best mate.
 
Point our any unanswered questions and I'll happily answer them tim.

evo said:
I CBF trawling through all the U.S stock charts post 9/11 but I'd be willing to bet there would be a lot better stocks than Morgan Stanley to buy Put options in if you genuinely knew there was going to be a terrorist attack.

In fact a lot better, and less easily detectable way to profit, would have been to sell index futures. Or better still buy Put options on index futures.

Yeah. UAL and AA would be 2 of them.

The debunking efforts of these facts are quite pathetic. The justification for the number of put options on AA for example is that their share price had been dropping steadily because of industry wide negative factors and they therefore respresented a good proposition. Fair enough. Maybe double or even triple the amount of options could have been reasonably expected. On September 10 there were 60 times more put options that the average since their inception. This isn't addressed by the SEC or 9/11 commission and further:

An October 19 article in the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the SEC, after a period of silence, had undertaken the unprecedented action of deputizing hundreds of private officials in its investigation:
The proposed system, which would go into effect immediately, effectively deputizes hundreds, if not thousands, of key players in the private sector.
...
In a two-page statement issued to "all securities-related entities" nationwide, the SEC asked companies to designate senior personnel who appreciate "the sensitive nature" of the case and can be relied upon to "exercise appropriate discretion" as "point" people linking government investigators and the industry. 17

Michael Ruppert, a former LAPD officer, explains the consequences of this action:
What happens when you deputize someone in a national security or criminal investigation is that you make it illegal for them to disclose publicly what they know. Smart move. In effect, they become government agents and are controlled by government regulations rather than their own conscience. In fact, they can be thrown in jail without a hearing if they talk publicly. I have seen this implied threat time and again with federal investigations, intelligence agents, and even members of the United States Congress who are bound so tightly by secrecy oaths and agreements that they are not even able to disclose criminal activities inside the government for fear of incarceration. 18


these facts are also note explained by the 9/11 commission report.

Perhaps treasury notes were a better option along the line of index futures:

The Wall Street Journal reported on October 2 that the ongoing investigation by the SEC into suspicious stock trades had been joined by a Secret Service probe into an unusually high volume of five-year US Treasury note purchases prior to the attacks. The Treasury note transactions included a single $5 billion trade.

As the Journal explained: “Five-year Treasury notes are among the best investments in the event of a world crisis, especially one that hits the US. The notes are prized for their safety and their backing by the US government, and usually rally when investors flee riskier investments, such as stocks.” The value of these notes, the Journal pointed out, has risen sharply since the events of September 11.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2001/10/bond-o05.html
 
Disco08 said:
Point our any unanswered questions and I'll happily answer them tim.

Yeah. UAL and AA would be 2 of them.

The debunking efforts of these facts are quite pathetic. The justification for the number of put options on AA for example is that their share price had been dropping steadily because of industry wide negative factors and they therefore respresented a good proposition. Fair enough. Maybe double or even triple the amount of options could have been reasonably expected. On September 10 there were 60 times more put options that the average since their inception. This isn't addressed by the SEC or 9/11 commission and further:

An October 19 article in the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the SEC, after a period of silence, had undertaken the unprecedented action of deputizing hundreds of private officials in its investigation:
The proposed system, which would go into effect immediately, effectively deputizes hundreds, if not thousands, of key players in the private sector.
...
In a two-page statement issued to "all securities-related entities" nationwide, the SEC asked companies to designate senior personnel who appreciate "the sensitive nature" of the case and can be relied upon to "exercise appropriate discretion" as "point" people linking government investigators and the industry. 17

Michael Ruppert, a former LAPD officer, explains the consequences of this action:
What happens when you deputize someone in a national security or criminal investigation is that you make it illegal for them to disclose publicly what they know. Smart move. In effect, they become government agents and are controlled by government regulations rather than their own conscience. In fact, they can be thrown in jail without a hearing if they talk publicly. I have seen this implied threat time and again with federal investigations, intelligence agents, and even members of the United States Congress who are bound so tightly by secrecy oaths and agreements that they are not even able to disclose criminal activities inside the government for fear of incarceration. 18


these facts are also note explained by the 9/11 commission report.

Perhaps treasury notes were a better option along the line of index futures:

The Wall Street Journal reported on October 2 that the ongoing investigation by the SEC into suspicious stock trades had been joined by a Secret Service probe into an unusually high volume of five-year US Treasury note purchases prior to the attacks. The Treasury note transactions included a single $5 billion trade.

As the Journal explained: “Five-year Treasury notes are among the best investments in the event of a world crisis, especially one that hits the US. The notes are prized for their safety and their backing by the US government, and usually rally when investors flee riskier investments, such as stocks.” The value of these notes, the Journal pointed out, has risen sharply since the events of September 11.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2001/10/bond-o05.html

Well of course you think the debunking is pathetic, it just goes to show that you're biased.

But hey, lets refer to the opinion of Michael Ruppert, former LAPD cop. because it's his opinion thats valuable and "correct".

How many other occassions in the stock market history have their been spikes in "put options"? But one occurs before 911 and it's a conspiracy.

So logically "someone" informed "someone else" in a trading firm that that United and AA planes would crach into the WTC buildings and that "someone else" decided to put "put options" on AA & UAL. ( of course now we 2 groups including Larry Silverstein that have been given the heads up, sheesh just as well that whoever decides to leak these "heads up" that they pick people who can keep their mouths shut and just think about making all of this money off this impending tragedy....)


Now I assume it's not hard to trace who put these "put options" on UAL and AA.

This "someone else' hasn't been questioned or brought to justice or charged or anything. Oh right, silly me, there's a conspiracy to protect this "someone else".
 
If they prosecute someone else with implications of prior knowledge that opens a massive can of worms.

You're right. It shouldn't be hard to trace the source of any of the anomalous trading associated with 9/11. That's why people are critical that it only appeared as a utterly under investigated dismissive footnote in the 9/11 commission report.

I don't know how often AA and UAL had similar discrepancies but I'll bet September 10 was coincidentally one of the biggest.

Not sure what your problem with Ruppert is. He's just explaining a decision he has experience in.
 
Disco08 said:
If they prosecute someone else with implications of prior knowledge that opens a massive can of worms.

You're right. It shouldn't be hard to trace the source of any of the anomalous trading associated with 9/11. That's why people are critical that it only appeared as a utterly under investigated dismissive footnote in the 9/11 commission report.

I don't know how often AA and UAL had similar discrepancies but I'll bet September 10 was coincidentally one of the biggest.

Not sure what your problem with Ruppert is. He's just explaining a decision he has experience in.
So it appears that the transactions were traced back: "A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10."

As per the 911 report.

I googled Mike Ruppert, I thought from your post he was "just a former" LA cop. But he's another conspiracy theorist!: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ruppert
 
Yeah. Anyone that doesn't ascribe to your view is a nutcase. Forget his qualifications and experience because he doesn't buy the official story. Same old story time after time. Are you disputing his explanation of deputization or just dissing him generally?

See the flaw in their reasoning tim?
 
bullus_hit said:
Disco's conspiracy within a conspiracy is a very cunning manouvre indeed, definitely playing for the stalemate. :hihi

Not at all. I'd be ashamed of myself if the best I can do against such irrationality is a draw.