You can't prove it because there is no evidence supporting that "opinion" thus no one is investigating it. Jackie Kennedy was sitting next to JFK when he was shot to death yet she was not investigated for killing her husband. That's how ridiculous your theory is. :doh
Well, it's also so rediculous because nobody is investigating A CLEAR set of insider trading... which is a federal crime, btw. THE 1 (ONE) person mentioned responsible for 95% of the United put options was simply deemed as having 'no conceivable connection to al-qaida'.
However, using your analogy, the 9-11 investigation were similar in that they both started out with a theory ( lone gunman - muslim terrorists) and found the evidence to back up the theory. rather then typical investigative procedures that involve basing hypothesis on evidence.
Why, did those kids pose a threat to him?
"Suggesting"? This points to a huge conspiracy theory. Don't you think some of it would have leaked out by now? I mean, really.
EXACTLY. It's PROVEN that Bush and his handlers that day had the foreknowledge that the school they were at was not going to be attacked. THEN Bush took it further by LYING about it :
a) He lied about seeing the first plane hit
b) He lied about the second plane strike
c) He lied about how he heard of the second plane strike
d) He lied about how he reacted to the plane strike.
This is all 100% proveable.
However, EVEN THOUGH this proves that Bush / secret service handlers had the foreknowledge of the attacks, this DOES NOT make sense, because WHY would Bush SHOW his complicity for all to see in such a way that it's really a case of self-incrimination.... I mean, had he been treated to a 'standard' reaction to the crisis, and whisked away, then you couldn't as easily show Bush as being implicated somehow in the attacks... without it, you end up with Michael Moores demonstrated opinion that Bush was just some dumb redneck dealing with a rough situation.
"A clear sign of guilt"? Can you not think of another reason that money was not collected?
Because insider trading is a federal felony on it's own, that the insider trading implicated the corporations that stood to win / lose on 9-11, shows CLEAR UNDENIABLE evidence of foreknowledge, ESPECIALLY when you consider : the timing, the quantity, the specificity, and the value that such trades represent. (which by the way are the guidelines used by prosecutors in determining if a trade is actually a case of insider trading rather then 'luck'.)
Actually, THIS is something that I agree should be investigated. However, to me it only suggests some people had some very good intel that "something" was going to happen that day. Remember, that lying, treasonist Ashcroft had been flying private jets for awhile based on intel. They knew something. Too bad they didn't care about the American people as much as their own asses. Maybe they could've prevented this attack. THAT is worth looking into.
If there is ANY smoking gun evidence, it's the insider trades. Which really, is ALSO an example of bizare, deliberate self-incrimination. It really should be looked into... because at the very least it demonstrates concrete knowledge of when the attacks would occur, using which airlines, also the WTC insurance companies, and raytheon (a defense contractor) ALL had signs of insider trading leading up to the attacks.
I guess I'm not up on this story.
To sum it up, 5 israelis between the times of the planes striking and the buildings coming down were witnessed 'celebrating and filming' the event at 3 different locations around the city. They were eventually caught, arrested, their film confiscated along with 4000$+ of cash, boxcutters, fake passports, and 'sheikh uniforms'. It turned out that they were Mossad agents whose mission was to 'film the event'... which for some reason they did in such a way as to make a spectacle of themselves and the fact that Mossad also had foreknowledge of the attacks.
It's the 3rd example of bizarre, seemingly deliberate examples of self-incrimination. Without these facts here, anyone even suggesting israeli involvment would quite legitimately be met with accusations of anti-semitism.
If you want more detailed information, I'll search out the relevant links, abc news primarily.
True but, that is not evidence. Again, they clearly took advantage of 9/11, and may have even wanted an attack to happen but, I don't believe they were involved in it. Or should I say that I would think such a thing was too much to think of even for President Cheney.
That's a fair point, but let's look at the 'coincidences' involved in this document, which if you view it as a playbook, essentially covers Bush's presidency.
What was meant by a 'new pearl harbour'... we're talking about suicide planes used as bombs and around 3000 dead. The goal was 'regime change' in Iraq, which was the basis of the justification, which was fraudulently implied while Bush was repeating the lies of 'yellow cake uranium'. Also, what happened in the US, suicide planes used as bombs attacked their targets and killed around 3000 people. Exactly the same psychological impact that was used to justify american involvement in WW2 was used to involve the US in the 'war on terror'.
At the very least, this document SHOWS that it was KNOWN that america was going to be attacked and how.... it does not prove that the government was involved beyond a 'let it happen' sense, but it proves the foreknowledge, in a bizarre, but seemingly deliberate way.
That's simply because Bush & Cheney tried like hell to prevent any investigation into what happened, to protect their asses from being bared as to how incompetent they truly were at ignoring clear warnings. That entire administration should be in jail. Repukes were in control of Congress and also blocked ALL efforts to investigate 9/11. More dishonor on them.
This one I can actually agree with you here... I don't think there was EVER supposed to be an original investigation in the first place, because it took the administration some 400 days to begin the investigations. yes, it's dishonourable showing of the republicans... however, in this case the Dems throw guilt on themselves through their equivalent inaction. Instead, once Bush gave his speech that 'you're either with us or with the terrorists' that it became ABUNDANTLY clear that meant a 'unification' of republican and democrat agenda's, and that if people maintain an opposite viewpoint then they are enemies / terrorists, which as evidence I would point to the way in which Obama took Bush's policies and then ran with them.
Again, I agree Bush covered Saudi asses. He called off the marines when Bin Laden was surrounded yet, the Repukes never thought that was suspicious.
And either did the democrats... But now you can see my overall point of how the evidence works that's truly telling... and that is these cases of 'bizarre, seemingly deliberate examples of self-incrimination', which if you consider that with the 'unification of agenda's' that occured in the wake of 9-11, then you can start to see the wider picture, that it's essentially irrellevant if the towers came down by the heat of jet fuel, or the reaction of nano-thermite on the inner core, because there is enough guilt that can be proven without taking those debateable issues into consideration.
WTF does that have to do with 9/11?
The previous point taken into account, do you STILL believe that the US is in afghanistan for 'democracy and bin laden' or the more lucrative potential that afghanistan has to offer... that being oil pipeline potential and heroin?
Thin connection at best. Or do you think the UN and NATO were also in on the conspiracy?
Guilt AFTER the fact is still a level of complicity. Even if they did nothing towards the attacks themselves, or even don't believe that the US was involved, they are benefiting from that after the fact. If you're dealing with criminals, it helps if you also have a bit of blood on your hands to show the rest your mutual complicity to ensure mutual silence.
BMan, some of your suspicions should be looked into. But, remote control planes, missiles, thermite, etc. have too much evidence against them.
There are different varieties of 'truthers'... there are 'controlled opposition' (people that are paid to offer a rediculous version of a theory as to discredit the whole), 'doubters of authority' that will look to any information that's anti-government and accept it, the minority are the 'legitimate researchers', which I consider myself.
I'm trying to balance all the facts and trying to find the story that is told based on that... So, the reason I COULD accept that the planes had been remote controlled to their targets is because the floors that were hit by the planes would be the exact floors that were seemingly rigged with a nano-thermite.... all that it was needed for was to create a 'drop' of 1-3 floors, so that the top of the building would crash through the rest. Now, because of the 'flawed assumptions' in the NIST reports, the 'thermite' only needed to be in a specific areas of the buildings to allow for that structure to fail as it did... Now, it's POSSIBLE that the hijackers were that skilled, but it seems that someone operating remotely would be less likely to be affected by 'nerves' that might lead to missing the target.
The conspiracy theories may have some light shed on them via Britains hearings and investigations into 9/11. If we pray hard enough, maybe we'll see Cheeney and dubya looking like my avatar yet. :2wave:
I'll believe it when I see it... so far, all I've seen is that any group with any level of 'guilt' has shown an example of their guilt for the world to see (ex: It took 5 years to uncover that BBC and CNN BOTH announced the collapse of WTC7 about 15 minutes BEFORE it collapsed... the point being that it's the person that CALLED IN those reports that are at issue since it was the caller that KNEW that the building HAD NOT collapsed, but ALSO KNEW that the building would IMMINENTLY collapse, not the newscaster that read the news)
I really just want to see justice in this... the only way that we can do this is by having HONEST debate... there's enough guilt that can be proven. I've said many times, there's enough PROOF to show government complicity to the extent of 'letting it happen on purpose'. The final key to prove total orchestration with multinational interests lies in the questions of Osama bin ladens ACTUAL connection to the US government... which during the Russian - Afghan conflict was accomplished through the Pakistani ISI as a proxy, and the nature of that connection from that point up to 9-11 and beyond.
