financial motives for conspiracy

[maccy]

put options

From the really complicated thread some stuff about put options

They needed a reason for war, I do not know for sure whether they planned them, but if they didn't they certainly allowed them to happen.

This is a skeptics favourite! Its been debunked and then provide no links or evidence for it.

Suspicious trading occurs on the stock of American and United, the two airlines hijacked in the 9/11 attacks. “Between 6 and 7 September, the Chicago Board Options Exchange [sees] purchases of 4,744 put option contracts [a speculation that the stock will go down] in UAL versus 396 call options—where a speculator bets on a price rising. Holders of the put options would [net] a profit of $5 million once the carrier’s share price [dive] after September 11. On September 10, 4,516 put options in American Airlines, the other airline involved in the hijackings, [are] purchased in Chicago. This compares with a mere 748 call options in American purchased that day. Investigators cannot help but notice that no other airlines [see] such trading in their put options.” One analyst later says, “I saw put-call numbers higher than I’ve ever seen in ten years of following the markets, particularly the options markets.” [Associated Press, 9/18/2001; San Francisco Chronicle, 9/19/2001] <--Link doesn't work as I think you have to subscribe!

“To the embarrassment of investigators, it has also [learned] that the firm used to buy many of the ‘put’ options ... on United Airlines stock was headed until 1998 by ‘Buzzy’ Krongard, now executive director of the CIA.” Krongard was chairman of Alex Brown Inc., which was bought by Deutsche Bank. “His last post before resigning to take his senior role in the CIA was to head Bankers Trust—Alex Brown’s private client business, dealing with the accounts and investments of wealthy customers around the world.” [Independent, 10/14/2001] http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article161862.ece

September 6-10, 2001: Suspicious Trading on Stocks of Two Large WTC Tenants The Chicago Board Options Exchange sees suspicious trading on Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley, two of the largest WTC tenants. In the first week of September, an average of 27 put option contracts in its shares are bought each day. Then the total for the three days before the attacks is 2,157. Merrill Lynch, another WTC tenant, see 12,215 put options bought between September 7-10, when the previous days had seen averages of 252 contracts a day. [Independent, 10/14/2001] Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg Business News, speaking of the trading on Morgan Stanley and other companies, says, “This would be one of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind if it was a coincidence.” [ABC News, 9/20/2001]
http://web.archive.org/web/20010928...ons/us/DailyNews/WTC_Investigation010920.html

I would like to hear the debunking of the put options...this will be hilarious!!

Put options:

Yes they were higher than normal just prior to 9/11, I believe the average was about 1000, and they reached upto 4000 prior to 9/11 (I am going off memory here). However, on two other occasions in 2001 the same options reached levels higher than that, and on one occasion (I believe either april or june 2001) they reached 8000. So why no terrorist attack on those occasions?

 

[maccy]

The Military-Industrial Complex and Geopolitics

From one of stundie's many digressions in another thread:

So, there is considerable evidence that the CIA had been warned by umpteen foreign intelligence agencies that Al Q'aeda were planning a major terrorist offensive, with hijacked aircraft, and that Egypt said that they knew of 20 terrorists including Cessna-trained ones, and that all these intelligence clues were missed or ignored.

I'm sorry, but I'm not managing to connect this with the theories supported by the "non-tin-hatters" you cited that a) no plane hit the Pentagon, b) none of the accused hijackers can be found on published lists of people who died, c) the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition immediately after being hit by planes, and d) the whole thing was a put-up-job that happened only because somebody couldn't be bothered to either demolish the buildings conventionally, or couldn't afford to remove the Asbestos, so thought that murdering approximately 200 times as many people as would have suffered from asbestos exposure would be a better way of going about it.

I've never understood why it is the same people who claim that 19 men with boxcutters couldn't have pulled off the world's biggest terrorist outrage, also claim that the Government must have done it because they knew that 19 men were going to hijack planes and fly them into the WTC and the Pentagon (and the White House, let us not forget).

Its a immensly LARGE picture.

Watch Why We Fight. Nothing to do with controlled demolitions or starwars beams, but a great understand of why war is great business for thoses involved.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4924034461280278026&q=why+we+fight

The Power of Nightmares (3 Parts) This tracks the founders of both the Neo Con movement (Leo Strauss) and the man considered the founder of terrorism (Sayyid Qutb) there theories and ideas!
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4924034461280278026&q=why+we+fight

I would also recommened reading The Grand Chessboard - by Zbigniew Brzezinski
http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Chessboard-American-Geostrategic-Imperatives/dp/0465027261

Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance by Noam Chomsky.

http://www.amazon.com/Hegemony-Surv..._bbs_sr_1/104-4527939-0843138?ie=UTF8&s=books

There is plenty of other stuff, but this will help you see the links!

No... Stundie you haven't actually addressed the issue of - were the government complicit because there never were any hijackers, or were they complicit because they ignored the warnings about the actual hijackers?

Linking the careers of two people who would never have met nor agreed with each others' viewpoints (correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Strauss Jewish?) is "argument by baseless smear and innuendo". And I don't even have to look at the video to see that! I think we can safely say that Al Qutb wasn't a neocon!

Big business does well out of war. Big whup. Now provide the proof that 9/11 was caused by the Iraq war instead of the other way round. Demonstrate that Zbigniew Brzezinski promoted the idea of committing the biggest mass murder ever as a good excuse for going to war. Saying "Everything's peaceful and we're not really looking to interfere in the world again, barring another Pearl Harbor", doesn't really cut it. Seriously, the worst thing you can accuse the neocons of on the day of 9/11 was rubbing their hands with glee that their longed-for opportunity had arrived.

But to get back to my first point - either there never were hijackers, or the government didn't do anything about the hijackers. Seems to me the only people who didn't know about these 20 hijackers (including the sacked Moussaoui) were the United States Government!

Again...You would not make the link because you have EDUCATED yourself.....

The war on terror is a war between Neoconservatives and Islam. Islamists and the Neocons are, in reality, soul mates!

They both believe that the problem with modern society is that individuals who question anything have already torn down God, that eventually they will tear down everything else and therefore they will have to be opposed.

The Egyptian literary critic (Considered to be the founder of Islamic Fundamentalism) Sayyid Qutb attended graduate school in Greeley, Colorado in 1949.

It was Qutb's encounter with the United States that helped turn him into the Lenin of the radical Islamists. One summer night, the puritanical Qutb went to a dance at a local church hall. The idea that a house of worship playing a secular love song crystallized Qutb's sense that Americans were deeply corrupt and interested only in invidualism and self-gratification.

On his return to Egypt, Qutb joined the Muslim Brotherhood and was arrested on Gamal Abdel Nasser orders in 1954 for supposedly plotting a revolution. Qutb was then subjected to the most dreadful tortures which he survived, but the torture had a powerful, radicalizing effect on his ideas. Qutb argued that Egypt's secular nationalist government was presiding over a country mired in a state of pre-Islamic barbarity known as jahiliyyah and that the government should be overthrown.

Qutb was executed in 1966, but he would profoundly influence a teenager named Ayman al-Zawahiri, (Osama Bin Ladens Mentor)who set up a jihadist cell dedicated to the Qutbian theory that Egyptian government officials were apostates from Islam and therefore deserved death.

Political philosopher Leo Strauss who shared the same fears about the destructive influence of individualism in America as Qutb, was telling his students, many of whom went on to influential careers in politics, (Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld) that liberalism was fatally weakening the US body politic and sapping Americans will to defend "freedom." Intellectuals, he believed, would have to spread an ideology of good and evil, whether they believed it or not, so that the American people could be mobilized against the enemies of freedom.

The ancient philosophers whom Strauss most cherished believed that the unwashed masses were not fit for either truth or liberty, and that giving them these sublime treasures would be like throwing pearls before swine.

A fundamental belief of Strauss has to do with their insistence on the need for secrecy and the necessity of lies. Strauss argues that the wise must conceal their views for two reasons. To spare the peoples feelings and to protect the elite from possible reprisals.

The effect of his teaching is to convince his acolytes that they are the natural ruling elite and the persecuted few. It does not take much intelligence for them to surmise that they are in a situation of great danger, especially in a world devoted to the modern ideas of equal rights and freedoms.

Strauss was not as hostile to democracy as he was to liberalism. This is because he recognises that the vulgar masses have numbers on their side, and the sheer power of numbers cannot be completely ignored.

WHATEVER can be done to bring the masses along is legitimate. If you can use democracy to turn the masses against their own liberty, this is a great triumph. It is the sort of tactic that neo-conservatives use consistently, and in some cases very successfully.

Neoconservatives in the American foreign policy establishment have vastly exaggerated those threats in their quest to remake the world in the image of the United States. Neoconservatives were willing to look past the flaws of anyone willing to confront America's enemy such as the fanatical Islamist Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whose party received at least $600 million in US aid to fight the Soviets in the 1980s.

After the cold war and the collapse of Russia and communism. The Neo-cons needed a new enemey. They believed that by having a common enemy, they would unite Americans together and if they became scared of that threat, then the people would rely on the goverment to protect them, so much so that they would give up there liberties in order for security and safety.

I could go on....but watch the documentary before you judge and the evidence it presents.

Sorry another thing, I am not your TEACHER, it is upto you how you want to educate yourself of foreign policies, the miltary/industrial complex which keeps us in Iraq.

If you are prepared to look deeper & watch these documentarys and read books along this line you will get the bigger picture. I'm not here to give you the answers....there upto you to find!!

To

"War is good for business" is utter nonsense. Drop by your local university and ask any economics or history professor. Sorry they don't do google videos.

stundie, you started so well, and now you've descended to the tactics every single conspiracy theorist takes. You ignore the points that you cannot answer, and attack my level of education, a level of education I thought I'd pretty much demonstrated without necessarily ramming down your throat. Did I not already know who Strauss, Al Qutb and Brzezinski were? And some of what they wrote? It's not fair to expect people to attack my level of knowledge without demonstrating it, but I don't expect people to attack my level of knowledge when I have.

Perhaps you'd like to explain to me where I'm supposed to learn about how MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE EVENTS can actually happen.

Now. For the last time. Don't throw any ad hominems. Don't make assumptions about my level of education in these matters. DO READ WHAT IT IS I'M ASKING YOU AND ANSWER THE QUESTION.

I can't educate myself about what you think by reading Brzezinski's book, can I?

So. For the last time.

Which is it? Did the Government demolish the buildings and fake the attacks, or did they ignore the warnings about the real hijackers?

In your opinion.

How is asking you too look at the evidence yourself a tactic by conspiracy theorists? I can only give you my opinion, but you can form your own opinions by looking into all the corners!

.......Then you said.....



You said in the previous post you were not aware of the links between Strauss and Qutb, so don't blame me for showing you the links. I'm not attacking you education, I'm attacking the fact you are not willing to look further!



I'm not questioning your education. You can educate yourself about how Americas quest for global dominance plays a part in everyones life and may other things, please read it as I haven't got the time to go over EVERY SINGLE point.



You asking me for answers to questions I do not know?

I do not know for sure whether the goverment staged the attacks or IF they were complicite in them, that is something which you form, but one thing for sure is they KNEW it was going to happen.

You said you do not understand the links on why or how the goverment is complicite in this, I could answer but it will take hours of my time and of course it my opinion.

Another person who has never heard of the Military/Industrail complex!

Ask your local university or economics/history professor about that?

It would likely surprise you to know that the military industrial complex is a rather tiny part of the American or the global economy. Great Britain discovered the debilitating effects of war on the economy in the late 18th century and developed the political idea of "appeasement" (yes another surprise for many, it was not a phenomena of the 1930s). War would destroy 4 empires in WWI. The Iraq war has once again demonstrated this fact, or have you not checked you nation's current debt load?

My own degrees are in history, I know of not a single professor who ever taught me that would agree with "war is good for business", including the MI complex. They much prefer the threat of war.

Save me your Schoolhouse Rock level history and go ahead and ask a phd.


One quick addition since I am educating you. "History is written by the winners" is also nonsense.

War is good for business if you happen to sell arms to one (or both) of the involved parties, and aren't otherwise involved yourself.

Otherwise, not much so.

 

[maccy]

asbestos, again, amd more put options

From our old friend stundie on another thread:

2nd Lie.

2) As has been mentioned, the asbestos fire protection in the north tower was only applied to less than half that building. In fact, it only went to the 38th floor.

Gravy is wrong again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos

Scott Bass suggests that the World Trade Center towers could still be standing or at least would have stood for longer had a 1971 ban not stopped the completion of the asbestos coating above the 64th floor.[20] This was not mentioned in the National Institute of Standards and Technology's report on the Towers' collapse.

www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/0111/msg00258.html
For more proof off that lie.

So Gravy has been around here a long time and is definitely an independent thinker, having amassed a great deal of information….Should that be MISINFORMATION.

You guys always use the “it’s been debunked”, “look through the threads.” Yet you seem to be prepared to lie in order that it fits your version of events.

The funniest thing in here, I've said that WTC is a white elephant, yet someone says it's not and that it was profitable. Yet...

George Pataki became governor of New York in 1995 on a campaign of cutting costs including privatizing the World Trade Center. A sale of the property was considered too complex, so it was decided by the Port Authority to open a 99-year lease to competitive bidding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

So if it was that profitable for the Port Authority, how comes George Pataki was privatising it in a cost cutting exercise?

If the WTC was that profitable...Why did the Port Authority give them a 99 Year lease?? I could go on..but thats another point and another thread...anyway....

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To the embarrassment of investigators, it has also [learned] that the firm used to buy many of the ‘put’ options ... on United Airlines stock was headed until 1998 by ‘Buzzy’ Krongard, now executive director of the CIA.” Krongard was chairman of Alex Brown Inc., which was bought by Deutsche Bank. “His last post before resigning to take his senior role in the CIA was to head Bankers Trust—Alex Brown’s private client business, dealing with the accounts and investments of wealthy customers around the world.”
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article161862.ece

 

[Bell]

Well, since maccy mentioned the asbestos (see post title) I'm going to repost an earlier post by me. I don't think I got an answer by the nutters the first time...

re: the asbestos

The asbestos had to be removed from the towers because of? Health hazards I guess. It would have cost a lot of money to remove it, and create a safe enviroment. But... how is blowing up the asbestos all over lower Manhattan a better solution than removing and discarding it from the towers?

 

[maccy]

some responses to stundie

here are some responses to stundie on the subject of asbestos, from the other thread - they don't include quotes, so they make more sense if you click the arrow to go to the original post

Gravy was quoting NIST.

Cherry-picking. Here are some quotes from your Vanderbilt link:

Here's a link to the Milloy piece, which the wikipedia article is using as its source:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34342,00.html

More from the Vanderbilt link:

More:

All bolding mine.

Surely someone is spreading misinformation. Whether or not it's deliberate is a separate question.

We have three figures here. 64, 40, and 38. How do we go about discovering which one is correct? The most suspect number is 64, given its dubious source. The first step I would take is to look up the Glanz/Revkin NY Times article and the NIST report and see what sources they used to get those numbers. Why don't you take a stab at it and tell us what you find out.

Stundie, have you looked any further into these discrepant numbers?

Do you still think Gravy was lying about this?

Not sure too be honest, this is where misinformation goes a little wild. The thing is that Gravy lied to about Cheney and Minetas testimony to fit his agenda. His evidence didn't match mine but it's not the point whether it had Asbestos on 38th or 68th Floor or any other floor.

The point was the Port Authority lost a 10 year court battle with insurance companies to fund the abatement program. Which would have cost $600 million to do.

He said the Asbestos was safe and I agree, then he went on to say that any time an office was emptied that they would remove the asbestos but my point was that it wouldn't need to be removed if it ws safe.

I pointed out that if the building was ever to be demolished. The asbestos would have to be removed before demolition as it would be unsafe, so there would be a $600 Million bill before the cost of the demolition.

So like I said, I'm not 100% sure but I would suggest that my figure is more accurate, although as I've said before, i'm always open to new evidence that would change my opinion.

But once again you're ignoring the fact that that $600 million figure was for every building they owned, not just the WTC. Ignoring such facts doens't make us inclined to accept anything else you say. For someone who harps on about others alleged "lies", you're doing an awful lot of fact fudging yourself.




He also said that it was removed at the request of the new tenants. There's been so much hype about the dangers of asbestos that, unfounded or not, a lot of organizations don't want to have anything to do with it, for fear of being sued.

Have you ever bought a house? Asbestos was one issue that came up during the inspection of the house I bought a few years back. Why wouldn't it be an issue in these cases?

Take a look around at the rest of the JREF topics, and you'll quite quickly find that there are a lot of people who react to things without any consideration for the science behind it all. This is no different.

ETA: See what Gravy said here, in case you missed it.

Then I would have to ask: Why?

The source you provided (wikipedia) referenced an article by someone who "did not check his writing with [people he quoted] for accuracy of fact", who quoted the president, since deceased, of a company that had nothing to do with the asbestos in the WTC as a primary expert supporting his argument, and who did not contact U.S. Mineral Products, ALCOA, the Port Authority, or, apparently, anyone connected with the buildings' construction.

On what basis do you conclude that your figure, based on this highly dubious source, is more accurate than the NIST figure? NIST was in contact with everyone they could find who was involved in the buildings' construction.

False. Remedial reading class continues. Cross-referenced records show that Cheney was in the tunnel when Lynne arrived at 9:52. From there they moved to the PEOC conference room, arriving between 9:55 and 10:00. See footnote 213 to Chapter 1 of the 9/11 Commission report.

How can you question the official version if you don't know what it is? I've asked you to to read the 9/11 Commission report. You haven't done so.

Yes, there is a very important point. You don't know how to use reliable sources.

Remedial reading class continues. $600 million was the Port Authority's projected cost of all asbestos abatement projects at all of their properties. The Port Authority has over 1000 properties.

Remedial reading class continues. The court and NIST said that, not me. I gave you the quotes.

Remedial reading class continues. $600 million was the Port Authority's projected cost of all asbestos abatement projects at all of their properties. The Port Authority has over 1000 properties. If this sounds familiar, it's because it's the fourth time I've said it.

Remedial reading class continues. You've been given the evidence. Please present your evidence that shows the courts and NIST to be wrong.

 

[maccy]

Rumsfeld's "missing trillions"

Again, raised in another thread:

Yes, the "too many coincidences" argument is garbage, not least because you can argue just about anything is a "coincidence", if you want to see things that way.

The ISI chief being in Washington on 9/11 is one major "coincidence", for instance. But he'd been there since the 4th, so any of those preceding days would have been just as coincidental. And then Porter Goss and others had been in Pakistan towards the end of July, if I remember correctly, so an attack between then and the fourth would have been "an amazing coincidence" -- "they go to Pakistan, an attack occurs, Ahmad arrives in Washington days later -- what are the odds of that?". Etc etc.

Flight 77 and the Pentagon is another one.
The plane didn't crash into Rumsfelds office, when he was in the building -- too much of a coincidence!
But if, say, Rumsfeld was away from the Pentagon at the time we'd be told THAT was an astounding coincidence.
And if Rumsfeld was in his office, and Flight 77 hit that area of the building, and he was killed, doubtless we'd now be told this was a deliberate act because he was "about to go public on the Pentagon's missing trillions", as picking that exact point was just "too much of a coincidence" to be believed.

and the day after was Sept 11th 2001. What a great day for burying bad news like the Pentagons Missing Trillions (Still not accounted for!)

I suppose you'll defend Rumsfeld missing trillions as a oversight?

I'd love to hear how you lose or miss trillions of dollars!! hahahahaha!!

You guys just clutch at straws in desperation to defend your argument!!

You seem to be setting us up for a "False Choice" logical fallacy, namely "either Rumsfeld balanced his books or 9/11 Was An Inside Job^TM".

Nobody here even considers financial mismanagement at the Pentagon a necessarily related event to Sept. 11th, and for good reason -- nobody has shown that there is a correlation. So no, nobody here is about to defend Rumsfeld. That's a topic for the Politics subforum.


You have this precisely backwards. It is completely reasonable and self-consistent, indeed agrees with the observable evidence at cursory inspection, that four teams of extremist highjackers carried out the Sept. 11th attacks. The same cannot be said for the conspiracists' position -- not least because there apparently is no self-consistent conspiracy theory. I refer you to this thread if you disagree.

Therefore, we need make nor defend no argument. But we keenly await one from the opposition. Their claim, their burden of proof.

Do you really believe that the pentagon is capable of secretly staging the 9/11 attacks in order to cover up its terrible accounting? If somebody can blow the whistles on trillions of dollars not being accounted for without being killed or otherwise silenced what does that say about the efficiency of the pentagon? If the USG is so powerful why is there accounting so screwed up? You'd think they'd be able to fake accounts if they were spending the money on something nefarious.

Also, let's assume the estimate of $2.1 trillion dollars is correct - what makes you think that it was Rumsfeld that "lost" this money and suddenly had to cover it up? $2.1 trillion doesn't disappear over the course of a few months... The defence budget would have been about $300 billion in 2001, if we assume it was the same level in previous years (which it wouldn't have been) and that the entire budget wasn't accounted for it would take 7 years to "lose" $2.1 trillion. I think we can at least duble the time period for these suspected failures of account to 14 years and I suspect that the allegations of money lost go over an even longer period (it'd be interesting to see a source for this if someone can find one).

Also, if 9/11 was supposed to distract from this, why was it still being addressed by the government in 2003?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/18/MN251738.DTL

 

[stundie]

Recommended viewing...

What are the neocon agendas?

Hi Oliver,

Excuse me for ignoring your other questions, but this is one of great significance.

I would highly reccommend you watch The Power Of Nightmares. This highlights the Neocon and Islamic Fundamentalist movements & agendas.

It was aired on the BBC here in the UK last year but you can now watch it on google Video. Here is part 1 of 3!

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7815944823333801032&q=power+of+nightmares

Here is a brief summation about part 1.

The war on terror is a war between Neoconservatives and Islam. Islamists and the Neocons are, in reality, soul mates! They both believe that the problem with modern society is that individuals who question anything have already torn down God, that eventually they will tear down everything else and therefore they will have to be opposed.

The Egyptian literary critic (Considered to be the founder of Islamic Fundamentalism) Sayyid Qutb attended graduate school in Greeley, Colorado in 1949.

It was Qutb's encounter with the United States that helped turn him into the Lenin of the radical Islamists. One summer night, the puritanical Qutb went to a dance at a local church hall. The idea that a house of worship playing a secular love song crystallized Qutb's sense that Americans were deeply corrupt and interested only in invidualism and self-gratification.

On his return to Egypt, Qutb joined the Muslim Brotherhood and was arrested on Gamal Abdel Nasser orders in 1954 for supposedly plotting a revolution. Qutb was then subjected to the most dreadful tortures which he survived, but the torture had a powerful, radicalizing effect on his ideas. Qutb argued that Egypt's secular nationalist government was presiding over a country mired in a state of pre-Islamic barbarity known as jahiliyyah and that the government should be overthrown.

Qutb was executed in 1966, but he would profoundly influence a teenager named Ayman al-Zawahiri, (Osama Bin Ladens Mentor)who set up a jihadist cell dedicated to the Qutbian theory that Egyptian government officials were apostates from Islam and therefore deserved death.

Political philosopher Leo Strauss who shared the same fears about the destructive influence of individualism in America as Qutb, was telling his students, many of whom went on to influential careers in politics, Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld) that liberalism was fatally weakening the US body politic and sapping Americans will to defend "freedom." Intellectuals, he believed, would have to spread an ideology of good and evil, whether they believed it or not, so that the American people could be mobilized against the enemies of freedom.

The ancient philosophers whom Strauss most cherished believed that the unwashed masses were not fit for either truth or liberty, and that giving them these sublime treasures would be like throwing pearls before swine.

A fundamental belief of Strauss has to do with their insistence on the need for secrecy and the necessity of lies. Strauss argues that the wise must conceal their views for two reasons. To spare the peoples feelings and to protect the elite from possible reprisals.

The effect of his teaching is to convince his acolytes that they are the natural ruling elite and the persecuted few. It does not take much intelligence for them to surmise that they are in a situation of great danger, especially in a world devoted to the modern ideas of equal rights and freedoms.

Strauss was not as hostile to democracy as he was to liberalism. This is because he recognises that the vulgar masses have numbers on their side, and the sheer power of numbers cannot be completely ignored.

WHATEVER can be done to bring the masses along is legitimate. If you can use democracy to turn the masses against their own liberty, this is a great triumph. It is the sort of tactic that neo-conservatives use consistently, and in some cases very successfully.

Neoconservatives in the American foreign policy establishment have vastly exaggerated those threats in their quest to remake the world in the image of the United States. Neoconservatives were willing to look past the flaws of anyone willing to confront America's enemy such as the fanatical Islamist Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whose party received at least $600 million in US aid to fight the Soviets in the 1980s.

After the cold war and the collapse of Russia and communism. The Neo-cons needed a new enemey. They believed that by having a common enemy, they would unite Americans together and if they became scared of that threat, then the people would rely on the goverment to protect them, so much so that they would give up there liberties in order for security and safety.


Hope this helps and enjoy.

 

[PerryLogan]

"The Neo-cons needed a new enemey. They believed that by having a common enemy, they would unite Americans together and if they became scared of that threat, then the people would rely on the goverment to protect them, so much so that they would give up there liberties in order for security and safety."

If this were true, the neocons would be demonizing Osama bin Laden like crazy, the better to strike fear in our hearts and make us obedient.

But they're not demonizing Osama at all. They sound bored when they talk about him, and they're not much pursuing him. History seems to contradict your theory. Maybe you should contact the neocons and remind them what they're up to.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Stundie, have you looked any further into these discrepant numbers?

Do you still think Gravy was lying about this?

Not sure too be honest, this is where misinformation goes a little wild. The thing is that Gravy lied to about Cheney and Minetas testimony to fit his agenda. His evidence didn't match mine but it's not the point whether it had Asbestos on 38th or 68th Floor or any other floor.

The point was the Port Authority lost a 10 year court battle with insurance companies to fund the abatement program. Which would have cost $600 million to do.

He said the Asbestos was safe and I agree, then he went on to say that any time an office was emptied that they would remove the asbestos but my point was that it wouldn't need to be removed if it ws safe.

I pointed out that if the building was ever to be demolished. The asbestos would have to be removed before demolition as it would be unsafe, so there would be a $600 Million bill before the cost of the demolition.

So like I said, I'm not 100% sure but I would suggest that my figure is more accurate, although as I've said before, i'm always open to new evidence that would change my opinion.

Then I would have to ask: Why?

The source you provided (wikipedia) referenced an article by someone who "did not check his writing with [people he quoted] for accuracy of fact", who quoted the president, since deceased, of a company that had nothing to do with the asbestos in the WTC as a primary expert supporting his argument, and who did not contact U.S. Mineral Products, ALCOA, the Port Authority, or, apparently, anyone connected with the buildings' construction.

On what basis do you conclude that your figure, based on this highly dubious source, is more accurate than the NIST figure? NIST was in contact with everyone they could find who was involved in the buildings' construction.

Stundie, I realize this is a minor point to the overall argument about 9/11 as an Inside Job, but it speaks directly to your ability to evaluate your sources and determine what is information and what is misinformation. Without a solid, practiced grounding in this skill, I'm afraid your search for answers will have little chance of leading you to the truth.

Evaluating the accuracy of information and the reliability of its sources is what we do best. If you're looking to strengthen this skill, you've come to the right place.

 

[Horatius]

If you're looking to strengthen this skill, you've come to the right place.

"If".

 

[chipmunk stew]

What I think you mean to say is:

"If".

 

[Horatius]

Perhaps Laconic isn't the right language for this thread.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Perhaps Laconic isn't the right language for this thread.

Well, I'm not yet convinced that English is having much effect, so it's worth a shot.

 

[maccy]

Again, from another thread:

So it's too much trouble to plant WMDs but it isn't too much trouble to stage a false flag scheme by controlled demolition of 3 builinings, the staged hijacking of 4 planes, te staged attack on the pentagon and the faked crash of flight 93?

Of course it is, you have to have WMD in the 1st place, then you have get it too Iraq of course to plant it, then you have investigate it.

As for a flase flag operation, I'm not sure if the goverment has full complancey in these attacks, maybe they knew they were happening and let or assisted in order to push there agenda. I do not know hence the reason I fully support a new investigation because the 9/11 Commission is full of gaping holes and omissions.

Then when you add up the facts like the Bush family were involved in the security at both WTC, Silversteins insurance. Scott Forbes and William Rodriguez who both worked at WTC gave strange accounts things happen in the weeks leading upto 9/11, plus lots of other evidence I could point too but it would be going of the thread...lol.....I think there is pretty strong case for a false flag operation, some of the people involved do not have to be aware they are involved. Until we get a full independent investigation, we will never truly know.

Also, what does the US gain from invading Afghanistan?

Some say it was to stop Russia, Iran and China to control their own resources and their pipelines. Some say The Bush-Cheney administration was 'advised' by the USA oil industry and industrial military complex to make a long war to militarise the area, and therefore always have an excuse to fight whomever it arms! But these are just theories and again I do not want to get into a discussion because we are going off the thread.

I'm guessing, from the way you phrased this, that you aren't an American.

I'm British, not that this should make an ounce of difference.

What makes you think you know what Americans would or wouldn't accept?

Because if you start a war and risk the lives of your country men for a war without justification, then the people will not support it. People would be dying on both sides?? For what exactly?? Nothing...Would you give your life to your country for nothing??

Besides, fighting a country for no justifcation unless you are defending yourselves could be classed as either an invasion (If you occupy) or an cleasning program (because you are killing people from another country for no justification)

I'm not an american, but I know that anyone from a Western country who believes in peace (Which most people do) would not support a war, unless there was some reason for it? i.e America being attacked, defending another nation etc..etc.

Hold on, you're seriously saying that demolishing the towers, killing thousands of your own citizens and then covering up a massive consipiricy is harder than just dropping off a few nukes in Iraq for the inspectors to find? Your own inspectors (by that time) at that?

Really?

Yes, but I'm not going to go into the reasons why as we will lose track of this thread which is NIST V PM.

Where do you get the WMD from to plant in Iraq. WMD doesn't grow on trees.

Iraq airspace was being watched by USA, France and the UK, (Maybe others but I'm not sure) So they would have to sneak it past these countries too.

Then other questions would be asked like where did Saddam get his WMD from? How do you just plant WMD and say he has got it without finding out HOW he got it? I suppose they could use the Niger Yellow Cake claim that Joe Wilson debunked.

Not sure if you are aware but WMD take years to build especially Nuclear ones which require enriched uranium, so it's not something you can do overnight.

The attacks on 9/11 were used as a justification for war, which the Bush/Cheney admin wanted for reasons I could go into but I'll be going off the thread again.

Sure, I understand it's not especially easy to do. But I don't know how you can argue that they didn't plant WMD because it was a bit tricky whilst simultaneously arguing for 9/11 as an inside job.

9/11 was never the original reason for going to war, it was a CYA excuse used only by some in the bush admin and certain sections of the right wing media (namely fox news) after the debacle of finding that the claims about wmd were incorrect.

And even then they failed to prove any reliable link between the saddam regime and AQ.

So it was then left to jokers such as santorum to trumpet the finding of some ancient mustard gas shells a few months a go. A find which was already known about and which was roundly ignored by the mainstream news media because they knew it to be what it was: crap

And the woowoos then wonder why the mainstream media doesn't give airtime to their claims.

Think about it.

 

[maccy]

There's a thread just started over in LooseChangeland about what the US got from the invasion of Iraq:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1193

The Afghan pipeline gets some mention as an oil pipeline - not mention of gas at all. Drugs is another reason for invading, apparently.

This, however, is my favourite bonkers analysis from that thread:

This has Everything to do with World War 3.
Why has 3/4 of the US Naval fleet gathered at the Mediterranean and the persian gulf?
Why is the US Surrounded by Chinese and Russian nucleair Subs?
Why are there Hundreds of FEMA Camps being built in the USA?
Why aren't they publishing anything the Iranian president sais about bush, 911 and the iraq war on Fox news or CNN?
Why are they doing everything they can to make iran Look bad.
Why do you think the US invaded Afghanistan and iraq, just take a look at the World map and take a close look at the Middle east.
the ONLY arabic countries left that have some military power are Iran and Syria.
The other ones are under Westren Controll.
How will china react when the US invades Iran?

u want motives?

Just think, What would happen if the US'd nuke Iran? WW3, Billions of ppl Dead.
We all know that the NWO wants World Domination.
What is easier to controll > 6 Billion people or 6 hundred Million People?


IT--

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1193&view=findpost&p=9678565

 

[uk_dave]

There's a thread just started over in LooseChangeland about what the US got from the invasion of Iraq:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1193

The Afghan pipeline gets some mention as an oil pipeline - not mention of gas at all. Drugs is another reason for invading, apparently.

This, however, is my favourite bonkers analysis from that thread:



http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1193&view=findpost&p=9678565

I often wish we could swear freely on this forum, because much of what is reported here from woowooland is worthy of several extreme expletives.

Oh well, I'll just have to go back to torturing the hamster

 

[Horatius]

What I think you mean to say is:

Now I get it. My browser at work doesn't display different fonts for some reason......

 

[chipmunk stew]

I often wish we could swear freely on this forum, because much of what is reported here from woowooland is worthy of several extreme expletives.

Oh well, I'll just have to go back to torturing the hamster

The software will edit it out for you. Go for it! It'll make you feel better. (And save that poor hamster! )

Watch:

These stupid mother****ing **********s can sniff my dog's **** and eat a big fat **** sandwich!!!

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

5. put options - do they really tell us anything?

The options weren't ever exercised, so the buyers actually lost money.

7. financial benefits of invading Iraq?

2 problems with this one:
1) Assumes that the US couldn't have invaded Iraq without 9/11. IIRC, the main reason the Shrub Admin. claimed for invading Iraq was the supposed WMDs. I don't remember seeing any poll that claimed that the majority of Americans believed that Iraq was involved in 9/11 (though I could be wrong).
2) Assumes that the reason for wanting control of Iraq's oil would be profits for oil companies. In fact, the main reason would be to use oil as leverage against China. This summer's high gasoline prices show that oil companies can increase profits without controlling the source of oil.

 

[Darth Rotor]

1. This has Everything to do with World War 3.
2. Why has 3/4 of the US Naval fleet gathered at the Mediterranean and the persian gulf?
3. Why is the US Surrounded by Chinese and Russian nucleair Subs?
4. Why are there Hundreds of FEMA Camps being built in the USA?
5. Why aren't they publishing anything the Iranian president sais about bush,
6. 911 and the iraq war on Fox news or CNN?
7. Why are they doing everything they can to make iran Look bad.
8. Why do you think the US invaded Afghanistan and iraq, just take a look at the World map and take a close look at the Middle east. the ONLY arabic countries left that have some military power are Iran and Syria.
9. The other ones are under Westren Controll.
10. How will china react when the US invades Iran?
    u want motives?
11. Just think, What would happen if the US'd nuke Iran? WW3, Billions of ppl Dead.
12. We all know that the NWO wants World Domination.
13. What is easier to controll > 6 Billion people or 6 hundred Million People?

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1193&view=findpost&p=9678565

Feel free to C & P this in response to the LC moron, I won't dirty my hands with opening their forum. Or, take what you need from this, add some mockery, and go for it.

1. WW III disrupts business, disrupting business loses money, NWO are greedy international financiers, losing money is not in their interest, WW III is
not in their interest.

2. 3/4 of the US Navy is not in the PG and Med. As of today, the US Nvy has, in Ships and Submarines, a Deployable Battle Force of 278 Ships ( http://www.navy.mil/navydata/navy_legacy.asp?id=146)
Ships Underway (away from homeport): 98 ships (35% of total)
On deployment: 93 ships (33% of total)
35% =/= 3/4ths, nor does 33%, go back to grade school.

3. No such thing as a nucleair sub, and the US is surrounded by two oceans, neither of which is filled by Russian Nuclear subs (most of them not seaworthy) now Chinese (the tend to operate in the Western Pacific, not the Eastern Pacific)

4. FEMA camps being built in the US seem to be aimed at housing illegal immigrants who DHS will soon arrest. I also have a bridge for sale.

5. Who is "they?" I have read plenty of Mahmoud's utterances in US and foreign press releases over the last six months. What is your problem? Sesame Street press not covering Mahmoud's Mutterings?

6. Fox, CNN can't stop talking about Iraq and Mahmoud. Are you sure you are able to get any other channel than cartoon network?

7. Iran has been looking bad in the US since 1979. Hostage deal. Their PR efforts to polish their image have, so far, sucked. So, they still look like crap.

8. So what? Iran is a mid sized power who one should not take lightly. How is the armed status of Arabs of any real concenr, since you follow with the observation that most are puppets of the West, your point 9.

9. This is news how? The small emirates owe their status and borders to the Brits.

10. When the US invades Iran? With what Army? If the US does something that dumb, I'd guess China spends a few weeks taking over Taiwan by force, because they can. Or, just laughing at how stupid the US is.

11. If the US Nuked Iran, why would that start WW III? China hardly cares, and the Russians are targeted. They aren't shooting any time soon. We have had a hotline with them since 1962.

12. The NWO wants world domination. So too do the Pro Caliphate Islamists. So too the Chinese. (So do I, though I don't have the leverage to get it.) So what?

13. Controlling six billion is more ego gratifying than one tenth of that number to megalomaniacs, and a global economy of six billion makes for more money, due to a higher volume of international trade, for the greedy international financiers. Economies of scale are what make mega bucks. Read your own propaganda on the NWO, at least.

As of 28 Nov 2006, and FWIW, the variety of places the US Fleet has ships at sea, with the notable exception of submarines (the silent service).

USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) - South China Sea
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) - Arabian Sea

Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG):
USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Nashville (LPD 13) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41) - Atlantic Ocean

Boxer Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG):
USS Boxer (LHD 4) - Persian Gulf
USS Dubuque (LPD 8) - Persian Gulf
USS Comstock (LSD 45) - Persian Gulf

Essex Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG):
USS Essex (LHD 2) - port visit, Okinawa, Japan

Amphibious Warfare Ships:
USS Tarawa (LHA 1) - Pacific Ocean
USS Saipan (LHA 2) - Gulf of Aden
USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) - Pacific Ocean
USS Shreveport (LPD 12) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Trenton (LPD 14) - Atlantic Ocean
USS San Antonio (LPD 17) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Gunston Hall (LSD 44) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Ashland (LSD 48) - port visit Rota, Spain
USS Oak Hill (LSD 51) - Atlantic Ocean
USS Pearl Harbor (LSD 52) - Pacific Ocean