September 11th: Real or Fraud?

[lesouris]

but some of the things that the "government conspirators" bring up in loose change, (like the silverstein insurance thing) are too coincidental

A documentary, like any other piece of journalism, is only as good as its sources. If the evidence presented does not stand up to scrutiny (see this critical guide to the film, for example), you may still have trouble convincing others of the merits of the conclusions contained within your source. It is not enough simply to have evidence, you must prove that you have good evidence.

[gristle]

(like the silverstein insurance thing) are too coincidental

Do you mean insuring the buildings against terror attacks? You are aware that there was a bombing in the basement of the WTC in 1993 that killed six people and injured over 1,000 others. This bombing was deemed to be a terror attack. The WTC was a symbolic target for such attacks.

Most of the time coincidences are just that: coincidences.

[steveve]

Do you mean insuring the buildings against terror attacks? You are aware that there was a bombing in the basement of the WTC in 1993 that killed six people and injured over 1,000 others. This bombing was deemed to be a terror attack. The WTC was a symbolic target for such attacks.

Most of the time coincidences are just that: coincidences.

i mean the thing about that Silverstein had some insurance deal the week (or month) before the attacks, that would insure him specifically against terrorist attacks...
And also, the fact that some people randomly splurged on Airbus shares the day before, and 9/12 when Boeing shares fell, people made fortunes...
I could be wrong, and this could all be coincidental.... but no one knows for sure...

[gristle]

i mean the thing about that Silverstein had some insurance deal the week (or month) before the attacks, that would insure him specifically against terrorist attacks...
And also, the fact that some people randomly splurged on Airbus shares the day before, and 9/12 when Boeing shares fell, people made fortunes...
I could be wrong, and this could all be coincidental.... but no one knows for sure...

Again, regarding Silverstein, I don't see anything unusual given that he had offices in a building that had been the target of a previous attack. People insure themselves against all types of possibilities. Insurance policies can be quite specific. There is no evidence whatsoever suggesting that he had anything to do with these attacks. This type of weak linkage and its presentation is aimed at doing nothing more than creating the belief that something questionable took place. Otherwise, there is no causal relationship or evidence for such a weak link.

Why would the manufacturer of aircraft have anything to do with this event? You will have to go a long way to show a specific cause and effect with respect to this point. The only difference is that there are more Boeing aircraft in use than Airbus, but even that is meaningless. What is the specific linkage? What you might have forgotten is that both manufacturers experienced significant drops in sales and share price following 9/11, so if you bought those Airbus shares, you were screwed. Funny how that wasn't mentioned.

The items you have raised suggest huge numbers of people involved. Yet in the intervening ten years there has never been any reasonable links, corroborating evidence or a credible conspiracy shown to exist then or now. All there is are the baseless accusations, weak supposed "coincidences" and unsupported and often leading questions.

Why the desire for the existence of some vast conspiracy? Why the automatic disbelief or distrust in the evidence that has been presented? Kamuix has never bothered to answer these types of questions.

[steveve]

I, myself, am getting a little confused about stock trading,
anyway, i found this, not sure if it has anything to do with it though, but interesting nonetheless:

In the week prior to 9/11, an “extraordinary” amount of put options were placed on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks. If you are unfamiliar with the stock market, a put option is financial contract between two parties that will offer the buyer insurance against a company’s excessive loss. Someone who purchases a put option is expecting a stock to drop or they are protecting their assets. Between September 6 and 7, 4,744 put options were purchased on United Airlines stock, compared to 396 call options. On September 10, 4,516 put options were purchased on American Airlines, as compared to 748 call options. The trading activity was 600% above the normal level. United and American Airlines were the only two companies who had planes hijacked on 9/11. There were also an abnormal number of put options purchased in companies who had a stake in the World Trade Centers.

The majority of the suspicious trading was linked to Deutsche Bank Alex Brown. On September 12, 2001, the head of the bank, Mayo A. Shattuck III, resigned from office. The previous director of the bank was A. B. Krongard, who is the former head of the CIA. Citigroup Inc and Morgan Stanley also received an abnormal number of put options, and both companies held offices in the World Trade Centers, and saw a decrease in stock price after the attacks. On September 10, 2001, Raytheon, a defense contractor, had an anomalously high number of call options traded. The Securities and Exchange Commission launched an insider trading investigation, in which Osama Bin Laden was a suspect, but no action was taken. The trading was traced to areas all over the world, with most activity occurring in the UK, Italy, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, France and the US.

In the days prior to 9/11, the Chicago Exchange saw the highest number of United and American Airlines options traded in history. The names of the investors remain a mystery, because they never claimed their money. After it was discovered that a single U.S.-based institutional investor, with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda, purchased a large amount of these options, the 9/11 Commission dismissed the importance of the events. Unfortunately, the abnormal trading did not tip off law enforcement, as intelligence agencies constantly monitor the stock exchange and the sudden rise in activity could have allowed analysts to “connect the dots” and see that a major event was about to take place involving American Airlines, United Airlines and The World Trade Centers. However, nobody could have imagined the scale of the tragedy.
Found Here:
http://listverse.com/2010/08/27/10-e...-september-11/


EDIT: i might be getting Boeing confused with United/American Airlines in the story, i'll have to double check before i say anything further,

[gristle]

What constitutes an "extraordinary" amount of put options? Compared to what? Compared to when? What does any of this prove?

If you or someone else is going to suggest that this is somehow indicative of a possible conspiracy, then certainly much more evidence is necessary before that conclusion can ever be reached. I bet that if you go through the stock history of any airline, you will find patterns of trades like this from time to time that would only look unusual had there been an associated newsworthy event immediately after. Because there is no such subsequent event, similar activity goes unnoticed on almost all other occasions.

[Irishmonk]

The conspiracy theory cottage industry is a waste of time, energy and resources that could be better directed at more important issues at hand such as the necessary overthrow of the ruling plutocracy or inventing a tiny beeper that can be placed on keys or remote controls for when they go missing.

[ceaz40]

I have never been a conspiracy theorist about 9/11. I watched the video Loose Change, and I have to admit I don't accept the "official" story whole-heartedly anymore. I think the "puts" on airline stock and the insurance policy on the WTC seem just a bit too coincidental...but there were other things in the video that disturbed me far more quickly. I have an honours degree in sociology, so I spent a good part of my life studying how people act in group situations. My first, wtf moment was Mark Bingham identifying himself by his full name....to his mother. Assuming that recording is real, I absolutely know for a fact ...that if you are calling your mother for the last time in such a frightening situation...when you call her, you don't waste time saying your last name...she knows you...also, you don't keep repeating "you believe me, don't you". Besides, without question, everyone I have heard call their mother ....says, Hi Mom, it's ME. Mom's know their children's voices better than any other sound in the world. Very weird. Next, Betty Ong.....she wasn't even breathing heavily in the recording.....her supervisor and colleagues had been stabbed....that meant she could easily be next in line. She comments that the plane is all of a sudden flying erratically. If that were the case...put yourself on a flight such as that. I was on a flight to Mexico at Christmas last year. We hit some very sudden and ongoing turbulence that threw the flight attendant up in the air and the cart went as well...almost hitting him. The passengers were VERY audible. I could hear nothing of that nature on the tape of her voice though the plane was supposedly being very erratic (turbulence?). She sounded incredibly composed....too much so...and the passengers were silent (after stabbings and a plane pitching). Interestingly, pilots recognized the call numbers of the "lost" flights after 9/11.....I don't know how aviation people work this sort of thing, but I do know they almost always retire flight numbers etc after a catastrophic loss. I also would like to add something about the Pentagon "crash".....it is very strange that the grass is so intact after an event such as was said to have occurred. I'm sure you have all been to the Airshow. The amazing maneuvers those very highly skilled pilots can perform is astounding. If, in fact, a jet flown at over 500 mph was banked (apparently defies scientific law that a jet could do that without stalling) and flew a few feet off the ground and smashed into the Pentagon in a direct clean hit, without touching the grass....quite frankly, seems absurd! Anyone who thinks it could, must be a helluva a great bowler. Remember, these are supposedly Middle Easterners who took lessons to fly...not take off or land....sorry, but to hit a "strike" like that, you'd have to pretty well have some damn good training in landing as well...because essentially, except for about what looks like a few feet above ground, it was a perfect "strike" (landing). Also, it does not explain why such a narrow gap was "opened up" at the Pentagon from a massive plane ...the wings would have made an impression of some sort on the building ...even if they crushed and disintegrated upon impact. Burn marks?? After all, the official account (which seems completely implausible based on aviation accident history) is that the plane "vapourized". Just my impressions and thoughts....yours?

[steveve]

regarding the Mark Bingham thing... i saw the mother talking about it 2 nights ago... And yes, it can go both ways.
Though I personally, might address myself by full name to my mother, to address the seriousness of what is taking place.....
the point is, he, along with thousands of other people, died on that day...

[gristle]

I have never been a conspiracy theorist about 9/11. I watched the video Loose Change, and I have to admit I don't accept the "official" story whole-heartedly anymore. I think the "puts" on airline stock and the insurance policy on the WTC seem just a bit too coincidental...

Nothing you have mentioned indicates the existence of a government conspiracy. In some instances, you have questions about things that you do not understand, but a question is not indicative of a conspiracy - nor is it even a refutation of the 9/11 Commission report. As for the "coincidences" you have mentioned, have you checked beyond the Loose Change video? Just how coincidental are these actions? Have you been lead to believe that they are anything more than random events that are being drawn together for the purpose of manipulating you into thinking that something else exists?

I absolutely know for a fact ...that if you are calling your mother for the last time in such a frightening situation...when you call her, you don't waste time saying your last name...she knows you...also, you don't keep repeating "you believe me, don't you".

Be careful. What you are saying is that you have absolute knowledge as to how every person reacts in situations of stress. A degree in sociology does not confer you with the capacity to access any form of absolute knowledge. If you believe so, then you would fail any course in epistemology, psychology and sociology of knowledge. You have no such absolute knowledge.

If, in fact, a jet flown at over 500 mph was banked (apparently defies scientific law that a jet could do that without stalling) and flew a few feet off the ground and smashed into the Pentagon in a direct clean hit, without touching the grass....

That's incorrect. The cruising speed of jet-powered passenger aircraft is around 500 mph. Jet aircraft can easily bank at 500 mph and would not stall as you assert. Again, you are asserting the existence of a fact that is not true.

Remember, these are supposedly Middle Easterners who took lessons to fly...not take off or land....sorry, but to hit a "strike" like that, you'd have to pretty well have some damn good training in landing as well...because essentially, except for about what looks like a few feet above ground, it was a perfect "strike" (landing).

Having tried various passenger aircraft simulators, I can assure you that you would be surprised at just how easy it is to provide fine control to these aircraft. They are not designed to be difficult to fly. Your assertion does not prove anything.

Also, it does not explain why such a narrow gap was "opened up" at the Pentagon from a massive plane ...the wings would have made an impression of some sort on the building ...even if they crushed and disintegrated upon impact.

You have failed to explain why this is supposedly anomalous. Most of the aircraft's mass is the fuselage. The wings constitute a significantly smaller amount of the aircraft. The titanium turbine shaft would easily survive the impact and continue to to the inertial force.

After all, the official account (which seems completely implausible based on aviation accident history) is that the plane "vapourized".

The plane was not "vapourized." Direct high speed impacts thoroughly shred airframes, and the ensuing fire from burning fuel will quickly burn with a heat intensity that can melt metal. This is what actual aviation impact histories show, so it's not clear as to how you come to declare otherwise.

[Kamuix]

You're such a child. We're just trying to have a discussion and all you can do is criticize people you can't discuss anything and you're even in denial about that.

[gristle]

You're such a child. We're just trying to have a discussion and all you can do is criticize people you can't discuss anything and you're even in denial about that.

Just the kind of vacuous and pointless response to be expected from you Kamooix.

You still have no evidence to present here. Ten years on, and you can't even scrape up a shred of anything remotely relevant. That's just pathetic. But of course, it's not as pathetic as you lacking the minimal level of backbone to simply admit that you have absolutely nothing to back up your conspiracy claims.

[toronto79c]

President Bush's chief counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke has revealed that the CIA under George Tenet attempted to recruit some of the 9/11 "Al Qaeda" terrorists prior to the attack of September 11, 2001, but that after the attempt failed, Tenet and his senior CIA staff covered up the recruitment effort. These are facts....

[PinkLucy]

Source?
And recruit them for what? To blow up the twin towers? To fake a major tragedy?

[Jamziz]

Don't buy into the conspiracy.

If anything, the events following 9/11 were too much of a clusterfu*ck to have been orchestrated around an "inside job".