About this "Critics Corner"

[chipmunk stew]

I admire Jewish tenacity and intelligence, and I admire the determination and work ethic that created Israel

Do you also admire Black athleticism and rhythm?

[MiniMauve]

It was an illustration of my point about being able to admire a people while also disagreeing with the choice they made, chipmunk. This cheap shot is unbecoming of you. I suppose it's easier to tarnish me a racist than admit I have a point.

[lostpomme]

All people have a right to self governance and a homeland (like say the dead native Americans for instance) If Zionism ended there I'd defend it with even more vigour than you (well, maybe).
Unfortunately the pursuit of a homeland isnt what upsets people, its the removal of other peoples homeland which must ensue to reach that goal. And since not any old homeland will do then its just tough luck for those who have been there for generations. This in your mind is fair. This in my mind is not fair. Neither of us will ever change our mind. Lets just leave it at that.
Not all Jews believe that the establisment of a homeland is worth the blood being spilled, and i tend to agree.

That last point is a valid position to take. Your assessment of who took what land from whom is a bit more complicated than your simplistic analysis, though. I suggest you inform yourself about the history of Palestine (which has never been a state, btw) and consider what it really means to be Palestinian before you make a summary judgment. This is a pretty good brief timeline:
http://www.palestinehistory.com/history.htm

All people have a right to self governance and a homeland (like say the dead native Americans for instance) If Zionism ended there I'd defend it with even more vigour than you (well, maybe).
Unfortunately the pursuit of a homeland isnt what upsets people, its the removal of other peoples homeland which must ensue to reach that goal. And since not any old homeland will do then its just tough luck for those who have been there for generations. This in your mind is fair. This in my mind is not fair. Neither of us will ever change our mind. Lets just leave it at that.
Not all Jews believe that the establisment of a homeland is worth the blood being spilled, and i tend to agree.

That last point is a valid position to take. Your assessment of who took what land from whom is a bit more complicated than your simplistic analysis, though. I suggest you inform yourself about the history of Palestine (which has never been a state, btw) and consider what it really means to be Palestinian before you make a summary judgment. This is a pretty good brief timeline:
http://www.palestinehistory.com/history.htm

Oh my god was that a reasonable balanced respose? Careful stew we might end up having polite and intelligent discourse...
I will check the link out, but i'll be surprised if theres anything new for me there. You can follow the story back to Abraham for all I care, there is no logic in people tracing their ancestory to a location and demanding they are given residence there for that reason alone. Lots of people have been exiled from lots of places during our history. Their descendents usually managed to find a homeland, often in the place they were born. I dont see how recognition as a "State" is relevant either since the "Authorities" who bestow the title in such a case only seek to serve themselves. Nationality is a persons by birthright, and that in its self leads to many problems. What hope is there if it is considered acceptable for people to choose the land they have a right to?
I'll read the link, but cant imagine it rocking my world.

[lostpomme]

[quote="Jay Ref
That's all well and good but again it's a * argument. When you scream that "zionists" control the banks, media, government, NWO, etc you are making anti-semitic arguments. The fact that you use the term "zionist" instead of Jew is a thin beard indeed. That you think anyone is fooled because you use one term instead of the other while saying the same old things is truly a hallmark of anti-semitic stupidity.

You want to argue Israeli policies? Not anti-semitic. You argue against Israel's right to exist at all? That is antisemitic.

Pictures of Jewish dissidents don't make your own arguments any more legitimate.

-z

Please feel free to check my post history for one example of me making comments on Zionist banking/media conspiracies. One will do. I'm sure there must be one since your so excited about my opinions on the issue.
That post is gibberish either way though, since you still cant seem to get your head around ZIONISM AND JUDAISM BEING TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. Until you accept this simple truth please dont waste anymore of your time or mine by addressing related issues since the whole argument rests on that one point. Its not controverial, its accepted fact.

[Andrew]

Hilarious! I'm almost glad I'm suffering from a cold, which has kept me indoors this Friday evening!

Critics: I for one don't take for granted that 9/11 is an inside job and that it was controlled demolition. I just don't consider the matter concluded - let's find out who tipped off investors to place put options on various stock in the days leading up to 9/11. By "find out", I don't mean a news report saying "It was this person." Then we need to follow that lead as far as we can. Then we look at the next lead, and the next lead, and the next lead...the official investigation did NOT do this, don't you agree?

That, for me, could be the smoking gun people so often ask for. I emphasise could be.

Shrill pronouncements of anti-semitism in the 9/11 Truth Movement are at best selective, at worst blatant provocation.

I will say this: credit the people in this movement with enough intelligence that if a prominent member came out with blatantly anti-semitic views, they would probably be disowned by that particular local group.

Emphasis: the "movement" referred to is merely the collection of people within it, and nobody can control everything. The best people can do is publicly declare their separation from noxious individuals, as and when it happens. So please practice charity first if you encounter genuinely anti-semitic views under the banner of 9/11 research. I know it's out there, and like you, it turns my stomach.

To balance things out a little, here's an interesting quote I read recently from Peter Dale Scott:

Taken from The Global Drug Meta-Group: Drugs, Managed Violence, and the Russian 9/11
http://lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/global-drug.htm

The False Dilemmas of 9/11 Theories

I said earlier that by suppressing awareness of the role of drug-trafficking in our society, we give drug traffickers a de facto franchise to exert political influence without criticism or opposition. An example of this is the discussion of 9/11 in America, which usually fails to consider the meta-group among the list of possible suspects.

I have tried to suggest in this paper that in fact the meta-group had both motive – to restore the Afghan opium harvest and increase instability and chaos along the trade routes through Central Asia – and opportunity – to utilize its contacts with both al-Zawahiri in al Qaeda and the CIA in Washington. It is furthermore the best candidate to explain one of the more difficult anomalies (or indeed paradoxes) of the clues surrounding 9/11: that many of the clues lead in the direction of Saudi Arabia, but some lead also in a very different direction, towards Israel.[122]

Here it is worth quoting again the well-informed remark of a Washington insider about the meta-group's predecessor, BCCI: "Who else could wire something together to Saudi Arabia, China, Israel, and the U.S.?"[123] The current meta-group fills the same bill, for it unites supporters of Muslim Salafism (Saidov) with at least one Israeli citizen (Kosman).

The meta-group's involvement in the Russian 9/11 of course does nothing to prove its involvement in the American one. However awareness of its presence – as an unrecognized Force X operating in the world – makes previous discussions of 9/11 seem curiously limited. Again and again questions of responsibility have been unthinkingly limited to false dilemmas in which the possible involvement of this or any other Force X is excluded.

An early example is Michael Moore's naïve question to President Bush in Dude, Where's My Country: "Who attacked the United States on September 11 – a guy on dialysis from a cave in Afghanistan, or your friends, Saudi Arabia?"[124] A far more widespread dilemma is that articulated by David Ray Griffin in his searching critique of the 9/11 Commission Report:

There are two basic theories about 9/11. Each of these theories is a "conspiracy theory." One of these is the official conspiracy theory, according to which the attacks of 9/11 were planned and executed solely by al-Qaeda terrorists under the guidance of Osama bin Laden....Opposing this official theory is the [sic] alternative conspiracy theory, which holds that the attacks of 9/11 were able to succeed only because they were facilitated by the Bush administration and its agencies.[125]

Griffin of course is not consciously excluding a third possible theory – that a Force X was responsible. But his failure to acknowledge this possibility is an example of the almost universal cultural denial I referred to earlier. In America few are likely to conceive of the possibility that a force in contact with the U.S. government could be not just an asset, but a force exerting influence on that government.

My personal suggestion to 9/11 researchers is that they focus on the connections of the meta-group's firm Far West, Ltd. – in particular those which lead to Khashoggi, Berezovskii, Halliburton and Dick Cheney, and Diligence, Joe Allbaugh, and Neil Bush.

RELEVANT FOOTNOTES

[122] Khashoggi is perhaps the most famous example of a Saudi-Israel connection. One of the few in the United States who has dared to discuss the 9/11 clues pointing towards Israel is Michael C. Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil (Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 2004), 259-68, 578-79.

[123] Jonathan Beaty and S.C. Gwynne, The Outlaw Bank: A Wild Ride into the Secret Heart of BCCI (New York: Random House, 1993), 347.

[124] Michael Moore, Dude, Where's My Country (New York: Warner Books, 2003), 15. The same superficial analysis is a blemish of his film Fahrenheit 911.

[125] David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press/Interlink, 2004), 5.

[126] Commenting on the list published by Pravda.info on May 3, 2005, http://www.pravda.info/news/2695.html.

I believe there's something in that to chew on for people on both sides of the 9/11 debate. Getting teeth into such a network could be an even more intimidating proposition than the Bush Administration. Hat's off to PDS for doing such work.

(Please note that the reference to Israel is coincidental, this is merely the most recent article I've read that deals with an aspect of 9/11.)

Andrew

[Anti-sophist]

let's find out who tipped off investors to place put options on various stock in the days leading up to 9/11.

Haven't you already presupposed that someone _did_ tip them off, just to be able to ask that question? I presume you've read the ample evidence on the internet that virtually all of it can explained easily and rationally, given the investing enviornment at the time. If there was no "tip", and you presuppose there was, you will spend the rest of your life looking for an answer that doesn't exist.. always assuming that there are "unanswered" questions.

This is why circumstantial evidence and circular reasoning is a dangerous logical game.

[marky 54]

let's find out who tipped off investors to place put options on various stock in the days leading up to 9/11.

Haven't you already presupposed that someone _did_ tip them off, just to be able to ask that question? I presume you've read the ample evidence on the internet that virtually all of it can explained easily and rationally, given the investing enviornment at the time. If there was no "tip", and you presuppose there was, you will spend the rest of your life looking for an answer that doesn't exist.. always assuming that there are "unanswered" questions.

This is why circumstantial evidence and circular reasoning is a dangerous logical game.

and at the same time if they investigated it and found no wrong doing the issue would be over, it is also a dangerous game not to investigate suspious activity regatdless of if there is anything to find.

[Anti-sophist]

If they did investigate and found no wrongdoing, would you accept their findings and move on? Or would you claim they were lying?

[chek]

let's find out who tipped off investors to place put options on various stock in the days leading up to 9/11.

Haven't you already presupposed that someone _did_ tip them off, just to be able to ask that question? I presume you've read the ample evidence on the internet that virtually all of it can explained easily and rationally, given the investing enviornment at the time. If there was no "tip", and you presuppose there was, you will spend the rest of your life looking for an answer that doesn't exist.. always assuming that there are "unanswered" questions.

This is why circumstantial evidence and circular reasoning is a dangerous logical game.

Anti-sophist eh? Well, what an absolutely unnappropriate name, going by your post. I wonder if the moderators abide by the trade descriptions act?

You are aware that trading in United airlines stocks was 2500% above normal monthly patterns, and American Airlines 2850% in the week before 911?
And it was just those two airlines.
And that the SEC 'investigation' merely found 'no conceivable links to Al Qaeda'?
And that most of the money went unclaimed?
How normal is that?

[Andrew]

let's find out who tipped off investors to place put options on various stock in the days leading up to 9/11.

Haven't you already presupposed that someone _did_ tip them off, just to be able to ask that question?

Good point, it is possible that a collective 'hunch' was developed about these particular stocks on that particular weekend, it's just very, very unlikely. At the very least, it deserves better than a footnote in the official investigation (see http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline ... 4notrading).

I presume you've read the ample evidence on the internet that virtually all of it can explained easily and rationally, given the investing enviornment at the time.

No I haven't, please direct me to it.

If there was no "tip", and you presuppose there was, you will spend the rest of your life looking for an answer that doesn't exist.. always assuming that there are "unanswered" questions.

I'm sure I will be able to fill my time with other things - thanks.

This is why circumstantial evidence and circular reasoning is a dangerous logical game.

Circumstantial evidence is routinely used.

Circular reasoning is of course not helpful - although I haven't employed any. You have presupposed that I presupposed something, and presuppose that I am using circular reasoning. Good work!

Andrew

[Andrew]

If they did investigate and found no wrongdoing, would you accept their findings and move on? Or would you claim they were lying?

It depends who "they" are, how they investigated it, how the information was presented to us, and whether the reported findings could stand up to analysis.

It's seems to be a fact in the modern world, that old forms of institutional authority are no longer accepted at face value. That's not inherently a bad thing.

Andrew

[Anti-sophist]

You are aware that trading in United airlines stocks was 2500% above normal monthly patterns, and American Airlines 2850% in the week before 911?
And it was just those two airlines.
And that the SEC 'investigation' merely found 'no conceivable links to Al Qaeda'?
And that most of the money went unclaimed?
How normal is that?

The fallacy runs deep in you.

First of all, I don't know what "trading" means. Trading volume? Does that include options? Does that include buying AND selling? Where are you getting your information? You didn't specify your variable, and you only specified the mean -- what was the variance? If you want to do a proper statistical analysis any truely determine how 'normal' it was, then let's do it.

I know you don't want to hear this.. but some times... things are just coincindences. You only need a 1 in a million chance connection between two events, and 1000 events, to find a coincindence. Ascribing it to conspiracy based entirely on it's improbability, with no evidence, is not logically sound (some might call it... intelligent design).

This is the danger of circular reasoning. You presuppose a conspiracy, find reasons for conspiracy, and blame any investigation that doesn't find your conspiracy, on the conspiracy. The question will never be answered in your mind, no matter how many investigations are done, because you "know" there was a conspiracy, so unless it finds one, it's part of it.

I don't know anything about "the money was never claimed", either. That sounds like an interesting avenue of information, so I'd appreciate a reliable source for that piece of info.

[chek]

You are aware that trading in United airlines stocks was 2500% above normal monthly patterns, and American Airlines 2850% in the week before 911?
And it was just those two airlines.
And that the SEC 'investigation' merely found 'no conceivable links to Al Qaeda'?
And that most of the money went unclaimed?
How normal is that?

The fallacy runs deep in you.

First of all, I don't know what "trading" means. Trading volume? Does that include options? Does that include buying AND selling? Where are you getting your information? You didn't specify your variable, and you only specified the mean -- what was the variance? If you want to do a proper statistical analysis any truely determine how 'normal' it was, then let's do it.

I know you don't want to hear this.. but some times... things are just coincindences. You only need a 1 in a million chance connection between two events, and 1000 events, to find a coincindence. Ascribing it to conspiracy based entirely on it's improbability, with no evidence, is not logically sound (some might call it... intelligent design).

This is the danger of circular reasoning. You presuppose a conspiracy, find reasons for conspiracy, and blame any investigation that doesn't find your conspiracy, on the conspiracy. The question will never be answered in your mind, no matter how many investigations are done, because you "know" there was a conspiracy, so unless it finds one, it's part of it.

I don't know anything about "the money was never claimed", either. That sounds like an interesting avenue of information, so I'd appreciate a reliable source for that piece of info.

Your point being?
If you're as interested as you claim, go look it up.
Shouldn't be a problem to an 'analyst' like yourself.

[Anti-sophist]

Good point, it is possible that a collective 'hunch' was developed about these particular stocks on that particular weekend, it's just very, very unlikely. At the very least, it deserves better than a footnote in the official investigation (see http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline ... 4notrading).

Well, there wasn't a collective hunch, there were two companies who had high volume of trading, and they both has a single source: a US investor, and a newsletter.

I don't understand why that information isn't sufficient for at least one of the claims. The put options on United's parent company were due to a single investor who also BOUGHT American Airlines. Unless, of course, he bought American Airlines to throw us off the trail (this consequence presupposes he was in on a conspiracy, and is circular reasoning).

The SEC and FBI both investigated the newsletter and found no wrong doing. That is good enough for me. Please note, that the reponse I am expecting (well, baiting) to that last comment is put there, specifically, to force someone to presuppose the FBI and SEC are "in on it", and therefore, I shouldn't trust anything they say. Without presupposing that the FBI was part of the cover-up, it's easy for me to accept to their findings and move on. A single newsletter telling people to sell stock isn't uncommon, and it can move a stock.

[Anti-sophist]

If you're as interested as you claim, go look it up.
Shouldn't be a problem to an 'analyst' like yourself.

You don't make claims and then ask others to prove it for you. That's poor form.

[Andrew]

I don't know anything about "the money was never claimed", either. That sounds like an interesting avenue of information, so I'd appreciate a reliable source for that piece of info.

http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline ... putoptions

I wish there was more I could give you on this but it seems to be all that's turned up.

Just a reminder:

I presume you've read the ample evidence on the internet that virtually all of it can explained easily and rationally, given the investing enviornment at the time.

If you could direct me to that info it would be appreciated.

Andrew

[chek]

If you're as interested as you claim, go look it up.
Shouldn't be a problem to an 'analyst' like yourself.

That's poor form.

And what you're up to isn't? Herr Anti-sophist?

[Anti-sophist]

Actually, I was refering to three specific things when I mentioned "ample information"
1) One investor who was responsible for most of the UNITED movement
2) One newsletter who was responsible for most of the AA movement
3) An investigation was conducted by the SEC and FBI, and it came up empty.

Those are all important details when discussing the stock market, and leaving them out intentionally is quite dishonest.. so I was asking the original poster if he was just unaware of them.

---

As for the unclaimed put-options, I'll get back to you on that, I'm educating myself.



And to Chek: I'm not really sure what to make of you, you've made a bunch of claims, provided no evidence, and spent the majority of your posts insulting me. If you want to have a rational conversation, I'm here, otherwise I'm not going to respond to your antics.

[Andrew]

Sorry, I missed this in the flurry of posting.

Good point, it is possible that a collective 'hunch' was developed about these particular stocks on that particular weekend, it's just very, very unlikely. At the very least, it deserves better than a footnote in the official investigation (see http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline ... 4notrading).

Well, there wasn't a collective hunch, there were two companies who had high volume of trading, and they both has a single source: a US investor, and a newsletter.

If by two companies you mean UA and AA, may I also draw your attention to similar "put option" trades taking place on Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch stock:

http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline ... suspicious

The fact the the Commission doesn't refer to this is odd.

Remember, we're referring to trades that assert that the stock of that company will go down. Not just any old trades, but one that implies knowledge that can come from either analysis or insider knowledge. If we can establish that those trades were reasonably made through analysis, then end of story (probably).

That's why I was interested in the info you mentioned.

I don't understand why that information isn't sufficient for at least one of the claims. The put options on United's parent company were due to a single investor who also BOUGHT American Airlines. Unless, of course, he bought American Airlines to throw us off the trail (this consequence presupposes he was in on a conspiracy, and is circular reasoning).

Hold up, the only circularity is coming from yourself, so slow down.

Wouldn't it be interesting to know the identity of this investor? Then, place him/her under oath and ask how s/he got the information necessary to make such a trade?

The SEC and FBI both investigated the newsletter and found no wrong doing. That is good enough for me. Please note, that the reponse I am expecting (well, baiting) to that last comment is put there, specifically, to force someone to presuppose the FBI and SEC are "in on it", and therefore, I shouldn't trust anything they say. Without presupposing that the FBI was part of the cover-up, it's easy for me to accept to their findings and move on. A single newsletter telling people to sell stock isn't uncommon, and it can move a stock.

I agree, investment newsletters do that all the time. My worry was that this source isn't mentioned in the Commission report, so we can't verify it for ourselves.

It appears that the stringent sourcing of material you force on members of this forum is not being applied to the 9/11 Commission.

Andrew

[Andrew]

Actually, I was refering to three specific things when I mentioned "ample information"
1) One investor who was responsible for most of the UNITED movement
2) One newsletter who was responsible for most of the AA movement
3) An investigation was conducted by the SEC and FBI, and it came up empty.

So...you're referring to one paragraph in the Commission report - the only paragraph that deals with this seemingly very important issue!

Sorry, that's not what I had in mind when you said "ample information".

Those are all important details when discussing the stock market, and leaving them out intentionally is quite dishonest.. so I was asking the original poster if he was just unaware of them.

I thought you were asking me. Nevermind.

You presuppose I left it out intentionally...dear dear.

As for the unclaimed put-options, I'll get back to you on that, I'm educating myself.

Great.

[chek]

Actually, I was refering to three specific things when I mentioned "ample information"
1) One investor who was responsible for most of the UNITED movement
2) One newsletter who was responsible for most of the AA movement
3) An investigation was conducted by the SEC and FBI, and it came up empty.

Those are all important details when discussing the stock market, and leaving them out intentionally is quite dishonest.. so I was asking the original poster if he was just unaware of them.

---

As for the unclaimed put-options, I'll get back to you on that, I'm educating myself.



And to Chek: I'm not really sure what to make of you, you've made a bunch of claims, provided no evidence, and spent the majority of your posts insulting me. If you want to have a rational conversation, I'm here, otherwise I'm not going to respond to your antics.

Don't worry about it.
Put it down to the fact I'm always this way with investors in fused concrete.
Now please to excuse me, as the mere mention of it means I have to go roll on the floor and laugh my ass off.

[Anti-sophist]

The official report doesn't mention it, but the SEC did. There was a list of 38 securities flagged in their investigation. Merrill Lynxh was among them (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/article ... 2018.shtml).

I can only assume you've also read
http://www.911myths.com/html/selling_amr.html and http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

They put forward a case for why innocous analysis is easily possible.

Wouldn't it be interesting to know the identity of this investor? Then, place him/her under oath and ask how s/he got the information necessary to make such a trade?

Yes, it would be... but I believe needless, too. Barring complete FBI and SEC misconduct, he was already asked these questions and gave satisficatory answers to them. Making his name public is a bad idea whether you believe there was a conspiracy or not. If there was a conspiracy, it makes investigation easier. Making the name of an innocent investor public, after 3000 of his fellow country men died, and he profitted from it, wouldn't be wise as well. I have no problems with this not being on the public-record.

My worry was that this source isn't mentioned in the Commission report, so we can't verify it for ourselves. It appears that the stringent sourcing of material you force on members of this forum is not being applied to the 9/11 Commission.

Asking you to source your material doesn't endanger someone. Asking the FBI to source these individuals, does. You citing references doesn't have actual consequences. Putting the name of the two people responsible for actions deemed accidental and innocous, has actual consequences. I don't need to ennumerate them, but you spend far more time on these forums than I do, and quite frankly, whoever they are, they are probably glad their names are not public.

Even still, I do expect a higher level of proof from this forum than from the SEC and FBI. The unfortunate reality is that the SEC and FBI has some, earned, credibility. There are many organizations with credibility that I take equally serious. This includes newspapers, univerisities, and so on. A "dude on the internet", isn't on the list. Therefore, I expect a higher level of proof from "dudes on the internet" then I do from the SEC, the LA Times, or MIT. Similiarly, you should put such a burden of proof on me, too.

[Andrew]

Hi again,

I can only assume you've also read
http://www.911myths.com/html/selling_amr.html and

This is interesting: it shows some plausibility to making those put options. It's not completely convincing but it deserves some attention.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

This is just a repeat of the famous footnote from the Commission report.

Yes, it would be... but I believe needless, too. Barring complete FBI and SEC misconduct, he was already asked these questions and gave satisficatory answers to them. Making his name public is a bad idea whether you believe there was a conspiracy or not. If there was a conspiracy, it makes investigation easier. Making the name of an innocent investor public, after 3000 of his fellow country men died, and he profitted from it, wouldn't be wise as well. I have no problems with this not being on the public-record.

OK.

Asking you to source your material doesn't endanger someone. Asking the FBI to source these individuals, does. You citing references doesn't have actual consequences. Putting the name of the two people responsible for actions deemed accidental and innocous, has actual consequences.

I agree it doesn't make sense to endanger someone needlessly - I suppose I would feel better hearing the "innocuous" judgement from an impartial, independent inquiry. Fair enough, no?

Even still, I do expect a higher level of proof from this forum than from the SEC and FBI. The unfortunate reality is that the SEC and FBI has some, earned, credibility. There are many organizations with credibility that I take equally serious. This includes newspapers, univerisities, and so on. A "dude on the internet", isn't on the list. Therefore, I expect a higher level of proof from "dudes on the internet" then I do from the SEC, the LA Times, or MIT. Similiarly, you should put such a burden of proof on me, too.

I applaude your trust in such institutions, unfortunately I don't share it. Of course there are good individuals within any institution, but this is such a pivotal issue, it's difficult to judge whether we're getting the truth or not. I cannot assume we are.

Andrew

[Anti-sophist]

I agree it doesn't make sense to endanger someone needlessly - I suppose I would feel better hearing the "innocuous" judgement from an impartial, independent inquiry. Fair enough, no?

I don't know what an "impartial, independant inquiry" is. You had two (FBI, and SEC) seperate organizations come to the same conclusions. And a third one, based on the original two investigations, decided it wasn't worth pursuing. It doesn't get any more "independant" than that, unless you want to fly in the British and the French to do it.

I applaude your trust in such institutions, unfortunately I don't share it. Of course there are good individuals within any institution, but this is such a pivotal issue, it's difficult to judge whether we're getting the truth or not. I cannot assume we are.

Well, define trust. In their competance or honesty?

[chek]

I agree it doesn't make sense to endanger someone needlessly - I suppose I would feel better hearing the "innocuous" judgement from an impartial, independent inquiry. Fair enough, no?

I don't know what an "impartial, independant inquiry" is. You had two (FBI, and SEC) seperate organizations come to the same conclusions. And a third one, based on the original two investigations, decided it wasn't worth pursuing. It doesn't get any more "independant" than that, unless you want to fly in the British and the French to do it.

I applaude your trust in such institutions, unfortunately I don't share it. Of course there are good individuals within any institution, but this is such a pivotal issue, it's difficult to judge whether we're getting the truth or not. I cannot assume we are.

Well, define trust. In their competance or honesty?

Again, it may be good enough for you squire, but others have some clue about how implicated the FBI is in 911, so don't go thinking that your bright-eyed trust in their competence or trustworthiness is taken as given here.

The SEC I can't speak for, but most government agencies rely on patronage.

[Anti-sophist]

Again, it may be good enough for you squire, but others have some clue about how implicated the FBI is in 911

Show some evidence, or begone, chek. Repeating things without evidence is what clergy do. If you want to talk science, you are going to need better than constant droning repition without any evidence.

[chek]

Again, it may be good enough for you squire, but others have some clue about how implicated the FBI is in 911

Show some evidence, or begone, chek. Repeating things without evidence is what clergy do. If you want to talk science, you are going to need better than constant droning repition without any evidence.

And that is extremely rich coming from the source it does.
I can't recall a single fact you've mentioned ever.

But to get you started check out Press for Truth if you are at all interested in th eless than high opinion of the FBI that is extant.
Of course, we already know you won't do that, because that's not your job here is it?

[Anti-sophist]

I've watched the video. I see absolutely no evidence, whatsoever, of FBI involvement. If you have some, or I missed it, please let me know.

[chek]

I've watched the video. I see absolutely no evidence, whatsoever, of FBI involvement. If you have some, or I missed it, please let me know.

Are you sure we're talking about the same film?
Anyways, I'm sure you wouldn't want to be spoon fed like a baby, so I'll suggest smartening yourself up , getting your best Googling finger ready, and search for 'Sibel Edmonds' and see what comes up.

[Anti-sophist]

Wait, changing the subject already? What happened to your first piece of evidence? Already moving on? Now I have to go research some new random topic?

Do you just have a list of things you point people and tell them to go do "research"? Have you even read this stuff yourself? You are 0-1 in providing me useful information, and I asked you to clarify, and you've already moved on.

You just make statements and ask other people to prove them for you. I don't have time to read 1000 different things on your list of things (you clearly haven't read yourself) until I get to the one that tells me something I want to know.

Provide me with some evidence, or admit you don't know what you are talking about.