Psychic Christine Holohan on TV Fri29Sep

King Mob wrote: »

Somehow I doubt that.

Since you are a skeptic you'll be able to tell us what sort of evidence or reason that would convince you that 9/11 wasn't some vast global conspiracy, right?

Yes it is.

Well seeing as it's so well respected maybe you can post a link to this poll?


Well if government officials and experts say it, it must be true....

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and "Consciously Failed" To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York's Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.5.
The poll is the first of its kind conducted in America that surveys attitudes regarding US government complicity in the 9/11 tragedy. Despite the acute legal and political implications of this accusation, nearly 30% of registered Republicans and over 38% of those who described themselves as "very conservative" supported the claim.

I take it that you subscribe to the official explanation of 911?


As for having evidence of a conspiracy - you should read Project For A New American Century.

You feel free to believe your conspiracy - the official conspiracy theory of how Americas multi billion dollar defense system was pinned to its knees by a dozen Arab terrorists with primitive box cutters. All at the behest of some guy in a cave thousands of miles away using a sat phone. That guy by the way(OBL) is not wanted in connection with 911 according to the FBI. They admit to having no 'hard evidence' to connect him with that monstrous crime.

King Mob wrote: »

Hang on a tick.
50% to 41% does not equal a majority.

In fact 50% to 61% don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job.
Therefore I win QED.- considering the poll was conducte a mere 3 yrs after 911 it represent a significant amount for that time, certainly mainstream by any standards. Wonder what a new poll would show - my bet a far higher percentage

And I wonder how many of those believers are just parroting nonsense they read on the internet.


Pretty much yea.


Speaking of parroting...
Yes I have read Project For A New American Century.

The question have you?
Can you actually supply anything from that paper that actually shows it was a blueprint for a conspiracy? (Other than that one "Pearl harbour" bit that is always taken out of context.)

And further more can you explain why they would admit to being involved in such a conspiracy in a document freely available on their own website?


And this is impossible because?
How many times where jetliners used as missiles?
How many times where several jets hijacked at once?
Did you know that every single other hijacking attempt was dealt with after the plane lands? - Isn't that what NORAD is there for? oh yeah I forgot they had stood down that day because they were conducting war game exercises on planes being hijacked and used as missiles. lol

You feel free to believe your conspiracy - the official conspiracy theory of the American government, planting explosive in 3-4 of their own crowded buildings with no one noticing, then demolishing them leaving no trace and then admitting to it in a document they keep on their website.


Bull****.
I dare you to back that up.


Asked to explain the process, Tomb responded, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”

Hmmmmm...

Enjoy believing your tinfoil hat wearing fairytale. I bet you believe Osama that 'ol CIA asset is still alive don't you?

PNAC - 911 fullfilled that script beautifully but you will say coincidence yawn..

Its amazing how defensive you get when someone dares question the offical 911 conspiracy. You know that version just doesn't wash with me mate. The alternative version on the other hand does. A more sober, rational and empirical analysis of what happened that day. 1000's of reputed and respected scientists are of the same opinion particularly regarding the collapse of WTC7. A collapse which cannot be explained by NIST and which was left out of the 911 commision report. Do yourself a favour and read Dave Ray Griffins books on this subject. It might help you take those red rosy glasses off that make you believe everything your government tells you. Bye now.

WTC7 supports all the hypothesis of a controlled demolition, as for explosives their has been thermite residue found in hundreds of samples of dust taken from the tragedy - Steve Jones. Enjoy your govt fairytale.

King Mob wrote: »

So then we can safely assume your knowledge of the "official version" comes from what you've read on conspiracy sites? Not at all. Again if I can reiterate
- 6 out of the 10 commisioners admit that the whole thing is a whitewash and evidence of a criminal cover up.
Not by any stretch of the imagination. A building collapsing at free fall speed neatly into its own footprint? hmmm...

1. Thermite isn't an explosive, nor has it ever been used in any controlled demolitions, let alone secret ones.
2. Have you actually read the paper or like everything else you've said is just something you've bought unquestioningly form a CT website?

I have read the paper. Two major problems. One it was printed in a very dodgy journal that doesn't do proper peer review. Two, all the "Samples" were collected years later.

So any chance in your hunt for the truth you'll get around to answering all of my questions?

I dont claim to have all he answers but i do believe that their is enough contradictions, prevarication and obfuscation in the 911 commision report to demand a new investigation.

King Mob wrote: »

So then rather explain exact flaws in the commission report, you instead parrot irrelevant and completely debunked myths?
Then refuse to even acknowledge questions you can't answer?

That's some way to get to the truth alright.

Debunked myths like WTC7 free fall collapse and the fact that NIST cant explain it. Certainly hasn't been debunked. The fact that 6 out of the 10 commisioners want a new independent investigation cant be debunked either and are certainly not myths. The only myth we have here is the myth you believe in. Take care now.

Hi King Mob Firstly I apologize for any offence incurred when I implied that you had no life except to post blogs on this site. More luck to you I only wish I was getting paid for all that effort! Secondly and for your consideration and in reply to an earlier quote

''Ok then, Back it up
Which commissioners? When did they say this?
What exactly did they say?''

Here goes -

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton) said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”.

The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission also said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn’t bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only “the first draft” of history.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

9/11 Commissioner John Lehman said that “We purposely put together a staff that had - in a way - conflicts of interest“.

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry, said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”

CONGRESS
According to the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, a U.S. government informant was the landlord to two of the hijackers for over a year (but the White House refused to let the 9/11 inquiry interview him).
Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) states “The two questions that the congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen?”
Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) calls for a new 9/11 investigation and states that “we see the [9/11] investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on”
Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich) hints that we aren’t being told the truth about 9/11
Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new 9/11 investigation and that we don’t know the truth about 9/11
Former Republican Senator (Lincoln Chaffee) endorses a new 9/11 investigation
Former U.S. Democratic Congressman (Dan Hamburg) says that the U.S. government “assisted” in the 9/11 attacks, stating that “I think there was a lot of help from the inside”
Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job

As for NORAD

The military’s first story was that no planes were sent up until after the Pentagon was hit. The military leaders were admitting, in other words, that they had left their fighters on the ground for almost 90 minutes after the FAA had first noticed signs of a possible hijacking. That story suggested to many people that a stand-down order had been given.[28]

By the end of the week, the military had put out a second story, saying that it had sent up fighters but that, because the FAA had been very late in notifying it about the hijackings, the fighters arrived in each case arrived too late. One problem with this story is that if FAA personnel had responded so slowly, heads should have rolled, but none did. An even more serious problem is that, even assuming the truth of the late notification times, the military’s fighters still had time to intercept the hijacked airliners before they were to hit their targets.[29] This second story implied, therefore, that standard procedures had been violated by the military as well as the FAA.

To try to defend the military against this accusation, The 9/11 Commission Report gave us, amazingly, a third version, according to which the FAA, after giving the military insufficient warning about the first hijacked airliner, gave it absolutely no notification of the other three until after they had crashed. But as I have argued in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, this account is wholly implausible. Besides portraying FAA personnel, from top to bottom, as incompetent dolts, the 9/11 Commission’s account rests on claims that contradict many credible and mutually supporting testimonies. In some of these cases, the fact that the Commission is simply lying is abundantly obvious.[30] In addition, this third story implies that the military’s second story, which it had been telling for almost three years, was almost entirely false. If our military leaders were lying to us all that time, why should we believe them now? And if our military is lying to us, must we not assume that it is doing so to cover up its own guilt?

You haven't asked me tons of questions but feel free to and I will answer them, I do believe that I have answered of them. As for getting this information of websites - not at all. I have done my own research and read many books on the subject.

The PNAC Plan:

Also as a result of the end of the Cold War the Pentagon's funding was being cut because they no longer had an enemy to justify their massive budget. In response Dick Cheney's conservative think tank "The Project for a New American Century," (PNAC) submitted their manifesto, "Rebuilding America's Defenses". This report suggests that although "the United States faces no global rival," (p.i) the U.S. military should prepare "to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars,"(mission outlines) and set up "an enduring American military presence" (p.74) in the Persian Gulf, including Afghanistan and Iraq. Chapter 5 admits this would take a long time,"absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

3. First Actions as Vice President:

Dick Cheney then selects himself to run as George W. Bush's Vice President in a campaign largely funded by Enron. Shortly after the Supreme Court's intervention made Cheney the VP, he reopened the pipeline negotiations with the Taliban but the original financial offer was now accompanied by threats of military action if the pipeline was not allowed. The Taliban was told, "You either accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we bury you under a carpet of bombs!"

According to Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, in their very first National Security Council meeting Bush and Cheney began brainstorming ideas for how to start a war in Iraq, and Judicial Watch has exposed secret maps drawn up by Cheney's Energy Task Force in March of 2001 detailing Iraq's oil industries size and estimated value.

4. Ignored Warnings:

The Bush Administration received dozens of detailed warnings of an impending al-Qaida attack, which included method, likely targets, and names of people involved, from many international and domestic intelligence agencies. Yet all of these warnings were systematically blocked, suppressed, or ignored by the Bush Administration.

5. Obstructed Investigations:

Instead of investigating these warnings President Bush signed presidential directive W199I protecting members of the Bin Laden family and telling FBI Agents and defense intelligence officers to back off from al-Qaida related investigations. Although debunkers will argue the validity of the W199I directive, the testimonies of FBI counterterror chief John O'Neill, field officer Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit of the Minnesota FBI, translator Sibel Edmonds, Anthony Shaffer of Able Danger, and prosecutor David Shippers indicate a concerted high level effort to protect domestic terrorists.

6. Wargame Drills Scheduled for 9/11:

In May, 2001 President Bush put Dick Cheney in charge of the "Office of National Preparedness" charged with protecting America from domestic attacks involving weapons of mass destruction, and managing training exercises throughout all military agencies in preparation for such an attack. It was later revealed that multiple military exercises, remarkably similar to the 9/11 attack, were scheduled for the morning of September 11, 2001. Although military officials refuse to confirm who managed to schedule these drills during the very time of the real attack, these drills would clearly fall under Cheney's jurisdiction.

7. Changes in Military Procedures:

There were already Standard Operating Procedures set in place well before 9/11 concerning how to respond to the hijacking of commercial flights. As soon as any flight goes off course or looses contact with the controllers, the FAA immediately contacts NORAD who scrambles fighters to intercept. This happens on a regular basis. From September 2000 to June 2001, 67 planes steered off course. All 67 times our air defense systems worked as they should, and interceptors were launched.Yet in June of 2001 these procedures are altered to require approval from Secretary of Defense before NORAD could respond with "potentially lethal support", ( launching combat aircraft ), to an emergency call.

8. Afghan Invasion Plans Finalized:

Pakistani Foreign Secretary, Niaz Naik, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October despite having no Congressional approval for any military action. September 9, two days before the attack, the final plans to go to war against the Taliban to begin in October were ready for President Bush to sign in to action. It is critical to point out that without the 9/11 attack the Bush administration would not have had justification to use this plan, yet they continue to claim they had no advance warning about 9/11.

9. Connection to 9/11 Sponsor:

According to the FBI the chief of ISI -Pakistani Intelligence, Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed, approved over $100,000 in wire transfers to lead hijacker Mohammed Atta as payment for the attacks. During the week of the attack Gen. Ahmed is visiting Washington where he had meetings with Colin Powell, Richard Armatige, CIA Director George Tennant, Porter Goss and other Bush administration officials. The media and the 9/11 Commission both refuse to acknowledge this man who funded the attack or investigate his meetings with Bush officials.

10. Day of the Attack:

While the 9/11 Commission fails to mention the military wargame drills in progress during the attack or the changes in NORAD's hijack interception procedures, they also ignore or distort the many other anomalies concerning the day of the attack including the absence of top officials from their posts, the contradicting stories from NORAD and the FAA, the arrival time of Dick Cheney to the PEOC bunker, and the time that shoot down authorization is announced.

11. Afghanistan Invasion:

The September 11 attack gave Bush and Cheney the very pretext they needed to use the awaiting war plans under the pretext of getting Osama Bin Laden for the attack. Although the Taliban agreed to apprehend Bin Laden on the condition the U.S. would provide evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in 9/11, the Bush Administration ignores this request and the invasion starts right on schedule in October.

According to the FBI, to this day the Bush administration has yet to present any hard evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden to the 9/11 attack. This means that the invasion of Afghanistan was unjustified and violates international law.

Despite the claim that the invasion of Afghanistan was to apprehend Bin Laden, the U.S. military allows Bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora into Pakistan while many al-Qaida soldiers are allowed to escape capture by a Pakistan airlift.

The Taliban was quickly overthrown and the Bush Administration picks Afghanistan's new president, Harmid Karzai, who was a consultant for Unocal. Less than a year later the 3.2 billion dollar pipeline through Afghanistan began construction.

12. Obstructed Investigations:

For 14 months the Bush administration was able to hinder and obstruct any public investigation of the attack. According to Senator Tom Daschle, both the President and the Vice President lobby him for no 9/11 investigation. Dick Cheney even threatens Congressional Democrats with "interfering with the war on terror" if they press for a 9/11 investigation.

When the 9/11 Commission was finally formed, it was rife with conflicts of interest and severely underfunded. Bush and Cheney refuse to testify unless they are questioned by the commission together, behind closed doors, without being taped, without taking an oath, and with no records kept. The final report is filled with dozens of factual omissions and distortions.

13. There is no doubt that the Bush Administration has used 9/11 to justify it's policy of military aggression along with an unprecedented level of power and secrecy. They then used false evidence to expand the war into Iraq.

All of this information taken together builds a compelling case that members of the Bush administration, namely Dick Cheney, at the very least knew the 9/11 attack was coming and took steps to insure it's success for personal and political benefit. Dick Cheney had a clear motive for the attack, was in a position to facilitate the attack, and is implicated by evidence and witness testimony of involvement. One must only ask why this information is not public knowledge and why formal charges have yet be made against him.

KING MOB :

Very compelling stuff, and shockingly only a portion of the non-scientific evidence publicly available. We also have the issues of insider trading, FAA tapes and CIA interrogation tapes being destroyed on purpose, dubious evidence relating to the hijackers, the fact that Hani Hanjour, who is said to have flown flight 77 into the Pentagon, and pulled off the most complex maneuvers of the day, was a terrible pilot, the un-Islamic behavior of the hijackers, reports of the airplane black boxes being found at ground zero, which contradicts the official story which says they were not found, reports that the father of alleged lead hijacker Mohammed Atta spoke to him on September 12th, 9/11 family member Patty Casazza stating that whistleblowers told her the government knew the exact day, the type of attack, and the targets, it is just staggering. And I could go on for a bit with more points still.

King Mob wrote: »

And so we have the perfect example of how conspiracy theorists debate.
They bring up long debunked "facts" then ignore any criticisms of those facts and throw out even more "facts", out of context quotes and complete non sequiters.

You've refused to answer any of my questions and instead opted for the usual style of the crank.
you've inadvertently answer one however.

It's clear that no amount of evidence or reasoning will change your mind, therefore you are not a skeptic.

I tell you what though, if you're interested in an actual debate instead of shouting dubious facts at me, how about this.
You offer one singular point of information you believe is irrefutable and definite proof of a conspiracy and we will both focus on that one point?

The rejection of Ted Olsens story (where he recieved a phone call from his wife from the hijacked plane) by American Airlines, the Pentagon and especially the FBI.

robindch wrote: »

As a matter of forum policy, there's a fine line between, on the one hand, encouraging Skeptical debate concerning matters of public interest and, on the other hand, allowing people to post pages of unsupported, unscientific views gleaned from crank websites and other staples of the paranoid conspiracy literature. The first is what this forum is for, the latter is best left in the Conspiracy Theories forum.

So far, you've provided little more than huge chunks of cut'n'pasted quotes that are as free of context as they are of any hint of skepticism. And neither have you replied with anything of any substance to King Mob's questions.

This isn't a conversation, it's a sermon and does not suggest to me that you have any interest in skepticism. So could I please suggest that you spend some time reading up on on what [url=scientific skepticism is, and then come back to us if you feel it's appropriate.

It was not gleaned from paranoid conspiracy literature - another popular ad hominen attack made against people who dare question 911.I have as I said earlier done my own independent research and read many books and critically acclaimed I might add on the subject. Ans with all respect for fear of being banned - was this not a debate between myself and King Mob? who Is allowed to post links from so called debunking websites.

They(media) were told the building was going to collapse. Not true and CNN reported its collapse close to an hour beforehand, the BBC about 20 minutes. The fact that no steel structured building had ever collapsed due to fire and the fact that their were other buildings with far worse damage and fire infernoes raging in them - how come the media or anyone else for that matter kno that this particular building was going to collapse. The bankers trust building which was up right next to the south tower recieved far more substantial damage from falling debris and had raging infernoes in a dozen floors yet did not collapse.

Sceptic - sceptic archaic and US, skeptic [ˈskɛptɪk]
n
1. (Philosophy) a person who habitually doubts the authenticity of accepted beliefs
2. a person who mistrusts people, ideas, etc., in general
3. (Philosophy) a person who doubts the truth of religion, esp Christianity
adj
(Philosophy) of or relating to sceptics; sceptical
[from Latin scepticus, from Greek skeptikos one who reflects upon, from skeptesthai to consider]
scepticism archaic and US, skepticism n

I question and doubt the official 911 theory , that certainly makes me more of a skeptic than you.