TimeTraveler

The war on drugs really doesn't exist. The 700 or so billion dollars of drug money that flows through our country is vital to our economy. Originally the CIA probably only had intentions of hurting the black communities back in the day, but they created a monster and instead of slowly killing it they keep feeding it because it helps keep our economy strong. I mean who cares about kids ODing or so many addicted to drugs, I mean at least we still have the most important thing..... money. /Sarcasm off Just another case and point on how the poor and middle class suffer to keep the upper class strong, with the coordination of the government of course. /Ducks the flame fest that is incoming.

I am going to concede. I have been to busy to make any posts. Maybe at a later time we can continue. So, congratulations.

Hope it's true, but considering how much this type of information has been falsified to create inflated market prices, particularly by Saudi Arabia, I highly doubt it is true.

I think its $4,000 and still available, I will have to look that up.

Like I have said a few times, the stuff I posted is not from his book. No. The PDB was not released, only a page and a half, that leaves 10 pages absent. I would call that not released. Sorry for not being more in-depth, just been busy the last couple days.

As I stated above these are not Ruppert arguements. These are some things I am aware of, and was aware of before I read his book. I think the first place I heard anything about this was on msnbc within a week after the 19 hijackers names were released to the press. Mahamed Atta's father claimed his son was still alive and he had talked to him the night before his name was dropped as the lead man in the mission. I remember seeing this on the news, I will try to find a source to verify it. I don't know what you saw but what I saw was Condi Rice testifying under oath and being cornered about this report as she tried to stumble her way out of it without answering the questions directly. The panel gets 5 minutes each to ask questions, Condi does an amazing job of stalling and swaggering the questions to eat up more time and not answer them directly. This is before any of the PDB was declassified. Here is a piece of the transcript: Following this the PDB was declared declassified. What you were not told is the declassified version was 1 1/2 pages. However the original version was 11 1/2 pages. So where did the 10 missing pages go?

The problem is when you post a link to a source people try to discredit it because of the sources name, not by the material contained within the report. In this case its all over, I think it has gotten attention in most all media outlets. Anywho here is a link to 72,000 articles about it. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=9%2F11+hijackers+still+alive&btnG=Google+Search

Pangloss, Sometimes you have to crawl before you can walk. What I said I will establish in my last post does not suggest complicity. But it needs to be understood and established for evidence that will presented after. But I posted that so you could fill me in on what parts you already knew about so I don't end up showing you evidence your already aware of. Your supposed to read my mind and know that kind of stuff since I forgot to say it in that post.

Pangloss, like I said what I posted above was not evidence even mentioned in Rupperts book, his evidence is not soft like the above evidence. It's just a couple quick obvious things I came up with off the top of my head. Irrelevant? The document was not released on live television, the document has never been releasesd. 1 and a half of the 11 and a half pages were declassified. And that came after Condi Rices testimony. It's all over, there has been several different reports about it even in the msm. From eye witness accounts of seeing them, to some of them being caught on tape, to friends recieving phone calls from them and so on. Do a search on google, I'm sure you will find alot of reports on it. Like I said, this stuff has nothing to do with the arguement or the allegations, its just some evidence thats available to everyone that i came up with off the top of my head.

Plenty. 600+ pages worth in Crossing the Rubicon. Or much more softer evidence thats not even mentioned in Crossing the Rubicon. #1) President Bush oppressed the making of a 9/11 commission for 14 months. #2) President Bush nor Dick Cheney would not testify under oath before the 9/11 panel. #3) Any and all very important and strong questions were met with "No comment" or "I can't answer that". #4) Refusal to declassify the Aug 6th PDB titled "bin Laden determined to attack the U.S.". #5) No mention of the nearly 100 foreign warnings of 9/11 in the 9/11 commission report. #6) The whitehouse editing of Richard Clarkes book before it went to press. #7) The evidence that shows that as many as 9 of the 19 hijackers are still alive. I'm going to stop here but I could keep going. However weak you may think the above evidence is it is still evidence by definition. It could be used in a court of law. This type of stuff is not even mentioned in the book as it is irrelevant evidence, the evidence Mr. Ruppert provides is much stronger, from documents and letters from even within the CIA containing testimony. The book is filled with plenty of testimony, from witnesses inside different divisions of the government, including FEMA, FAA, NORAD, CIA, EIA, AF, and plenty of others. He did his interviews, and a hell of a job investigating. He dug deep, deeper than I have seen anyone dig, deeper than the 9/11 commission by far. And like I said, it's convincing, not proof but enough for a legal trial by any accounts. If someone was murdered on the streets and this much evidence was compiled on suspects involved the Bush administration would be in court. But us civilians are not protected by the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity. But in this case if the suspects were not protected, warrants would be issued and documents would be confiscated. But thats not possible in our government because they are above the law, which is sad because this country was founded on the idea that civilians ran the country through their leaders, but it seems we gave that up along time ago.

Sounds good. What I want to first do is establish what PROMIS technology is, what it is designed to do, what it is capable of doing, who uses it and why, that it is used and incorporated in government organizations and systems. Then I want to establish that "injects" were inserted by use of this technology into the FAA's radar system, which caused major confusion and severly hindered the counter measures of allowing our defensive mechanisms to defend us.

If you want to see the evidence to support his allegations you have to read the book. Or piece it together from his website, although it's much more organized in the book.

Hey Pangloss, I did not have time to make that post yesterday, got a break in the weather so it's time to get busy landscaping my yard. But I think I will start here with PROMIS technology. Here's a couple links, I'll check back tonight or tomorrow: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012005_ptech_pt1.shtml Part 1 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012705_ptech_pt2.shtml Part 2

I vote for YT, he's a survivalist. After Bush gets done destroying everything we will need survivalists to lead the way.

You make claims that the book is just "unanswered questions" "speculations" and "allegations". Yet you have not read the book. You make claims like: Anyone who has read the book, whether they come to the conclusion that he is wrong or right, understands how completely false this statement is. I have already stated, read the book. The evidence is there, I can't post over 600 pages plus over 1000 footnotes on this site. I could sum it up to make the case which still would take weeks maybe months. It's silly for you to say how baseless his arguement is when you have not even heard it. I'm getting the impression your just enjoying the conflict and controversy of this whole discussion.

Interesting links Rebel, thanks. I'll muster a post up probably for tomorrow, any preferance as to where we start?

Yep, have been. Whats interesting however is that much of whats in the book isn't investigated in the commission report. Such things as government money laundering, CIA training of terrorists, CIA drug trafficing complicity, business relations with Saudi's and Pakistani inteligence (ISI) and their connections with Al Qaeda, the loads and loads of warnings from foreign countries, PROMIS technology, insider trading and on and on. But when you read Rupperts book you can compare the two and decide for yourself as well.

Okay, I was under the wrong impression as to your opinion about a second investigation. Okay. Sounds fair.

Most of it. Some. Not sure what those have to do with this. I'm not going to bite. Just let it go, we have both stated our opinions, just agree that we disagree and move on.

I think you have me wrong, it has nothing to do with faith. I don't "believe" it's possible in the sense of faith, so I guess it's more that I "consider" it possible, and it deserves serious investigation. I don't think I would have a problem citing his sources, he does an awesome job of citing them. If by circumstanstial point you mean saying something like "if this was like this, then this could have been like this and this might have happened." there is none of that. But I'm not trying to make this a debate either, rather a discussion, where you can show me flaws or holes, and I can display parts of the evidence. I have done plenty of critical thinking on this, and I have come to a conclusion. There needs to be another investigation. I have not said I know for a fact anyone is guilty, nor do I. There could be a logical explination, but I have not seen it. I don't believe that you have. You may have taken a few small jabs but no biggie. I enjoy discussion with you, even if we disagree sometimes. Thats the whole point of coming to message boards. To talk to people about stuff. Some people enjoy attacking people, but I don't think you do, nor have you offended me really. Like I said before I think you got the wrong impression. Your participation is up to you. I will admit that some evidence will fall in the unanswered and unanswerable allegations, as some answers fall behind the shroud of classified information that we will probably not see for years and years, if ever. But thats only some. The point would be only for us to lay out some evidence, discuss it and decide if it all of it adds up to deserve a serious investigation. So it's up to you.

Well since you have already judged the book by its cover and will not read it, and will not consider it anything more than speculation and conjecture lets just end it here. We are obviously not going to agree. I have read the book, from cover to cover, some chapters twice, and my opinion he supports and backs up what he says pretty well. In your opinion he wants money, he's just speculating and it's not worth reading. So lets leave it at that.

I agree it is strange that he said that, but it doesn't mean anything by itself. It has been suggested that what he had seen was computer simulation of the war games that involved live fly exercises involving a mock situation of an aircraft being used as a missile. No one has been able to say whether computer simulation of the war games excercises exist, but I don't see why it wouldn't. But I dunno, its a mystery.

I have offered it to you, its in a 600 page book. A book that you claim is written purely for money and by someone who is not credible. I understand that opinion, but that is your opinion and I do not share it. I don't believe his research is for money, nor do I believe he is not credible. And you have shown no conclusive evidence to support that hypothesis. The evidence is too thick to post it all here, I'm going to attempt to get small pieces of it down in another thread but it will take time and alot of steps. If you think its complete nonsense and hogwash, don't read it, ignore it. I'm not here to offend anyone, and if you feel I have offended you then I apologize.

Thats a fair a reasonable request. And I will adhere to it, but I need your help in guiding the direction of this thread. Both you and I, and anyone else who participates in this thread need to be objective and consider both sides. Put it this way, I would sleep easier if I knew this theory was wrong. But, I cannot dismiss it because in a crazy way it makes alot of sense. So what I propose is lets look at the evidence and information scientifically but also investigatively, because I think we can agree that in the case of an investigation, especially mass murder, there is relatively little scientific fact unless forensic science is involved; in this case there was none. So what we need to establish is what we consider "evidence", "fact" and "speculation/opinion". We also need to determine a beginning point as a platform to begin this "investigation" or "discussion". Do you have any preferances on a starting platform? As long as this doesn't turn into an insult/flame fest and remains a calm and rationale discussion I will be happy.