Decade of Scams-- from 9/11 to Finances to Tiger Woods

[spooked911]

Americans are endless suckers it seems.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/opinion/20rich.html

This Frank Rich column is pretty good, except he doesn't quite get to questioning that 9/11 was a scam too.

[KDLarsen]

1. I think you missed his point..

For The Post, his calamity has become as big a story as 9/11. And the paper may well have it right. We’ve rarely questioned our assumption that 9/11, “the day that changed everything,” was the decade’s defining event. But in retrospect it may not have been. A con like Tiger’s may be more typical of our time than a one-off domestic terrorist attack, however devastating.

I think he has a fair point. The 00's wasn't dominated by major events such as 9/11, but of multiple revelations of scams, fraud etc.

[spooked911]

3. I know that was his point, but how much more awesome would it have been if he wrote:

"We’ve rarely questioned our assumption that 9/11, “the day that changed everything,” occurred as our political leaders and media figures told us. But in retrospect it may not have been. A con like 9/11 may be more typical of our time than a one-off domestic adulterer, however more fascinating the latter may be to the public."

/fixed

[chandler2]

2. The coming meme for the 9/11 scam is already being laid out

First, I agree that Mr. Rich's column is a pretty good one, but most people aren't really surprised to learn about
corrupt CEOs and other equally moral morons like Tiger Woods.

Imagine how much more powerful and persuasive his column could have been if he had focused on the ramifications of
the 9/11 scam. The next Congress would no doubt repeal the Anti-Terrorism Act, the outrageously wasteful
military/security/intelligence budgets would be slashed in favor of making life better for all Americans, and hope
would be a more powerful driver than fear in all of what we do as a nation and as individual citizens.

THE COMING MEME for the 9/11 scam: LIHOP. Jesse Ventura's TV program is doing a good job of making the case.
Most of the people watching it would probably be shocked if it turns out that one or more of our intelligence services
is cooperating or even underwriting the costs of the program and writing the script for it. However, most people who frequent
this forum aren't endless suckers and therefore wouldn't likely be shocked or even surprised to learn such a thing.

[spooked911]

4. I agree totally

oh well, Rich is just another media gatekeeper, unfortunately

[zappaman]

5. 9/11 scam

is what exactly?
I'm confused by all the "facts"...
was it no planes?
was it explosives?
was it Bush and his cronies?
was it the air force?
was it a missile?
was it a sound device?
was it the FAA?
was it the NYPD and NYFD?
was it the contrails?
was it a government-controlled earthquake?
what was the scam again?

[SDuderstadt]

6. How about YOUR scam...

Spooked?

Again, I ask...is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy that even YOU won't embrace it, dude?

I sincerely beg you to quit embarrassing the Democratic Party in general and DU in particular with your goofy bullshit.

[spooked911]

20. what is *MY* scam?

do you think I am profiting from this? Seriously?

Meanwhile, we ARE being scammed. By all kinds of political actions, constantly. Aren't you angry about any of the scams? Financial, at least? Or do you just go along with what your leaders say, and think they know best?

[spooked911]

7. IMO

was it no planes? yes
was it explosives? yes
was it Bush and his cronies? partly, yes
was it the air force? some of them, yes
was it a missile? missiles were likely used
was it a sound device? I doubt it
was it the FAA? some of them were in on it
was it the NYPD and NYFD? maybe a few had foreknowledge, but otherwise no
was it the contrails? no
was it a government-controlled earthquake? no-- unless, you mean an earthquake from explosives under the wtc
what was the scam again? a massive psy-op, a false-flag terror attack to justify endless war

[SDuderstadt]

8. Or, maybe terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into the buildings, dude...

Your scenarios are hopelessly complex and there's far more evidence for the "OCT" than your unbelievably goofy bullshit.

Again I ask, is there ANY conspiracy theory so goofy even YOU won't embrace it, dude? I sincerely beg you to stop embarrassing the Democratic Party in general and DU particularly with your goofy bullshit.

[spooked911]

18. I beg you to wake-up and wise-up to the scams being played on us

How clueless can you be for so long?

[SDuderstadt]

21. How evidence-less can you be for so long, dude?

There is actual evidence of financial scams. There is none for your "9/11 was an inside job" bullshit.

[newlib]

22. y'all are funny. ever visit a country town's courthouse square?

i'm not taking sides, i'm just observing that this is kinda like the same atmosphere you'd find where i come from.

[spooked911]

24. let's leave aside the issue of evidence for now

why do you think financial scams occur but (apparently) you don't think other scams such as false-flag terrorism occur?

[SDuderstadt]

27. Dude...

why don't you wait for me to actually announce a position before you take issue with it? Your strawman arguments are pathetic. Taking issue with your goofy claims because you have zero evidence is NOT the same thing as saying something doesn't exist at all.

This is why you're an inside joke around here, Spooked.

[spooked911]

31. OK, so you agree there are false-flag terrorist attacks?

If you don't think so, why are you making the fuss?

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. why would we leave aside the issue of evidence?????

Why do you want to make this about "other scams such as false-flag terrorism," instead of about your notion that the towers were blown up with mini-nukes?

Compare:

"I think Obama had a wild affair with a sheep."

"WTF? Do you have any evidence for that?"

"Oh-ho-ho, so you don't think that politicians have affairs?"

Not a very close analogy, but possibly suggestive.

[AZCat]

29. Because it's the only way spooked can make a case.

We've seen what passes for evidence in his eyes.

[chandler2]

11. What's your view of the WTC owner (Silverstein)? Was he bribed...

or merely rewarded handsomely -- for being a true Patriot, of course.

[SDuderstadt]

15. How, specifically, was Silverstein...

"rewarded handsomely"? Do you even bother to fact-check the "truther" bullshit you spout?

[spooked911]

17. certainly he was paid off handsomely

I don't know about bribed per se; I doubt he had a whole lot to do directly with 9/11 but I'm sure he knew ahead of time.

[SDuderstadt]

23. Dude...have you ever factored in the...

loss of rental income during the period of time it's taking to rebuild? How about the cost of rebuilding? Please prove that Silverstein was "paid off handsomely".

[spooked911]

25. WTC1 and 2 were losing money and he got plenty of insurance money

I'm not going to go through the math, but it is clear Silverstein had plenty of incentive for going along with the plan and getting to rebuild.

[SDuderstadt]

26. Dude...

WTC 1 and 2 were not losing money...they were pretty near what would be considered to be full occupancy. Please prove your goofy claim they were "losing money". Secondly, what evidence do you have that whatever insurance settlement received in any way surpassed his lost rental income and the cost of rebuilding? Repeating your goofy conspiracy theory bullshit does not constitute proof, dude.

[spooked911]

30. see here

http://www.notbored.org/wtc.html
Built for an enormous amount of money between 1966 and 1970 by the Port Authority of the State of New York, the Twin Towers were intended to house in one complex a great many foreign financial institutions and to provide everything that their managers, employees and clients might need (hotels, restaurants, shops, movie theaters, etc. etc). Despite the novelty of being the tallest buildings in the world -- a distinction that only lasted until 1976, when the Sears Tower was built in Chicago -- the Twin Towers were always money-losers as rental properties and required huge subsidies (tens of millions of dollars a year) from the State of New York to remain solvent. Because all of the windows in both towers were sealed up tight, and because neither tower was equipped to take advantage of its unique potential to generate power using the wind or solar energy, the WTC complex was ludicrously costly to heat and light.

http://97.74.65.51/Printable.aspx?ArtId=24243
WTC was a monument to big government, corporatism, incompetence, and megalomania. It lost money. Because it was built in blissful disregard of the collapsing office market in Lower Manhattan, they couldn’t rent all of it when it opened. More than a million square feet of space just sat there, empty. The complex would have gone bankrupt if strings hadn’t been pulled to move state agencies into it. Under reasonable accounting assumptions and leaving out government subsidies of one kind or another, (such as the entire thing’s exemption from local taxes due to its being owned by a government agency) it was a financial disaster, partly because its cost overran estimates by more than 100%. And it never had more than 5% of its tenants in "world trade" related businesses, its intended market.

[SDuderstadt]

32. Dude...

you cite two "sources" making assertions that provide no concrete evidence of those assertions whatsoever. Did you bother to fact-check them?

Again, this is why you're regarded as an inside joke around here, dude.

[OnTheOtherHand]

33. did you notice something cool?

If I'm not mistaken, there was not a single new post in this forum for just over 24 hours -- until spooked couldn't stand it any more and kicked that "broken columns" thread.

It was sort of like the Christmas truce, except, just silent.

:toast:

[KDLarsen]

34. I noticed the very same thing

Just stopping by while the roast is in the oven and the kids are watching Disney christmas cartoons and Mr. Bean.

Speaking of Christmas truce, it's really strange to think that 95 years ago, soldiers on both sides gave up their arms just for the day to celebrate the occasion :)

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chandler2]

14. You're just lucky you aren't a truth seeker, or your can would be

thrown out on your bottom side.

[spooked911]

19. um, yeah

whatever. Get a clue sometime, mmm?

[chandler2]

9. Rich IS that, but he sees himself as a true, patriotic centrist

The cover-up aspect includes both those who are knowingly gatekeepers, propagandists, and disinfo agents, and those who
are NOT knowingly acting as such. I would put Rich in the latter category...but I could very easily be wrong. After all,
he IS a big playuh.

[SDuderstadt]

10. Or, maybe you guys can't evaluate evidence properly and...

you're just dead wrong, dude. You have had eight years, dude...why can't you marshal any convincing, concrete evidence for your claims?

[defendandprotect]

13. 9/11 MIHOP . . . as for Tiger, it's another part of the farce . . .

from the fake right wing religious movement in America to try to shore up

authority - patriarchy --

to keeping the cover ups going on right wing violence, assassinations, treason, corruption!

[rschop]

16. Yes in deed, Americans are complete suckers!

I agree. "Americans are endless suckers it seems." But it seem again Frank Rich in either complete ignorance or pretended ignorance missed the main point of 9/11.

When the truth comes out the American people will realize that they had been scammed, not once but many times due to the events on 9/11.

First it is now clear from the information that came out of the government investigations of 9/11, that the CIA in an attempt to hide their culpability in allowing the bombing of the USS Cole to take place had hidden the names Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi and the fact that they had been photographed at the al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur with Walid Bin Attash, actually planning the Cole bombing, from the FBI Cole bombing investigators numerous times in a wide ranging criminal conspiracy.

The CIA had even convinced FBI Director Louis Freeh to take part in their massive criminal conspiracy to hide the names of Mihdhar and Hazmi and the meeting at Kuala Lumpur from FBI Agent Ali Soufan and his FBI Cole bombing team.

After April 2001 when both the CIA and FBI HQ knew a huge al Qaeda attacks was in the works, they still continued to withhold this information from the FBI Cole bombing investigators, even when the CIA had very strong indications that the people at the Kuala Lumpur meeting were going to take part in this titanic attack.

But what is even more horrific is when the CIA and FBI HQ, in particular, CIA officer Tom Wilshire and FBI IOS HQ Agent Dina Corsi, were told on August 22, 2001, that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, they knew these al Qaeda terrorists were inside of the US only in order to take part in this massive al Qaeda attack. But not only did they try to keep this information a complete secret from the FBI criminal Cole bombing investigators, they shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar on August 28, 2001 when he accidentally found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, and knew they in the US for no other reason than to carry out a horrific al Qaeda terrorist attack.

Second when this was all carefully covered up by the 9/11 Commission and the DOJ IG investigation the American people were scammed again.

How can Frank Rich claim he does not know that the CIA intentionally allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11 when all of this information is now in the public domain. The lessons of 9/11 are that when you allow criminals to take over a US intelligence organization, because you think this will protect you, they are still criminals, and are just as likely to turn on you when they decide they need to protect themselves.

In this case hiding their culpability in the Cole bombing lead the CIA to criminally obstruct the FBI Cole bombing investigation, and then in order to hide their criminal obstruction of the Cole bombing investigation, the CIA intentionally allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place. The evidence we have today for this is over whelming.

This has to be now all but an open secret in Washington DC