The word OVERKILL comes to mind. Nice post gumboot...
Last edited:
BBC 9/11: The Conspiracy Files
- Thread starter Panoply_Prefect
- Start date
Really. These are just a sample that I suggest you watch and then tell Eric he isn't a truther. you can find him on myspace as Orwell's Ghost.
Could you please define this paradigm, you speak of ? I am dying to see this s*%T!
Good idea. Find the call and listen to it yourself and then give us the exact time NORAD told Jeff the intercepts were over the CONUS. As a matter of fact, they even said the numbers included Canada. When you understand that Gumboot is correct, an apology would be necessary to save face.
I find it outrageously funny that woowoos seem to conveniently ignore the loudmouth Alex Jones favorite Posse Comitatus ActWP so they can claim NORAD standdown.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
If I was a truther, I'd take a totally different angle with NORAD.
From the 70's onwards, Islamic terrorists became increasingly interested in international airliners as targets. By the mid 90's Al Qaeda had formulated Oplan Bojinka and their plot to attack US air travel.
Yet throughout this same period we saw a constant degradation of the US Air Defense system.
We know that in 1991 the UN prevented the US from sweeping in and snatching its ultimate prize - Iraq.
In the following decade the NWO cleverly downgraded NORAD, piece by piece, whilst building up the terrorist threat. They played the game perfectly, without their own personnel being aware of it. Across three administrations they played our their devious plan.
And then, on 9/11, them activated their plan, knowing full well that NORAD, crippled by decades of neglect, had no hope of stopping them.
Finally Iraq would be ours...
Er...
I mean theirs.
-Gumboot
Dylan and Fetzer exposed as nuts. Dylan is the biggest idiot on the earth, he proves it over and over!
Dylan closed mind or no mind! Exposed! Dylan is the top disrespectful cretin on earth. BBC shows all.
Cool
I love the BBC
Dylan closed mind or no mind! Exposed! Dylan is the top disrespectful cretin on earth. BBC shows all.
Cool
I love the BBC
Last edited:
Scientologist
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Messages
- 196
Wow the brits dug Avery out a new 2 hole. Fetzer is a raging lunatic just guessing that a circling military plane was the target guidance system at the pentagon LOL
Question: do you think that the Bush administration made up some evidence, covered up the evidence saying there was no WMD, in order to start an illegal war against a 24-million impoverished country (which had a hardcore dictatorship, that's another question)? Ok, this has not much to do with 9/11 (think about the alqaida-saddam connection, though) and ask yourself: is it possible that these guys knew in advance what was about to happen? (lihop) evidence: all the information, able danger etc... etc.. As for the rest, there are indeed stupid and unproved theories, and it's fair to debunk them. But just because some CT are dishonest and stupid (and can sometimes support objectively alqaida) doesn't mean that you have to do the exact contrary, refusing everything that is presented to you. question: is there anything you accept in the CTs?
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Yes.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how it's illegal...
Possible hypothetically? Yes. Possible, based on the evidence thus far uncovered? No. Could further evidence reveal otherwise and change my stance? Absolutely.
-Gumboot
Scientologist
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Messages
- 196
Please keep in mind when asking such questions that EVERY reputable intelligence agency in the world believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs in Iraq. He used them on his own people, remember?
Obviously, in hindsight, having found no weapons, its easy to say that the administration "made up evidence" or "lied to us to go to war" but you would have to keep in mind those other nations' intelligence agencies and all of the democrats who voted for the war.
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
Do Governments lie? YES
Do I belief everything I am told by politicians? NO
Do I support the Iraq war? NO
Have I ever supported the Iraq war? NO
Did the US have shed loads of warning about terrorist attacks prior to 911? YES
Did they act upon them? NO
Did the get it all wrong? YES
Have they made it worse? YES
Have you or anybody else ever provided anything to proof 911 was an inside Job? NO
Have you or anybody provided any evidence that the prior warnings were not just simply missed but was deliberately ignored? NO
Please stop pretending that every single person that refuses to believe your insane theories about NWO´s and Global domination and goodness knows what else you believe are blissfully unaware of the short falls of politicians and foreign polices.
I have debated the Iraq on other forums, I have never supported it, and I have never supported the death of a single innocent person because of other individuals beliefs, whether they are political or religious.
When will you cters stop this utter nonsense that all those who will not accuse innocent people of the mass murder of 3000 of their own countrymen are some how in league with the devil himself ?Do you not see how silly this makes you look?
And now a question to you. Why will you not believe, despite the absolute mountain of evidence,that Al Qaeda attacked your country ?
Last edited:
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
If Bush & co were prepared to go this far, do you not think it would have been far easier to plant WMD in Iraq? If you do consider them complicit, why do you think they did not do this?
political speculation
Indeed, this argument has emerged several times and it is powerful.
My guess is that the US would have been forced to turn over the evidence to either the IAEA or the UN (unlike 9/11, national investigation). They could refuse but there was a risk. However, there is a simpler explanation: this administration doesn't really care what other people think about them.
"And now a question to you. Why will you not believe, despite the absolute mountain of evidence that Al Qaeda attacked your country ?" (state of grace)
Franckly I think that Al-Qaida did attack the US. I also think they (some high officials around Bush, not him in particular) got the intel from several other agencies around the world that something big was coming. They had Clarke warning them. Did they just prefer ignore what was coming right at them? Did they make sure that no decisive intel would emerge? Did they make sure no decisive actions would be taken? I frankly can't answer that question precisely.
But only a real investigation could prove that, or something bigger than Brzezinki lastest words... "attack on US blamed on Iran".
I don't wanna get too political here, but I don't think there are many Bush fans left. I totally reject the temptation of a cynical alliance between some parts of the Left anf the radical muslim insurgents. However, if evidence can bring the Bush administration to en end and bring a fresh new administration is has to be considered: I'm really enjoying the Libby trial right now...
In the end, there is little chance any big and thorough investigation will ever take place. (I don't reject the possibility of a localized one, especially in order to bring down Cheney). Laet's face ith. However Cts and debunkers dream about it: access to all the evidence, documents, subpoena power (my dream, confront all the people round the Ceney-Mineta case). We could end this. But it's unlikely to happen.
Indeed, this argument has emerged several times and it is powerful.
My guess is that the US would have been forced to turn over the evidence to either the IAEA or the UN (unlike 9/11, national investigation). They could refuse but there was a risk. However, there is a simpler explanation: this administration doesn't really care what other people think about them.
"And now a question to you. Why will you not believe, despite the absolute mountain of evidence that Al Qaeda attacked your country ?" (state of grace)
Franckly I think that Al-Qaida did attack the US. I also think they (some high officials around Bush, not him in particular) got the intel from several other agencies around the world that something big was coming. They had Clarke warning them. Did they just prefer ignore what was coming right at them? Did they make sure that no decisive intel would emerge? Did they make sure no decisive actions would be taken? I frankly can't answer that question precisely.
But only a real investigation could prove that, or something bigger than Brzezinki lastest words... "attack on US blamed on Iran".
I don't wanna get too political here, but I don't think there are many Bush fans left. I totally reject the temptation of a cynical alliance between some parts of the Left anf the radical muslim insurgents. However, if evidence can bring the Bush administration to en end and bring a fresh new administration is has to be considered: I'm really enjoying the Libby trial right now...
In the end, there is little chance any big and thorough investigation will ever take place. (I don't reject the possibility of a localized one, especially in order to bring down Cheney). Laet's face ith. However Cts and debunkers dream about it: access to all the evidence, documents, subpoena power (my dream, confront all the people round the Ceney-Mineta case). We could end this. But it's unlikely to happen.
Larry Lovage
Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 220
Can I just comment on this point? The CIA guy in charge (name, someone? is that that Clarke you mentioned?) explained in the programme that they had nothing specific. Specific means, four planes will be hijacked on september 11th and flown into major buildings. In the absense of information specific enough to directly prevent 9/11, can you suggest what measures should have been undertaken in order to prevent 9/11? Measures that would be effective without essentially imposing martial law over the whole country.
Nobody here denies (as far as I know) that substantial restrictions on freedom have occurred, and that the excuse for those restrictions was 9/11. The USG, the Bush Administration, has done everything to discredit the American values that the whole world actually looks to, all using 9/11 as an excuse. But the whole point about that is that, prior to 9/11, without knowing specifics of what, where and when, something like 9/11 could not be prevented. People will accept only a certain amount of inconvenience in their lives, in this case, inconvenience when attempting to fly. Unless there is an event like 9/11, then people will accept more restrictions, and they do.
But I'm puzzled as to what politically and libertarinaly acceptable actions could have been undertaken to prevent 9/11, if nobody knew exactly what it was going to be.
Gumboot, if you'll allow some constructive criticism, I think you over-argue your points sometimes. There is no particular reason for you to spend a page of the forum defending the BBC's decision not to use the Jersey Girls. They didn't use them. What of it? There was only so much time to use in the programme, and that time was filled with Fetzer, Jones and Avery forcefully putting their points. The Truthers should be grateful. Aphelion then brought up the matter of the JGs wanting to question Bush's prioritisation of OBL. Is that a conspiracy theory? Does it give credence to no-planes or laser weapons? No, the President's prioritisation of OBL is an important issue and a valid question. But you and Wildcat questioned whether Bush really said that, and then you cite the White House press release,as if that's going to quote Bush's remarks verbatim. Might as well read Hansard to find out what John Prescott said in the House of Commons. Did Bush say it? I don't doubt it for a moment, despite the fact that it would be one of the few genuine things Bush ever said (the last thing they want to do is capture OBL!) Just because Bush isn't prioritising OBL doesn't mean the government actually did 9/11 themselves. (Of course if they had committed 9/11, I think they would spare no expense to catch him! Or even catch a fake OBL!!)
Last edited:
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
Here is a break down of the warnings prior to 911.Please read it Busherie.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch8.htm
It is all there for everybody to read, including a memo dropped on Bush’s desk on the 6th August. This as all been reported in the 911 commission report and is available in the public domain.
Here are the final paragraphs.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch8.htm
It is all there for everybody to read, including a memo dropped on Bush’s desk on the 6th August. This as all been reported in the 911 commission report and is available in the public domain.
Here are the final paragraphs.
Last edited:
ref
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2006
- Messages
- 2,685
Prisonplanet.com is desperately trying to save their faces.
"The BBC's Conspiracy Files documentary about 9/11 was a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation from beginning to end. Producer Guy Smith should be ashamed of himself for inflicting this travesty of yellow journalism upon the 9/11 truth movement and he is assured to encounter a vociferous and outraged response in its aftermath."
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/190207tissueoflies.htm
They have lengthy speculation of why the documentary was so wrong. They repeat same old stupidness. I had to coment on that there.
"Your article is ridicilous. Some points here.
1) They used the wrong animation, but what does that matter?
Anyone with any knowledge of physics surely knows, the collapse had nothing strange in it.
http://www.civil.northwestern.ed...C-6-23- 2006.pdf
2) Your crash debris 8 miles away was lightweight MAIL. In the very article you linked, it says:
"Late yesterday afternoon, however, FBI Special Agent Bill Crowley said experts from the National Transportation Safety Board had checked weather reports and determined that lightweight materials might well have traveled over the mountain by a southwest wind that reached a speed of 9 knots. “The NTSB says it is not only plausible, but probable,” said Crowley."
3) How many firefighter nowadays claim there were bombs? 1. Others said explosions.
Most of those accounts are about the sound of the towers as they were collapsing, and some are about cars, trucks, etc. that were on fire after the collapses. None have seen actual bombs, or claim nowadays that actual bombs went off. Accounts before the collapse are of bodies from the towers hitting the ground or other structures.
4) You repeat this biased pull theory once again.
They made the decision to pull, which means the Fire Department. Fire Departments don't demolish buildings. Why would Larry Silverstein accidentally admit demolition on a non-live TV-show and not have it edited away. Pull meant the personnel, that had to be pulled from the scene, because WTC 7 showed signs of critical failure.
Silverstein is rebuilding. The total cost of the massive project is now estimated at $9 billion.
The insurance proceeds, about $4.6 billion, only covered about half the total cost. The other half had to be made up with a combination of state, federal and private financing.
Where is the profit?
5) A buildup of pressure caused by the compression of air between the floors pushed debris out of the already broken windows and/or open vents. Falling debris like elevators or elevator parts/motors and/or columns free falling down the elevator shafts and slamming into lower floors creating debris can also have similar effects. In a sense the floors are large plungers and the towers are just one big Syringe during the collapse.
The perpetrators would have known that all the cameras would film the event. Why make visual explosions?
You try to save your faces of course. But the document actually showed the movement as it is nowadays. No common theories, no unity, no evidence, repetition of false claims that are proven to be false and denial of basic facts.
For your knowledge, learn yourself. Silverstein has made no profit. The figures are out for everybody to see. If you deny it, you lie to yourself.
ref | 02.20.07 - 4:56 am"
I expect a lot of namecalling and ridiculing, but nothing to prove me wrong.
"The BBC's Conspiracy Files documentary about 9/11 was a tissue of lies, bias and emotional manipulation from beginning to end. Producer Guy Smith should be ashamed of himself for inflicting this travesty of yellow journalism upon the 9/11 truth movement and he is assured to encounter a vociferous and outraged response in its aftermath."
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/190207tissueoflies.htm
They have lengthy speculation of why the documentary was so wrong. They repeat same old stupidness. I had to coment on that there.
"Your article is ridicilous. Some points here.
1) They used the wrong animation, but what does that matter?
Anyone with any knowledge of physics surely knows, the collapse had nothing strange in it.
http://www.civil.northwestern.ed...C-6-23- 2006.pdf
2) Your crash debris 8 miles away was lightweight MAIL. In the very article you linked, it says:
"Late yesterday afternoon, however, FBI Special Agent Bill Crowley said experts from the National Transportation Safety Board had checked weather reports and determined that lightweight materials might well have traveled over the mountain by a southwest wind that reached a speed of 9 knots. “The NTSB says it is not only plausible, but probable,” said Crowley."
3) How many firefighter nowadays claim there were bombs? 1. Others said explosions.
Most of those accounts are about the sound of the towers as they were collapsing, and some are about cars, trucks, etc. that were on fire after the collapses. None have seen actual bombs, or claim nowadays that actual bombs went off. Accounts before the collapse are of bodies from the towers hitting the ground or other structures.
4) You repeat this biased pull theory once again.
They made the decision to pull, which means the Fire Department. Fire Departments don't demolish buildings. Why would Larry Silverstein accidentally admit demolition on a non-live TV-show and not have it edited away. Pull meant the personnel, that had to be pulled from the scene, because WTC 7 showed signs of critical failure.
Silverstein is rebuilding. The total cost of the massive project is now estimated at $9 billion.
The insurance proceeds, about $4.6 billion, only covered about half the total cost. The other half had to be made up with a combination of state, federal and private financing.
Where is the profit?
5) A buildup of pressure caused by the compression of air between the floors pushed debris out of the already broken windows and/or open vents. Falling debris like elevators or elevator parts/motors and/or columns free falling down the elevator shafts and slamming into lower floors creating debris can also have similar effects. In a sense the floors are large plungers and the towers are just one big Syringe during the collapse.
The perpetrators would have known that all the cameras would film the event. Why make visual explosions?
You try to save your faces of course. But the document actually showed the movement as it is nowadays. No common theories, no unity, no evidence, repetition of false claims that are proven to be false and denial of basic facts.
For your knowledge, learn yourself. Silverstein has made no profit. The figures are out for everybody to see. If you deny it, you lie to yourself.
ref | 02.20.07 - 4:56 am"
I expect a lot of namecalling and ridiculing, but nothing to prove me wrong.
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
I just finished watching the documentary. There is a momment at about the 30 minute mark I think will haunt me the rest of my life.
It is an audio clip, of two unidentified controllers or emergency workers or such
Male voice: We have confirmed flight 93 is down
Excited female voice: What! Its down, its landed?
Male voice: No its (pause) down
Female voice: Oh.......................................
I would love Jones, Avery and this gang of excrement, to get locked in a room with some of the people involved in trying to deal with that day and see how long they last.
It is an audio clip, of two unidentified controllers or emergency workers or such
Male voice: We have confirmed flight 93 is down
Excited female voice: What! Its down, its landed?
Male voice: No its (pause) down
Female voice: Oh.......................................
I would love Jones, Avery and this gang of excrement, to get locked in a room with some of the people involved in trying to deal with that day and see how long they last.
Well obviously the CIA guy in charge (who?) wouldn't say "yeah we had spceific intel but w failed or did nothing about it". What we have here is op Bojinka precedent (involving planes), we have the augut PDB, we have the july meeting with Richard Clarke and Rice. Clarke is kind of the bad guy, who repeatedly said he warned about AlQaida but nobody would pay attention. We had the multiple foreign intel agencies warning the US.
What strikes me is nobody was ever punished for such a big failure. Actually those who said the contrary were punished.
For specific measures, Mineta should have enforced the multiple recommandations about airport safety. Able Danger should have given way to the arrest of the terrorists who were on the watch list. Cheney was too busy going to court to prevent the public from knowing who was there on his energy group.
I could go on...
Busherie