BBC 9/11: The Conspiracy Files

[Arus808]

I already stated that Aphelion has demonstrated that he has no reading comprehension and had repeatedly demonstrated that he has no hearing comprehension.

Why is this surprising anyone? He can't even remember specifically what the section that he calls an 'error' was actually stating.

 

[CptColumbo]

I already stated that Aphelion has demonstrated that he has no reading comprehension and had repeatedly demonstrated that he has no hearing comprehension.

Why is this surprising anyone? He can't even remember specifically what the section that he calls an 'error' was actually stating.

What was frustrating is that the PM guy began or ended each sentence with "and." Making it an extremely long run-on sentence. As a writer you would think he would know this.

 

[Arus808]

haha...i know writers that do not speak the same way that their final published materials read like.

that's what editors are for.

 

[Aphelion]

This is f-ing pathetic...

-Gumboot

Agreed. I know Columbo was famous for asking just one more question but this is ridiculous.

I have clearly established the error in the BBC documentary and several skeptics have concurred. I will show my maturity and let these strange sorts talk to themselves.

 

[Arus808]

I have cleared established the error in the BBC documentary and several skeptics have concurred. I will show my maturity and let these strange sorts talk to themselves.

So then you lied when you replied that there were no errors.

 

[gumboot]

Agreed. I know Columbo was famous for asking just one more question but this is ridiculous.

I have clearly established the error in the BBC documentary and several skeptics have concurred. I will show my maturity and let these strange sorts talk to themselves.

...




-Gumboot

 

[CptColumbo]

So then you lied when you replied that there were no errors.

He/she didn't lie, merely read someone else's review of the doc and stole their analysis.

Just keep letting other people do the thinking for you like the good little sheep you are.

BTW, you still haven't answered why you have a problem with the NOVA animation (which according to you is in "complete" conflict with the NIST report), but not the LC animation and footage(which is in conflict with the NIST report).

 

[Aphelion]

So then you lied when you replied that there were no errors.

No I didnt lie. You will notice I never mentioned the animation till after I said that. I only noticed the animation thing when I looked at the other thread.

You lied about the CBC film. I will not be answering your questions until you do what you said you would.

This is my final word. Admit you are wrong for once in your life.

 

[CptColumbo]

No I didnt lie. You will notice I never mentioned the animation till after I said that. I only noticed the animation thing when I looked at the other thread.

You lied about the CBC film. I will not be answering your questions until you do what you said you would.

This is my final word. Admit you are wrong for once in your life.

What was the lie about the CBC film, and where was she wrong?

 

[gumboot]

No I didnt lie. You will notice I never mentioned the animation till after I said that. I only noticed the animation thing when I looked at the other thread.

You lied about the CBC film. I will not be answering your questions until you do what you said you would.

This is my final word. Admit you are wrong for once in your life.

Aphelion,

Earlier you kindly answered some questions posed by us regarding your beliefs on 9/11. I hope you will extend this same courtesy again.

You mentioned that you believed the intelligence community allowed 9/11 to happen.

I would ask for some clarification on this particular point.

In your opinion:

1) Which individuals or branches of the Government allowed 9/11 to happen?
2) What specific actions did they take or fail to take in order to facilitate this?
3) What should they have done differently to fulfil their duty and prevent the attacks?

Regards,
Gumboot

 

[Aphelion]

Aphelion,

Earlier you kindly answered some questions posed by us regarding your beliefs on 9/11. I hope you will extend this same courtesy again.

You mentioned that you believed the intelligence community allowed 9/11 to happen.

I would ask for some clarification on this particular point.

In your opinion:

1) Which individuals or branches of the Government allowed 9/11 to happen?
2) What specific actions did they take or fail to take in order to facilitate this?
3) What should they have done differently to fulfil their duty and prevent the attacks?

Regards,
Gumboot

1) I suspect the PNAC and their cronies within the CIA, DoD and their allies ISI were involved. I cant prove this obviously, but I don't need proof to have a suspicion. I clearly cannot name names because they haven't confessed.

2) They ignored clear warnings. They obstructed investigations. They made no preparation despite the numerous warnings of other countries intelligence services. Then afterwards claimed "nobody imagined that planes would be flown into buildings". I also think the drills were relevant.

3) They should have done the opposite of what I wrote in item 2 above

 

[Anti-sophist]

1) I suspect the PNAC and their cronies within the CIA, DoD and their allies ISI were involved. I cant prove this obviously, but I don't need proof to have a suspicion. I clearly cannot name names because they haven't confessed.

2) They ignored clear warnings. They obstructed investigations. They made no preparation despite the numerous warnings of other countries intelligence services. Then afterwards claimed "nobody imagined that planes would be flown into buildings". I also think the drills were relevant.

3) They should have done the opposite of what I wrote in item 2 above

How does NIST fit in with your suspicion? Do you believe their version of the collapse of the towers? Do you believe their version of the story is consistent with the evidence?

 

[babazaroni]

1) I suspect the PNAC and their cronies within the CIA, DoD and their allies ISI were involved. I cant prove this obviously, but I don't need proof to have a suspicion. I clearly cannot name names because they haven't confessed.

Do you think they were involved only in a LIHOP way?

Or give us your definition of LIHOP. Some LIHOP'ers believe these agencies gave aid/money to the hijackers in some way, or caused innocent agencies to ignore the signs. I don't consider this to be LIHOP.

 

[TheGrunion]

1) I suspect the PNAC and their cronies within the CIA, DoD and their allies ISI were involved. I cant prove this obviously, but I don't need proof to have a suspicion. I clearly cannot name names because they haven't confessed.

2) They ignored clear warnings. They obstructed investigations. They made no preparation despite the numerous warnings of other countries intelligence services. Then afterwards claimed "nobody imagined that planes would be flown into buildings". I also think the drills were relevant.

3) They should have done the opposite of what I wrote in item 2 above

In what way were the scheduled drills relevant?

What specific preparations do you believe "they" should have performed?

 

[gumboot]

1) I suspect the PNAC and their cronies within the CIA, DoD and their allies ISI were involved. I cant prove this obviously, but I don't need proof to have a suspicion. I clearly cannot name names because they haven't confessed.

2) They ignored clear warnings. They obstructed investigations. They made no preparation despite the numerous warnings of other countries intelligence services. Then afterwards claimed "nobody imagined that planes would be flown into buildings". I also think the drills were relevant.

3) They should have done the opposite of what I wrote in item 2 above

Thank you for your replies. I hope we can boil these down a bit, and make them more specific. As I hope you can appreciate "their cronies" is a bit vague.

Okay, so we have the CIA, DoD, and ISI listed.

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific about what each of these organisations did that prevented the attacks being stopped? Obviously you make broad statements in 2) that don't necessarily apply to each of these organisations.

Could you just spend a bit of time explaining how each of the three organisations above were involved? Perhaps some examples? Please make sure you identify which organisation is guilty of which actions or inactions.

Lastly, the drills. I would also ask that you can be a bit more specific in identifying which drills you are referring to, and how you believe they prevented the attacks from being stopped. For now I am assuming you mean the alleged wargames scheduled for 9/11, however perhaps you can clarify this as well, as you may mean something else.

Regards,
Gumboot

 

[Aphelion]

I believe NIST is correct. I do not believe in any of the physical evidence crap that CTs promote. The attacks happened. They were allowed to happen, I think. They may have been deliberately provoked but that would be even harder to prove.

Grunion I think when they received specific information about hijackings and buildings they should have immediately developed a protocol and standard response in NORAD. If it is true that WTC was mentioned specifically it should have been protected.

 

[DavidJames]

...I think...I think...If..

Thanks. Let me know when you actually have facts or evidence.

Let's see, I can review the facts and evidence developed by the hundreds of independent experts and professionals, meticulously documented with sources and who allow their names and references to be made public....

or I can listen to you, anonymous, no evidence, no facts, no relevant education, no relevant professional experience, who bases their opinions solely on their uneducated beliefs.

Should I ever have chest pains, I will visit my doctor, a surgeon, maybe get a second opinion from another doctor or surgeon. Who will you consult, professionals with the education and experience in the relevant fields, or will you anonymously visit an internet forum and take the advice from someone as ignorant in the subject matter as yourself?

By the way, you never answered my questions about whether you've contacted NIST or what your qualifications are which lead you to think you can teach about the collapse of buildings.

 

[Aphelion]

Thanks. Let me know when you actually have facts or evidence.

Let's see, I can review the facts and evidence developed by the hundreds of independent experts and professionals, meticulously documented with sources and who allow their names and references to be made public....

or I can listen to you, anonymous, no evidence, no facts, no relevant education, no relevant professional experience, who bases their opinions solely on their uneducated beliefs.

Should I ever have chest pains, I will visit my doctor, a surgeon, maybe get a second opinion from another doctor or surgeon. Who will you consult, professionals with the education and experience in the relevant fields, or will you anonymously visit an internet forum and take the advice from someone as ignorant in the subject matter as yourself?

By the way, you never answered my questions about whether you've contacted NIST or what your qualifications are which lead you to think you can teach about the collapse of buildings.

Why would I contact NIST when I totally agree with their report?

Please dont misquote me like you just did. It is a breech of your membership agreement.

 

[gumboot]

By the way, you never answered my questions about whether you've contacted NIST or what your qualifications are which lead you to think you can teach about the collapse of buildings.

Aphelion does not dispute NIST's findings.

-Gumboot

 

[DavidJames]

Pay attention - This was your post where I asked that question.

When will the engineering community have access to the computer simulations and photos/videos that NIST used?

Have you asked them? If so, how and what was their response?

Why would I contact NIST when I totally agree with their report?

Please dont misquote me like you just did. It is a breech of your membership agreement.

I added ellipses for the words I left out. By thy way, this is a typical cowardly CTists remark. You take offense when you feel you are offended, but have no qualms of accusing innocent people in the complicity of mass murder. How you do you live with yourself.