Hello from nineeleven.co.uk

[timmyg]

Hello. I've been reading a few posts on here. There seems to be a fair bit of discussion relating to the british 9/11 truth movement forum, and someone said that 'we' should be coming over here to discuss matters. After all many of you visit nineeleven.co.uk regularly, it would be rude not to return the gesture. So I am here. hello.

First i'd like to say I not here to attack anyone. I don't hold personal grudges against people who have insulted me or others on the forum. I'd also like to say I am personally dissappointed with the attitudes of many of the regular non-critics (perhaps even the majority) who post on 'our' forum. I think there is a lack of rational debate and a few people are very paranoid and jump to conclusions too quickly. Not so long ago Jon Ronson came to the forum to discuss issues brought up on a thread which concerned himself. Instead of trying to develop a calm and rational dialogue with Ronson, most of the posters on our forum just insulted him. Some called him a 'shill'/insider, which I feel was completely unneccessary and based on basically no real evidence. This is one example of unconstructive behaviour on the forum which I'm not happy about.

There is a general lack of awareness of the perception of people outside of the forum on nineeleven.co.uk, and I feel this is detrimental to the agenda of the '9/11 truth movement' (which should be to get the unanswered questions answered and find out what the truth is).

Basically I'm concerned that all people who have doubts about the official story of 9/11 are being tarred with the same brush and much of the evidence that suggests it was much more than an isolated terrorist attack is being dismissed (or atleast viewed in a poor light) because of this.

At the same time I have to say that several of the critics who initally came to nineeleven.co.uk, introduced themselves with immediate insults and attacks at the regular members. Some of them made it quite apparent that were not interested in rationally debating specific theories, they had made their minds up on what the truth is and anything to the contrary was quickly dismissed and followed up by more insults. However several critics (stateofgrace, chipmunk stew are 2 I can think of) did attempt to discuss things democratically and raised totally reasonable points/ presented evidence etc. It's people like this i'd like to debate with.

I'd like to debate things here as you all claim to be criticial, independent thinkers. If you really are then you should be able to help me get closer to what the truth is. If the 'truth movement' presents a claim and you guys have a rational explanation for why that claim is false, we should consider it. I'd also like to pinpoint the pyschological divide between the truth movement and its critics. Is there room for co-operation in a common quest for truth? Or do you think it has already been found and anyone who doesn't agree with the official story is bonkers?

 

[uk_dave]

Welcome timmyg

It's good that you came here, and that your opening post was so well considered.

I believe it may have been me who suggested that the CT'ers needed to come to us and not us come to them. To me that would be similar to going to a religious forum and trying to convince people that there is no god. It serves little purpose and just gets everyone's backs up.

But here we consider conspiracy theories and the evidence or lack of evidence for them.

I am relatively new to this forum, so I won't claim to have anything like as much knowledge on these issues as some who post here, but I do think you'll find some lively debate..... so long as you stear clear of concrete cores, kinetic energy calcs which prove a knife cannot slice through butter, and buddhism.

 

[WildCat]

Basically I'm concerned that all people who have doubts about the official story of 9/11 are being tarred with the same brush and much of the evidence that suggests it was much more than an isolated terrorist attack is being dismissed (or atleast viewed in a poor light) because of this.

First of all, welcome to the forum

Secondly, what is your evidence? This is the part every member of the CT movement has trouble with, maybe you have the evidence all those before you have failed to provide?

 

[twinstead]

Welcome timmyg.

I think we will find, no matter how polite and rational the participants are on either side of this debate, that it will all boil down to a diametrically opposed view of what constitutes compelling evidence.

While most in your camp believe there is compelling evidence of an 'inside' job, most here believe that your evidence is baseless conjecture and hearsay for the most part and not backed up by sound science.

I do look forward to calm, rational debates on the subject; I always learn a lot from them.

I'm dubious anybody is going to change anybody's mind though.

 

[stateofgrace]

Welcome to the forum timmyg.

I mean this with all sincerity. You have come here and been honest in your opening post by stating your reasons for being here.

Like yourself I bear no malice and actually respect the fact you have formulated your own opinions on this matter. I would like to go further and start with a clean slate here. With this in mind you should be aware that this forum is very different from the British 911 forum, this forum is populated with many learned people and many people who hold very strong views on this issue.

You will not be insulted here, you will not be labelled here, you will be allowed your opinion but you will be asked to back your opinions with hard evidence. Many people here, myself included do not simply accept opinions, no matter how well founded without a bedrock of facts.

So Timmy, welcome to the forum. I would advise you maybe read through some of the treads here and I look forward to your input.

stateofgrace

 

[Anti-sophist]

Also, you'll find people here have very short tolerances for aimless subject changing.

 

[CptColumbo]

Welcome timmyg,

Unfortunately, both sides of this issue have their "hotheads" and "trolls." Just view some of the threads here and you will find some fine examples of both.

Before you start posting questions here, I suggest you read Gravy's guide to Loose Change and some of the threads at the top of the CT sub-forum page. This is to avoid you asking any questions that may have been answered before (ad nauseum in some cases). We will try to answer any reasonable question you may have, and hope you will return answers to our questions in kind.

To avoid making any generalizations about who we are, I also suggest you look at other parts of the forum. We come from many walks of life and areas of expertise, we have very diiferent political views and ways of looking at the world, and we are willing to accept any theory if there is verifiable objective evidence to back it up.

MEB-SG

 

[timmyg]

thanks for the welcome everyone

Secondly, what is your evidence? This is the part every member of the CT movement has trouble with, maybe you have the evidence all those before you have failed to provide?

If you're looking for a signed statement from dick cheney saying that elements of the administration were responsible for 9/11 then I'm afraid I don't have one.
Basically I think 9/11 was most probably organised by a small element of the US government, with many others either turning a blind eye or refusing to believe that such a thing could be possible. Possibly members of PNAC were involved. I don't have direct proof of this as I don't have access to classified documents and I don't have the authority to question the people who I think could be involved...

But I find there to be too many co-incidences in the official story for it to be as simple as an isolated terrorist attack organised by bin laden. I think the PNAC rebuilding americas defence document carries weight in establishing that the neo-cons had a motive. And the fact that an independent inquiry was only established due to pressure from the victims families, suspect individuals were appointed to head the enquiry (henry kissinger, Phillip D. Zelikow), much evidence has been blocked or dismissed by the commission (in some cases destroyed by the pentagon.. ie. able danger) and that the self admitted purpose of the investigation was "not to assign blame to individuals for 9/11"... are a remarkable set of co-incidences if no one in the establishment had a hand in causing the events to happen. If people in the establishment did cause them to happen in some way, it makes perfect sense.

The weight of these co-incidences is backed up by another set of unusual events on the day which for me includes the incredible collapse of WTC7, the Pakistani ISI wire transfer, the NORAD standdown and contridictory blackbox/video data concerning flight 77, the passport falling out of the plane onto the street intact and handed to a police officer by an 'anonomous 30 year old male in a suit', curt weldons testimony that the able danger group had information on the hijackers that was deliberately isolated from other agencies, the death of John O'Neil at the WTC on 9/11, the put options linked to Buzzy Crongards firm, Bush's erie 'Let us not tolerate conspiracy theories concerning the events of 9/11' speech and the record number of terror drills taking place that day(some involving hijacked jets) which caused confusion and slowed response times . If all these events are innocent co-incidences then it really is the greatest most amazing series of co-incidences in history.

I'm guessing you guys feel that this is inconclusive, and perhaps it is. It is my opinion and is probably influenced by my political thoughts and feelings on human rights and what I think the globalists are capable of. i'm not going to demand that you subscribe to my own beleifs. But I have to say that I think the belief that 9/11 was an isolated alkaeda attack, carried out with no foreknoweldge is one based on very weak evidence. I also think that to defend the position that 9/11 needs no further investigation is a decision of poor judgement, or corrupt intentions.

 

[Pardalis]

But I find there to be too many co-incidences in the official story for it to be as simple as an isolated terrorist attack organised by bin laden. I think the PNAC rebuilding americas defence document carries weight in establishing that the neo-cons had a motive.

Do you mean al Qaeda didn't have a motive?



What is a "co-incidence"? Is it the same as "coincidence"?

And the fact that an independent inquiry was only established due to pressure from the victims families, suspect individuals were appointed to head the enquiry (henry kissinger, Phillip D. Zelikow), much evidence has been blocked or dismissed by the commission (in some cases destroyed by the pentagon.. ie. able danger) and that the self admitted purpose of the investigation was "not to assign blame to individuals for 9/11"... are a remarkable set of co-incidences if no one in the establishment had a hand in causing the events to happen. If people in the establishment did cause them to happen in some way, it makes perfect sense.

I don't see it that way. But let's take these one by one shall we?

How can you say the Commission was establishes ONLY due to the pressure of the families?

How are these individuals suspect?

What evidence has been blocked, dismissed or destroyed?

The weight of these co-incidences is backed up by another set of unusual events on the day
snip
If all these events are innocent co-incidences then it really is the greatest most amazing series of co-incidences in history.

How can you say that? Have you researched all coincidences that happen at every major historical event? How do you quantify the amount of coincidences in a given event? What is a legitimate amount of coincidences?

What is a coincidence to you?

All I see is that you are anomaly hunting, you are looking for these coincidences. I'm afraid coincidences happen at every second of our lives, we only see them when we look for them.

I'm guessing you guys feel that this is inconclusive, and perhaps it is.

It is.

what I think the globalists are capable of.

Who are these "globalists"? Do you have any proof of their existence?

i'm not going to demand that you subscribe to my own beleifs. But I have to say that I think the belief that 9/11 was an isolated alkaeda attack, carried out with no foreknoweldge is one based on very weak evidence. I also think that to defend the position that 9/11 needs no further investigation is a decision of poor judgement, or corrupt intentions.

How very polite!. You basically accuse anyone who don't doubt the Official Story of being corrupt....

but said in such a polite way...

How familiar.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Basically I think 9/11 was most probably organised by a small element of the US government, with many others either turning a blind eye or refusing to believe that such a thing could be possible. Possibly members of PNAC were involved...

Considering what "inside job" conjecturists propose would be the largest undertaking of its kind in history -- not only to plan/coordinate, finance, execute, and cover-up for the rest of time -- proof should be dripping from the trees. That it isn't might suggest something.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[Anti-sophist]

There are alot of potential avenues for discussion, so you are going to get overwhelmed by people wantings to talk about particular issues. When you get around to wanting to discuss the "contridictory blackbox/video data concerning flight 77" let me know. I'll go ahead and make this statement, and you can disagree accordingly: "There are no inconsitencies with the Flight Data Recorder data and the official story". The videos of interest have all been released or are scheduled to be released.

 

[Pardalis]

There is a general lack of awareness of the perception of people outside of the forum on nineeleven.co.uk, and I feel this is detrimental to the agenda of the '9/11 truth movement' (which should be to get the unanswered questions answered and find out what the truth is).

So their goal is to get the answers? I always thought their goal was only to ask questions...

What has your organ-ization done to get the answers they seek? Have they asked the real authotities, real engeneers and scientists?

I'd also like to pinpoint the pyschological divide between the truth movement and its critics.

Easy

Truth movement = cult of believers

Skeptics = rational critical thinkers

 

[Larry O'Hara]

As it happens...

I am well aware of the nature of personnel/debates on the nineelevendotcodotuk forum--it was personal experience of such that led me and others to set the www911cultwatchdotorgdotuk web-site.

The 'discussion' ongoing on nineelevendotcodotuk forum about Jon Ronson's Jewishness/Zionism tells me, and any others interested, just what the predominant themes in the 9/11 cult UK discourse actually are.

 

[timmyg]

Do you mean al Qaeda didn't have a motive?

i didn't say that. I believe Alkaeda also had a motive. But I'm yet to see evidence that an established network of terrorists all under the command of osama bin laden even exists. Sure there are many small groups of islamic extremists that would want to hurt america, but I'm not sure if they are as connected as the whitehouse would like to have us think they are, and i'm not sure they are capable of such a feat on their own.

What is a "co-incidence"? Is it the same as "coincidence"?

yes. my typing is often bad. i'm sorry.

I don't see it that way. But let's take these one by one shall we?

How can you say the Commission was establishes ONLY due to the pressure of the families?

well from what I understand there was no independent investigation, bush announced publically that he didn't want one because it would take away valueable resources from attacking countries in the middle east, but the families were understandably dissatisfied and demanded that one be set up. I am anticipating a response indicating that video documentaries are somehow usually flawed here.. but i've got to say watch '911 press for truth'.

How are these individuals suspect?

What evidence has been blocked, dismissed or destroyed?

Testimony from Cult weldon and military personal who believe that the pentagon had information on the hijackers before 9/11 was dismissed. pretty much all the evidence Sibel Edmonds is trying to get acknoweldged is being blocked. Several terabytes of information on the able danger unit was destroyed at the pentagon.

How can you say that? Have you researched all coincidences that happen at every major historical event? How do you quantify the amount of coincidences in a given event? What is a legitimate amount of coincidences?

What is a coincidence to you?

All I see is that you are anomaly hunting, you are looking for these coincidences. I'm afraid coincidences happen at every second of our lives, we only see them when we look for them.

hmm. fair point. I think that coincidences which involve a party with a motive in a crime, being reluctant to have evidence relating to said crime investigated is reason for concern.

Who are these "globalists"? Do you have any proof of their existence?

Again. I have to speculate to some extent in this case as i am not in the social position to meet with these people or the people surrounding them..
but anyone in a high position of power who has an interest in controlling global events. ie. david rockerfeller, henry kissinger, other members of the bilderberg group.

How very polite!. You basically accuse anyone who don't doubt the Official Story of being corrupt....

I didn't do that atall. I said to defend the position that further investigation into 9/11 is a decision of poor judgement or corrupt intent.

 

[Garb]

I didn't do that atall. I said to defend the position that further investigation into 9/11 is a decision of poor judgement or corrupt intent.

What makes it poor judgement when from the evidence they see there is no other explanation?

 

[timmyg]

So their goal is to get the answers? I always thought their goal was only to ask questions...

What has your organ-ization done to get the answers they seek? Have they asked the real authotities, real engeneers and scientists?



Easy

Truth movement = cult of believers

Skeptics = rational critical thinkers

ok. I've come on this forum as an individual with my own quarms about nineeleven.co.uk and its climate of opinions, and have tried to approach you guys as politely as possible. I feel your reaction, pardalis, is slightly gungho.

I said the objective of the nineeleven truth movement 'should be to get the unanswered questions answered and find out what the truth is'. Perhaps it isn't. But i personally think it should be.

I am aware of the cult like image the movement has developed and it's very unfortunate. I believe in my initial post on here I have outlined my awareness of this and my frustration at the way speculative views have been put across.

 

[stateofgrace]

I'm guessing you guys feel that this is inconclusive, and perhaps it is. It is my opinion and is probably influenced by my political thoughts and feelings on human rights and what I think the globalists are capable of. i'm not going to demand that you subscribe to my own beleifs. But I have to say that I think the belief that 9/11 was an isolated alkaeda attack, carried out with no foreknoweldge is one based on very weak evidence. I also think that to defend the position that 9/11 needs no further investigation is a decision of poor judgement, or corrupt intentions.

I don't think that many people here believe that this an isolated Al Quada attack at all.

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/033104.pdf

I'm also sure that many people are fully aware of the prewarnings giving to the US by foreign intelligence agencies. They were missed, ignored, got lost the maze of bureaucracy, simply overlooked, and not deemed important enough.

There is actually quite overwhelming evidence that Al Quada have planned and carried out many terrorists attacks prior to 911 and after 911.

To believe that Al Quada just sprung up a few days before 911 and are an ideal scapegoat is somewhat lacking in credibility.

If you could offer up something to suggest that the warnings are part of a cover up and that Al Quada is not responsible please do.

 

[timmyg]

What makes it poor judgement when from the evidence they see there is no other explanation?

then they haven't looked at all the evidence. The 911 commssion hasn't investigated the link between the pakistani ISI and Mohammed Atta. An organisation that is well known to support terrorists. This is one thing that needs investigating further.

 

[Pardalis]

i didn't say that. I believe Alkaeda also had a motive. But I'm yet to see evidence that an established network of terrorists all under the command of osama bin laden even exists.

Say what?

Sure there are many small groups of islamic extremists that would want to hurt america, but I'm not sure if they are as connected as the whitehouse would like to have us think they are, and i'm not sure they are capable of such a feat on their own.

Argument from personal incredulity.

well from what I understand there was no independent investigation

It was a federal investigation.

bush announced publically that he didn't want one because it would take away valueable resources from attacking countries in the middle east, but the families were understandably dissatisfied and demanded that one be set up. I am anticipating a response indicating that video documentaries are somehow usually flawed here.. but i've got to say watch '911 press for truth'.

I've seen it. Not impressed.

Testimony from Cult weldon and military personal who believe that the pentagon had information on the hijackers before 9/11 was dismissed. pretty much all the evidence Sibel Edmonds is trying to get acknoweldged is being blocked. Several terabytes of information on the able danger unit was destroyed at the pentagon.

I admit I'm not well aware of these.

hmm. fair point. I think that coincidences which involve a party with a motive in a crime, being reluctant to have evidence relating to said crime investigated is reason for concern.

?

I didn't do that atall. I said to defend the position that further investigation into 9/11 is a decision of poor judgement or corrupt intent.

You're implying both. Both are insulting.

 

[timmyg]

I'm also sure that many people are fully aware of the prewarnings giving to the US by foreign intelligence agencies. They were missed, ignored, got lost the maze of bureaucracy, simply overlooked, and not deemed important enough.

There is actually quite overwhelming evidence that Al Quada have planned and carried out many terrorists attacks prior to 911 and after 911.

To believe that Al Quada just sprung up a few days before 911 and are an ideal scapegoat is somewhat lacking in credibility.

If you could offer up something to suggest that the warnings are part of a cover up and that Al Quada is not responsible please do.

this debate depends on your definition of what is 'alkeada' i guess. Is alkeada the CIA/ISI supported mujahadeen of the 1980s, of which members are still in operation operating an organised network headed by bin laden? Or is it more of an idea in the world of muslim extremists who look up to the actions of bin laden? personally I don't really know. But there is evidence to suggest that it is the latter.

I find it completely reasonable that the hijackers were muslim extremists who affiliated themselves with 'alkaeda'. I just think they needed some help to pull the whole thing off.