Hello from nineeleven.co.uk

[steve s]

I just think they needed some help to pull the whole thing off.

I agree with Beachnut. What's so difficult about hijacking some planes. CTists seem to think that no planes were ever hijacked prior to 9/11. Most previous hijackings were done with fewer people than al-qeada used. D.B. Cooper managed to hijack a plane all by himself. He had no weapon and used the threat of a bomb to gain control, just like the al-qeada guys did (and they had knives.)

The only difference between 9/11 and all the hijackings that came before is that once Atta and his goons had control of the planes they decided to crash them into some buildings. How complicated is that?

Now compare that to the CTists wet dreams. Thousands of Americans were involved in a conspiracy to kill thousands of their fellow citizens. Not one of them refused the pay-off money, and not one of them has had a guilty conscience. How likely is that?

Steve S.

 

[steve s]

As for coincidences go, most of them don't even rise to the level of coincidence. Take for example the Loosers claim that someone in the military (forgot his name) canceled a flight that was scheduled for Sept. 11 and that this proves he had foreknowledge of the attacks. What they don't realize is that on any given day you can always find someone, somewhere in the government that canceled a flight to somewhere. So if the attacks had happened on Sept. 8th the truthers would be saying "Look, Jane Doe from the Commerce Department canceled a flight to Chicago. That must prove she was in on it."

I wouldn't even call these coincidences. I would call them "inevitabilities." It's inevitable that such things will occur regardless of what day the attacks happened. But the troofers just add them to their list of "coincidences."

Steve S.

 

[Gravy]

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.

Welcome, timmyg.

Almost every thing in that paragraph is completely wrong, as has been explained – with evidence – time and again to members of the UK forum.

 

[twinstead]

OK, Timmyg.

You should now be familiar with the general consensus of this board.

We expect one who accuses folks of mass murder to have some substance to their accusations.

Do you?

 

[Crungy]

As for coincidences go, most of them don't even rise to the level of coincidence. Take for example the Loosers claim that someone in the military (forgot his name) canceled a flight that was scheduled for Sept. 11 and that this proves he had foreknowledge of the attacks. What they don't realize is that on any given day you can always find someone, somewhere in the government that canceled a flight to somewhere. So if the attacks had happened on Sept. 8th the truthers would be saying "Look, Jane Doe from the Commerce Department canceled a flight to Chicago. That must prove she was in on it."

I wouldn't even call these coincidences. I would call them "inevitabilities." It's inevitable that such things will occur regardless of what day the attacks happened. But the troofers just add them to their list of "coincidences."

Steve S.

Easily the most suspicious "coincidence" in the 9/11 attacks is the following.

http://www.answers.com/topic/american-airlines-flight-11

Seth MacFarlane, creator of Family Guy, was booked on Flight 11, but due to a mix up, missed the plane. His travel agent told him the flight departed at 8:15 instead of 7:45, and he arrived just after the plane had boarded. [11]

Were the 9/11 attacks planned by Stewie hatas?

 

[CptColumbo]

Was this started today because it's the fifth of November?

 

[LashL]

Why is the conspiracy site called "nineeleven" in the U.K. anyway? Wouldn't it more appropriately be called "elevennine" there? Or is the fact that it's called "nineeleven" - contrary to the usual U.K. method of assigning numerical quantities to dates - just another part of the conspiracy?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[Housefly]

There's a comedian called Stewart Lee who did a bit about 9/11. He referred to it throughout as "the 9th of November- reclaim the calendar!"
"The next day, 9/12, the 9th of December... do the math... s..."

Funny guy but he takes a while to build up to the really funny parts.

 

[LashL]

So, this Thursday should be a big day for the U.K."nineeleven" site, then, no?

 

[tsig]

co-incedencncs

thanks for the welcome everyone



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.

On every day many things happen.

 

[tsig]

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.

just like you will need help pulling it.

 

[tsig]

I don't post very much in these discussions but statements like this, a false dichotomy, make me crazy. To me it shows that the CT whackos have an ingrained feeling of superiority over anyone else. The fact that they are sure their fantasies are "THE TRVTH", the inability to accept evidence that does not support their fantasies, the misinterpretation and/or out-of-context pictures and quotes and refusing to accept the fact that not all people think like whackjobs really speaks volumes on their intelligence level and attitude.

Carry on with the usual yadda yadda yadda CT crap.
<lurk mode=ON>

Having secret knowlege gives you power exept you can't use it without giving away the secret.

 

[Qubit]

On every day many things happen.

I think this is a point many people take for granted. When CTers speak in this context they always point to the "odds of X happening." They usually make X to be some exhuberantly large number whereby they have no explanation of how they reached that number. Nonetheless, what they don't understand is that events with low probability in a small number of trials actually have a high probability in a large number of trial (Law of Large Numbers). If you can fathom how many events happen in a single day, you will see that things that appear improbable are actually quite natural.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Why is the conspiracy site called "nineeleven" in the U.K. anyway? Wouldn't it more appropriately be called "elevennine" there? Or is the fact that it's called "nineeleven" - contrary to the usual U.K. method of assigning numerical quantities to dates - just another part of the conspiracy?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Speaking as a non-suppporter of that site, I nonetheless think 9/11 has universally crept into the language this side of the pond because 9/11 was such a momentous event--to impose, after the fact, our own terminology would be insensitive. The predominance power-wise of the US might have something to do with it too of course...

Had the London bombings of 7/7/05 taken place on say, the 8th of July, we would retain the UK terminology by calling them 8/7--an indication this would be so is found by universal (UK) reference to the second rouind of (failed) bombings on 21st July as 21/7, not 7/21, as your terminology would have it.

Hope that explains it all.


Next post: cricket's inherent superiority vis a vis baseball......(only joking!)

 

[Housefly]

By the way,

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.

I don't believe anyone's ever said that the 19 hijackers were the only people involved in the plot. If they were trained and had their flight schools paid for by "alkaeda" wouldn't that count as "help"?

 

[timmyg]

theres a lot of points to discuss here and i'm not going to be able to debate them all at once. I might attempt to debate them one at a time with you guys in the near future (i'd be interested to know why johndoexs calculations are wrong but i will check the other threads on here for that)

I'm suprised that many of you feel that 9/11 needs no further investigation. Surely all of you agree that it does? WTC7 has only got as far as a hypothesis and many other issues such as the Pakistani ISI link have not been investigated to the extent of any real conclusion.

 

[Firestone]

I'm suprised that many of you feel that 9/11 needs no further investigation. Surely all of you agree that it does? WTC7 has only got as far as a hypothesis and many other issues such as the Pakistani ISI link have not been investigated to the extent of any real conclusion.

I think the reason many are sceptical about the Pakistani ISI link is that the question has been around for years, but no one has ventured further than the question. And by no one, I mean investigators who claim 9/11 was an inside-job. If they can't come up with anything, if the proof for the ISI links is one Indian report, what should we investigate?

As far as WTC7 is concerned, NIST is working on that.
But I'm afraid that when the report comes out, it will be treated by those who believe 9/11 was an inside job the same way as the NIST reports on WTC 1/2: they will dismiss it without any reasonable argument.

 

[JanH]

I'm suprised that many of you feel that 9/11 needs no further investigation. Surely all of you agree that it does? WTC7 has only got as far as a hypothesis and many other issues such as the Pakistani ISI link have not been investigated to the extent of any real conclusion.

Timmy, I don't think many here believe that. NIST is as we speak investigating WTC 7, and they have some of the most clever and educated people on the job doing just that. I for one am content to wait a few months to see what they come up with, and we can take it from there. Nothing has convinced me that anyone in the troofer crowd would be able to find the right way to sit on a toilet seat, far less contribute to an investigation of a complex disaster.

As for investigating the Pakistani ISI, there are some nasty geopolitical realities concerned. They are widely considered a rat-nest of radical extremists held at bay by some slightly-less-extreme voices of, comparatively speaking, sanity. It is a sad fact of affairs that the world may well be one bomb or bullet away from seeing al-Qaeda, or someone like them, with access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

There is asking questions, and there are asking complex questions. One example of the latter is "have you stopped beating your wife", an example of a question that dishonestly presumes a claim that is, unless you are El Hadji Diouf, both insulting and false. And this is the kind of "questions" the troofers incessantly ask, again and again. They present a list of long-debunked, ludicrous assertions far removed from reality, and based on these, they "ask questions." It is dishonest. They don't want answers, they want conspiracies and confirmation of preconceived ideas. That is precisely why when someone answers the questions, like the editors of Popular Mechanics did, they are accused of being "shills".

 

[timmyg]

Timmy, I don't think many here believe that. NIST is as we speak investigating WTC 7, and they have some of the most clever and educated people on the job doing just that. I for one am content to wait a few months to see what they come up with, and we can take it from there. Nothing has convinced me that anyone in the troofer crowd would be able to find the right way to sit on a toilet seat, far less contribute to an investigation of a complex disaster.

As for investigating the Pakistani ISI, there are some nasty geopolitical realities concerned. They are widely considered a rat-nest of radical extremists held at bay by some slightly-less-extreme voices of, comparatively speaking, sanity. It is a sad fact of affairs that the world may well be one bomb or bullet away from seeing al-Qaeda, or someone like them, with access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

There is asking questions, and there are asking complex questions. One example of the latter is "have you stopped beating your wife", an example of a question that dishonestly presumes a claim that is, unless you are El Hadji Diouf, both insulting and false. And this is the kind of "questions" the troofers incessantly ask, again and again. They present a list of long-debunked, ludicrous assertions far removed from reality, and based on these, they "ask questions." It is dishonest. They don't want answers, they want conspiracies and confirmation of preconceived ideas. That is precisely why when someone answers the questions, like the editors of Popular Mechanics did, they are accused of being "shills".

I said that i thought to defend the position that 9/11 needs no further investigation is a decision of poor judgement or corrupt intentions, and this was met by comments from several people telling me that I am insulting them personally.. indicating that they do feel that 9/11 needs no further investagtion. I am genuniely suprised this is the case.

I agree with you on PM, I don't think people should be calling them 'shills' (I do however wonder why they refuse to acknoweldge the size of the whole in the pentagon being much smaller before a section of the wall fell down).

I sometimes feel like critics are telling us we are wrong to be asking any questions.

 

[Parsman]

I don't think anyone here thinks people shouldn't ask questions, I think the problem is when people don't listen to the answers, or will only accept answers which support their pre-conceptions. And that seems to be the way the minds of most of the 9/11 "Truth" movement seem to work.