9/11 a conspiracy?

[MikeMcc]

I am not aware of ANY theory which the Jersey Girls support. To announce that they already believe something, whatever it is, will compromise their investigation.

But I do know this - they certainly support William Rodriguez, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Do you know if anyone has asked them if they still do so? Are they aware of how he has changed his story from the interviews he gave on the day?

 

[Jazzz]

Let's have a sample question of theirs, as put to the FBI:

15. Regarding the hijacked planes, please explain the whereabouts and date of public release of

• air traffic phone conversation tapes
• complete flight manifests
• commercial and US military flight school records of all hijackers
• video camera surveillance tapes from nearby buildings or other sources showing the attacks

http://911independentcommission.org/fbi3182004.html

Now if I asked that, that would be reasonable, wouldn't it?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I am not aware of ANY theory which the Jersey Girls support. To announce that they already believe something, whatever it is, will compromise their investigation.

But I do know this - they certainly support William Rodriguez, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Way to dodge the question!

 

[Jazzz]

Way to dodge the question!

Not at all. I am pointing out that it is the line of enquiry and the search for truth - wherever it may lead - where we have common cause. It is ridiculous to say that the Jersey Girls believe this or that, or do not believe this or that.

 

[Jazzz]

Do you know if anyone has asked them if they still do so? Are they aware of how he has changed his story from the interviews he gave on the day?

Considering that they campaigned together to get the 9/11 commission, and they both consider it a whitewash, I think they're still on pretty good terms.

 

[editor]

As I said, when all here support the Jersey Girls and their quest for a proper investigation, my work is done. I have little more to add.

Bullshit. What you believe and what you wish to 'prove' has got absolutely nothing in common with the Jersey Girls.

You're just trying to exploit their cause to promote your idiotic evidence-free theories, and you don't give a fuck if you damage their cause or not.

 

[editor]

If we alter Van Auken's quote just a little to specify my good self;

"If you ask me, jazzz is just looking for the truth, which is supposed to be our right"

You're really losing your marbles, son.

 

[Jazzz]

You're really losing your marbles, son.

"At first, we widows didn’t want to be seen with conspiracy people. But they kept showing up. They cared more than those supposedly doing the investigating. If you ask me, they’re just Americans, looking for the truth, which is supposed to be our right." Lorie Van Auken

"If you ask me, jazzz is just looking for the truth, which is supposed to be our right" a minor variation

How on earth is that unreasonable, editor?

I don't think I'm the one who need look for his marbles here.

 

[editor]

"If you ask me, jazzz is just looking for the truth, which is supposed to be our right" a minor variation

How on earth is that unreasonable, editor?

Because you're dishonestly trying to suggest that their campaign for a full enquiry somehow equates into some sort of support for your lunatic theories of invisibly installed invisible explosives, sci-fi drones, fake phone calls, disappearing planes, mass murdering government plotters and all the other bonkers bullshit you peddle here.

You've no interest in the truth. You're like a religious nutter. That's why you believe the towers were brought down by these remarkable, invisibly appearin', expert-defying drones despite having not a single shred of evidence to support that claim.

 

[MikeMcc]

Considering that they campaigned together to get the 9/11 commission, and they both consider it a whitewash, I think they're still on pretty good terms.

No, that is not an answer to either of my questions. The 9/11 Comission finished in 2005, we're 2 years after that date. That both thought that it was a whitewash is not evidence that one agrees with the other over the details

 

[Jazzz]

No, that is not an answer to either of my questions. The 9/11 Comission finished in 2005, we're 2 years after that date. That both thought that it was a whitewash is not evidence that one agrees with the other over the details

You are totally missing the point: it is not for either of those parties to state what they think happened on 9/11, and support for them means supporting their line of enquiry, that is why they support each other, and it's why conspiracy theorists support the Jersey Girls, and it's why the Jersey Girls support conspiracy theorists, as I have quoted.

Here's another of their unanswered questions

12. Why was the World Trade Center steel removed so quickly, without being examined, from the scene of a mass murder? Who ordered the removal of the steel?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

So many of them are bad questions, whose answers can be found with only a modicum of effort and common sense.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

When everyone is convinced to throw their weight behind the Jersey Girls, and their campaign for a proper independent enquiry into 9/11, then my work is done.

So, you've had five and a half years so far, you must have pursuaded almost everyone by now, no?

 

[MikeMcc]

You are totally missing the point: it is not for either of those parties to state what they think happened on 9/11, and support for them means supporting their line of enquiry, that is why they support each other, and it's why conspiracy theorists support the Jersey Girls, and it's why the Jersey Girls support conspiracy theorists, as I have quoted.

Here's another of their unanswered questions

No, you have made the link between the two parties yet cannot support that link other than the mutual desire for answers to unanswered questions. one problem appears to be that each party is asking different questions. It also seems that a great deal of the Jersey Girls questions have been answered. As an example, thje manifests have been released because all of the passenger names are known and have been known since very shortly after 9/11.

 

[MikeMcc]

You are totally missing the point: it is not for either of those parties to state what they think happened on 9/11, and support for them means supporting their line of enquiry, that is why they support each other, and it's why conspiracy theorists support the Jersey Girls, and it's why the Jersey Girls support conspiracy theorists, as I have quoted.

Here's another of their unanswered questions

With regards to the steel, the Protec report (that you have failed to respond to adequately) deals with that matter. It seems that it is a matter of economics and physical space to be able to store all of the steel, hence they assessed and kept what the considered to be the most representative parts and disposed of the rest. Unless you think there are a few key examples that would show an alternative theory then this is entirely reasonable, given that there is NO supporting evidence for CD then the requirement for this is pointless.

 

[editor]

You are totally missing the point: it is not for either of those parties to state what they think happened on 9/11, and support for them means supporting their line of enquiry, that is why they support each other, and it's why conspiracy theorists support the Jersey Girls, and it's why the Jersey Girls support conspiracy theorists, as I have quoted.

Let's get this straight: you're saying that the Jersey Girls support your claims that drones were used in 9/11, the towers invisibly wired with explosives, the real passengers taken off and murdered elsewhere, the phone calls faked etc etc YES/NO?

 

[Structaural]

Which is of course a cardinal sin in britain.

Either way, a wee case of exaggeration i believe. Or have you kept up with all 10000 of my posts?

Incidentally, i've not read anything by icke, but i thought he was very good at the brixton academy, mind, i've only seen the first part of it.

You thought he was good? David Icke? Jesus. You've not read anything by him, but you went to see him at Brixton Academy? hmm 'kay.
Me and the missus enjoy watching the odd Icke DVD, she's a scholar of mythology, esp. goddess mythology, man can she point out the constant bullshit. It's not just that his conclusions are delusional but that his facts are often wrong. He's a self-publicist, liar and snake oil peddler. Probably the worst out there, and you think he's very good.
I suggest you look out for John Ronson's programme about him. It's revealing. In fact, as your such an academic of this stuff you've probably no doubt seen his series called 'Secret Rulers of the World'?

I'm talking about your posts on this thread and the other 911 marathon thread. It's mainly self-aggrandising bollocks to be honest, mate.

 

[Structaural]

Can you explain why you have inverted commas around research?

Simple really, I find your concept of yourself as an academic and scholar who does research into 9/11 laughable. It took you about a week to deign to read the Protec report because you knew it went against your personal beliefs.

An academic is neutral in his research, does not attempt to fit his research into his belief system but investigates any and all information to do with his or her subject matter. A true academic observes with a healthy sceptism all information, and is not just sceptical about one side of a polarised debate. They also theorise based on the facts concerned rather than speculating based on the perceieved nature of superpowers. So excuse me if see little of this, in you, based on your posts in this or the other thread.

 

[Meltingpot]

You thought he was good? David Icke? Jesus. You've not read anything by him, but you went to see him at Brixton Academy? hmm 'kay.
Me and the missus enjoy watching the odd Icke DVD, she's a scholar of mythology, esp. goddess mythology, man can she point out the constant bullshit. It's not just that his conclusions are delusional but that his facts are often wrong. He's a self-publicist, liar and snake oil peddler. Probably the worst out there, and you think he's very good.

I suggest you look out for John Ronson's programme about him. It's revealing. In fact, as your such an academic of this stuff you've probably no doubt seen his series called 'Secret Rulers of the World'?

I did, and I think David comes out of that programme a lot better than some of the people who oppose him - like that berk who tore down all the posters advertising one of his talks, and those activists who suggested ways of physically attacking him (they eventually settled for a custard pie throw at a book signing). I suppose Voltaire's" I may disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it" never made it as far as Canada.

Whether you agree with him or not, I'd rather live in a world where people like him were permitted to make their case and risk having it refuted, in public if necessary, than one in which self-important unelected commissars like Warman and co. get to decide on our behalf what we can read and hear and what we can't.

 

[fela fan]

and why they have endorsed Paul Thompson's Co-operative research site (which gets derided here as a 'conspiraloon' site by people that should know a lot better.

To be fair mate, that does not include editor. Over the years i've linked to this site for those that are interested. Editor consistently ignores it, and even one time pulled the plug on the thread after i quoted bits from it.

Reading that link makes it very difficult indeed to accept the comedy story put out by the USG as to what happened (well, i should really say impossible). And that would be a most uncomfortable path to go down after years of vilifying so many on here as conspiraloons and the like.

 

[editor]

Over the years i've linked to this site for those that are interested.

Sorry. Does it prove the existence of Jazzz's sci-fi drones, invisible explosives, faked phone calls and all the other cobblers swallowed up wholesale from lunatic websites?

 

[tarannau]

We've been over this many times before Fela, although you seem unable to grasp the distinction - it's not an 'either you're with the official story or against us' type of decision.

It's perfectly possible to question aspects of the official report and still believe that the likes of you and Jazzz are conspiracy-obsessed numbnuts.

 

[Structaural]

I did, and I think David comes out of that programme a lot better than some of the people who oppose him - like that berk who tore down all the posters advertising one of his talks, and those activists who suggested ways of physically attacking him (they eventually settled for a custard pie throw at a book signing). I suppose Voltaire's" I may disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it" never made it as far as Canada.

Wheteher you agree with him or not, I'd rather live in a world where people like him were permitted to make their case and risk having it refuted, in public if necessary, than one in which self-important unelected commissars like Warman and co. get to decide on our behalf what we can read and hear and what we can't.

So do I. Icke's essentially a harmless, delusional 'performer'. Warman is a cunt, as are all those who seek to censor adults.

 

[fela fan]

I'm talking about your posts on this thread and the other 911 marathon thread. It's mainly self-aggrandising bollocks to be honest, mate.

You're welcome to your opinion, but don't expect me to base my thoughts on icke because you and your wife say he's no good.

What i saw on dvd (not been to brixton for a fair few years now) i liked. He was nowhere near the nutter he's been painted out to be on this website.

 

[fela fan]

Sorry. Does it prove the existence of Jazzz's sci-fi drones, invisible explosives, faked phone calls and all the other cobblers swallowed up wholesale from lunatic websites?

No.

 

[editor]

No.

Which part of the Co-operative research site proves that the 'official story' of 9/11 was "impossible"?

 

[fela fan]

Which part of the Co-operative research site proves that the 'official story' of 9/11 was "impossible"?

No part so far as i'm aware. Keep yer loaded questions coming editor. They're really simple to answer.

 

[Structaural]

You're welcome to your opinion, but don't expect me to base my thoughts on icke because you and your wife say he's no good.

What i saw on dvd (not been to brixton for a fair few years now) i liked. He was nowhere near the nutter he's been painted out to be on this website.

I know the power of belief, I don't expect to change your pov one iota.

Icke's just an accomplished orator with a narrative that seems plausible to rather gullible thinkers who don't check out his 'facts' for themselves. He's the prime disinfo man and does it for the money. Give me Terrence McKenna any day for out there theories.

Of course he's not as loony as they say on these board, he thinks the Queen and Blair are shape changing lizards who eat babies I mean... who doesn't?

 

[editor]

No part so far as i'm aware. Keep yer loaded questions coming editor. They're really simple to answer.

Not loaded at all - talking about cooperative research you said:

Reading that link makes it very difficult indeed to accept the comedy story put out by the USG as to what happened (well, i should really say impossible)

Specifically, which parts of the linked article make the 'official version' an "impossibility" please?

 

[Jazzz]

No, you have made the link between the two parties yet cannot support that link other than the mutual desire for answers to unanswered questions. one problem appears to be that each party is asking different questions. It also seems that a great deal of the Jersey Girls questions have been answered. As an example, thje manifests have been released because all of the passenger names are known and have been known since very shortly after 9/11.

The flight manifests have not been released. We are told who the passengers were - that is not the same thing. The Jersey Girls appreciate the difference.

There's a big difference between getting an official answer from an official source, and assuming answers based on internet supposition - and of course, there is considerable irony in me having to point that out to you guys as that is what you accuse me of doing. That's why it is entirely correct to say that the families questions remain unanswered, and indeed if the answers were so easy why have the USG failed to provide them?