9/11 media happenings

[Jazzz]

Jazzz - the debris did pulverise the basement, there are pictures documenting huge steel beams that went through the tunnel roof of the Metro line beneath WTC for fucks sake, you know this because we've shown you the pictures before.

Well if you have a look at the pictures on here

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

there are pictures of trains that didn't get crushed, and a Warner Bros store that certainly wasn't crushed. And 12 survivors were pulled from the rubble. I wonder how they survived?

 

[editor]

Well if you have a look at the pictures on here

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

You're linking to a *tripod* webpage claiming that the WTC was hit by a Star Wars beam from outer space.

Boy have you fucking lost all grip on reality.

PS Love the unsourced, undated pics. Greeeat research!

And I love this bit:

Roadrunner does not have a scratch on him despite surviving destruction of WTC 2 above

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

You post a link to a page called "star wars beam weapon" and wonder why people take the piss?

For gods sake, go look up the word "credible" in a dictionary.

 

[Jazzz]

You see, this is where the holes in your logic appear. You believe in "a", and thus believe you can jump to "z", without bothering to check that the rest of the alphabet is there inbetween them.

And, for what it's worth, I don't completely accept the "offical story" - I havce stated many times that I don't believe we have been told the whole truth about what happened that day, and may never will be. What I don't then do is what you do, which is make a huge logical leap of faith to missile firing planes and invisible explosives...

But you demanded YES/NO answers, didn't you? So you are asking, if I had to bet one way or the other, did I think there were missiles or not? You're being really shabby, demanding that someone commit on an issue and then coming out with the most non-committal position yourself and claiming to be all superior. Shame.

 

[fela fan]

What I don't then do is what you do, which is make a huge logical leap of faith to missile firing planes and invisible explosives...

But why should what you do be what everyone else should do?

Incidentally, while you mention it, it seems impossible to me that the planes would have had missiles on them: surely it would be far too difficult to fire the missiles at exactly the right split second of plane impact into the towers?

There may well have been exposives, but not invisible ones. Plenty of people seem convinced of explosives, and i know the firemen on the scene talked of explosion sounds.

The sad thing about the media non-happenings is that they could definitely uncover the truth if they put their resources into it. And if that meant that simply x amount of people were punished for their incompetence, fine. But in my opinion it would be found out that x amount of powerful americans were involved in the attacks, and politics in the western rampant capitalist world would change forever. For the better. This underlies my interest in 911

Previous attacks by empires upon themselves never took place with such a vast amount of media ready to investigate...

[thailand is no empire, but i've witnessed at least one attack by the establishment on itself over here, in order to retain illegally grabbed power]

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

But you demanded YES/NO answers, didn't you? So you are asking, if I had to bet one way or the other, did I think there were missiles or not? You're being really shabby, demanding that someone commit on an issue and then coming out with the most non-committal position yourself and claiming to be all superior. Shame.

Errr, I asked a yes/no question to establish your position. I then asked a further question, to see if you could produce any evidence to back up this position.

How is this "shabby"?

And remember, I am not the one making claims as to what happened that day. You are. So it is down to you to provide evidence to support your claims, if you cannot do this then it is a reasonable position to take to say that your claims are bullshit.

 

[Jazzz]

For your barking nutjob 'plane firing missile' theory to be a reality, a truly massive cast of characters would have been needed to pull it off.

'They' would have to find a vast reservoir of highly qualified scientists, engineers and other individuals all willing and happy to participate in the needless slaughter of innocent fellow citizens of their country.

I don't think it would have needed that many at all. But let's note that 130,000 people were involved in the Manhattan Project and that stayed secret.

 

[Jazzz]

Errr, I asked a yes/no question to establish your position. I then asked a further question, to see if you could produce any evidence to back up this position.

How is this "shabby"?

And remember, I am not the one making claims as to what happened that day. You are. So it is down to you to provide evidence to support your claims, if you cannot do this then it is a reasonable position to take to say that your claims are bullshit.

Do you think Mohammed Atta was on one of the planes? YES/NO

 

[fela fan]

This is my major beef. In fact it's the whole fucking cow.

I can understand (a bit) why they never bothered in the aftermath, but why do you suppose they still avoid investigating it all crispy?

I mean, at the very minimum people should be held accountable for such criminal negligence. Ordinary people get punished for their accidental actions in life, why not those in power?

Who was responsible for ensuring planes took off to intercept the hijacked planes?

Who was responsible for not protecting the president once they heard america was under attack?

Who was responsible for ignoring pretty specific intelligence from friendly countries that tall buildings were going to be attacked?

Who was responsible for not releasing video footage?

Can the US media please start investigating.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Incidentally, while you mention it, it seems impossible to me that the planes would have had missiles on them: surely it would be far too difficult to fire the missiles at exactly the right split second of plane impact into the towers?

Exactly, but this is the sort of minor detail that Jazzz chooses to ignore.

The sad thing about the media non-happenings is that they could definitely uncover the truth if they put their resources into it. And if that meant that simply x amount of people were punished for their incompetence, fine. But in my opinion it would be found out that x amount of powerful americans were involved in the attacks, and politics in the western rampant capitalist world would change forever. For the better. This underlies my interest in 911

I agree - lots of people have certainly benefitted from the attacks, this does need to be investigated. But to do so we need to accept certain basic truths about what happened that day, as long as people are muddying the waters with CT bullshit this isn't going to happen.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I don't think it would have needed that many at all. But let's note that 130,000 people were involved in the Manhattan Project and that stayed secret.

Right up to the point that they dropped a bomb on Hiroshima. At which point it kinda leaked out a tad.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Who was responsible for ignoring pretty specific intelligence from friendly countries that tall buildings were going to be attacked?

This is the question that people should be concentrating on...

 

[fela fan]

Errr, I asked a yes/no question to establish your position. I then asked a further question, to see if you could produce any evidence to back up this position.

How is this "shabby"?

And remember, I am not the one making claims as to what happened that day. You are. So it is down to you to provide evidence to support your claims, if you cannot do this then it is a reasonable position to take to say that your claims are bullshit.

No, that is an unreasonable position to take. His claims would simply have to remain unsubstantiated.

That's the trouble with you bees, and editor, and plenty of others, you get too frothy at the mouth in dealing with jazzz. You end up accusing him of everything and attacking his character, simply coz you can't stand what he says.

Not a reasonable position to take in any debate, not if you want to win the debate that is. There are no prizes here for evidence, only in the courts.

 

[fela fan]

This is the question that people should be concentrating on...

Totally. So why have the media on both sides of the atlantic ignored it all this time? When will they start investigating the intelligence?

I have pretty extensively, and my personal conclusion is mihop.

 

[Jazzz]

You post a link to a page called "star wars beam weapon" and wonder why people take the piss?

For gods sake, go look up the word "credible" in a dictionary.

I linked to that because it has a huge collection of post WTC collapse pictures.

here's a link describing people pulled from the rubble of the WTC. How on earth did they survive THAT, if the collapse was not somehow arrested at ground level in a way that the building completely failed to do on any floor above?

 

[editor]

I don't think it would have needed that many at all. But let's note that 130,000 people were involved in the Manhattan Project and that stayed secret.

Oh, for fuck's sake you moron. There is no comparison whatsoever.

People involved in the Manhattan Project were *working for their country* during a world war sixty years ago. They were not secretly planning to invent unseen technology to mass murder their own citizens and blow up a large chunk of New York.

Go on. Can you see the difference?

And, of course, it was anything but a sealed secret, with several Soviet spies penetrating the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos and several other locations.

So that's another conspira-myth safely put to bed.

 

[Jazzz]

No, that is an unreasonable position to take. His claims would simply have to remain unsubstantiated.

Moreover although I do make claims about 9/11 that there were missiles on the planes is not one of them. That's just something I think was likely the case.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Do you think Mohammed Atta was on one of the planes? YES/NO

The various sources I have read make me think that yes, he was. If you have evidence otherwise I'd like to see it

 

[editor]

I have pretty extensively, and my personal conclusion is mihop.

Sure you have.

And your evidence is what, exactly?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I linked to that because it has a huge collection of post WTC collapse pictures

Undated, unsourced.

 

[Jazzz]

Oh, for fuck's sake you moron. There is no comparison whatsoever.

People involved in the Manhattan Project were *working for their country* during a world war sixty years ago. They were not secretly planning to invent unseen technology to mass murder their own citizens and blow up a large chunk of New York.

Go on. Can you see the difference?

And, of course, it was anything but a sealed secret, with several Soviet spies penetrating the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos and several other locations.

So that's another conspira-myth safely put to bed.

Vice President Truman didn't even know about it until just before they dropped Hiroshima! But again there would be nothing like that number needed.

 

[happie chappie]

Do you think Mohammed Atta was on one of the planes? YES/NO

Jazz

As far as I can make out, and correct me if I'm wrong, you believe that the twin towers were hit by missiles fired from the planes, and that the buildings were brought down by a controlled demolition caused by explosives that had been placed at strategic points beforehand.

Is that right?

If so - WHAT'S THE POINT? WHY BOTHER?

Surely, the impact of the planes on the twin towers would have been enough for the leaders of the conspiracy, had it existed? Or the controlled demolition. Why do both? And what was the point of the "inside job" anyway?

It would have necessitated a conspiracy arguably bigger than any other in history, involving in all probability, hundreds of people. Any police officer (or criminal, for that matter) would tell you that, the more people involved in a crime, the more likely it is that someone will blab. Yet, strangely, no-one actually involved in the "conspiracy" has come forward to say they were involved in the planning and/or execution of it, and explain a) how it worked and b) what the bloody point was in the first place!

Such a conspiracy would have taken months, if not years, to plan and execute. Long planning period x hundreds of people involved would almost guarantee that someone would have spilled the beans.

Happie Chappie

 

[editor]

Vice President Truman didn't even know about it until just before they dropped Hiroshima! .

Did you read the article Jazzz or aren't you interested in learning the facts, and prefer to keep trotting out ill-informed nonsense?

Far from being the great impenetrable secret you claim it was, the project was crawling with spies sending secrets to Russia.

Please learn from the credible sources that I bother to research on your behalf and then perhaps you won't have to make such ill-informed comments in the future.

Oh, and you are aware, of course, that several spies were unable to keep their secrets and confessed later too?

 

[Andy the Don]

Vice President Truman didn't even know about it until just before they dropped Hiroshima! But again there would be nothing like that number needed.

Yes he did, Truman knew about it from the start of the project he gave authorisation for the test firing in the New Mexico desert.

 

[Jazzz]

Jazz

As far as I can make out, and correct me if I'm wrong, you believe that the twin towers were hit by missiles fired from the planes, and that the buildings were brought down by a controlled demolition caused by explosives that had been placed at strategic points beforehand.

Is that right?

If so - WHAT'S THE POINT? WHY BOTHER?

Surely, the impact of the planes on the twin towers would have been enough for the leaders of the conspiracy, had it existed? Or the controlled demolition. Why do both? And what was the point of the "inside job" anyway?

It would have necessitated a conspiracy arguably bigger than any other in history, involving in all probability, hundreds of people. Any police officer (or criminal, for that matter) would tell you that, the more people involved in a crime, the more likely it is that someone will blab. Yet, strangely, no-one actually involved in the "conspiracy" has come forward to say they were involved in the planning and/or execution of it, and explain a) how it worked and b) what the bloody point was in the first place!

Such a conspiracy would have taken months, if not years, to plan and execute. Long planning period x hundreds of people involved would almost guarantee that someone would have spilled the beans.

Happie Chappie

Hi HC,

I talked about this in (IIRC) post #942. To create the full horror show it was necessary to have us watching three events on live TV - South Tower impact, South Tower collapse, North Tower collapse. I don't believe that that many people would have to have been involved in the actual execution of 9/11.

 

[Jazzz]

Yes he did, Truman knew about it from the start of the project he gave authorisation for the test firing in the New Mexico desert.

Says otherwise here - that he only learned about it after Roosevelt's death.

 

[Crispy]

Hi HC,

I talked about this in (IIRC) post #942. To create the full horror show it was necessary to have us watching three events on live TV - South Tower impact, South Tower collapse, North Tower collapse. I don't believe that that many people would have to have been involved in the actual execution of 9/11.

I can think of any number of less risky, more photogenic catastrophes. If I was head of the steering committee on this one, I'd have killed the plan dead in the first round.

 

[happie chappie]

Hi HC,

I talked about this in (IIRC) post #942. To create the full horror show it was necessary to have us watching three events on live TV - South Tower impact, South Tower collapse, North Tower collapse. I don't believe that that many people would have to have been involved in the actual execution of 9/11.

Sorry, but this still doesn't explain why a "full horror show" was necessary. What was the point of the conspiracy? What was it meant to achieve?

In any case, if you accept that the planes did crash into the twin towers (leaving aside the missiles), no-one could have predicted what the outcome would be as, to my knowledge, its never been done before. THAT was the shocking part, together with the fact that the USA was attacked on its own soil.

In short, commercial airlines planes flying into iconic buildings in New York would have been shocking enough, and would have been sufficient to satisfy the conspirators. But you still need to explain what was the point of the conspiracy!

Happie Chappie

 

[Andy the Don]

Says otherwise here - that he only learned about it after Roosevelt's death.

Roosevelt died in April 1945 the first test firing was on 16th July 1945.

Edited to add, you are correct in stating that Truman did not know of the Manhattan project before he became president.

 

[kyser_soze]

Who was responsible for ensuring planes took off to intercept the hijacked planes?

Who was responsible for not protecting the president once they heard america was under attack?

Who was responsible for ignoring pretty specific intelligence from friendly countries that tall buildings were going to be attacked?

1. This has been covered extensively on Urban, and in the subsequent report into why the Pentagon lied during the initial inquest - budget cuts meant that the internal early warning system that the USAF supposedly use was only switched on sporadically because of it's cost.

2. Well I'd guess everyone who wasn't in the Secret Service since they're the ones assigned to protect the prez...unless you've phrased your question badly anway...

3. Bush & Condi. Allegedly (cos it's been said in Bob Woodwards most recent book but there's no corroboration) George Tenet, then head of the CIA, had a private briefing where he told them that there was a serious threat of an attack on US soil. As I point out in 3 separate posts on this thread, there were internal political and intellectual differences in both policy ambition and geo-political outlook (Condi was/is a Cold Warrior and believed that Russia was still the primary strategic threat to the US, and disregarded intel from the outgoing administration that Islamic militancy was more important), but also that Tenet was a Clinton appointee and as such not trusted as being 'reliable' in his outlook (and therefore ability to threat assess I imagine) by the Republicans.

A lot easier to believe as true than planes with missiles, no?