9/11 media happenings

[kyser_soze]

Now what you say about the koran here exactly applies to christians and their actions.

It doesn't actually. While the NT exhorts Christians to spread the word, it does not explictly tell Christians that anyone who doesn't convert should be killed, or forced to pay a religious tax because they aren't Muslim. That Christianity has used violence to spread it's message has as much to do with the desire for material power and prestige as much as religious zealotry, as well as a huge pile of theological and philosophical issues that I can't be arsed to get into now.

Look mate, you so frequently mix up imply and interpret. I'm not in any way implying anybody was a caveman.

I wasn't saying you were - it was more to make the point that, like Jazz, these CIA handlers arguably DID have that attitude, and that it was this ignorance/oversight that led to the problems we have today (at least partly).

What I'm not prepared to do is simplify this into good guy/bad guy duality as you've done (well Ok, bad guy/even worse guy) because it simply isn't that simple. You are talking about the CIA handling a bunch of religious loons who were looking at the CIA and America as the simpletons - for arming and training them, for turning a blind eye to anything else they might be doing because the overriding geopolitical goals of the US at the time was the removal of the Soviet Union and the limiting of it's power base abroad.

These guys already hated the US and democracy, and teaching women to read and lots of other lovely things - and the US only armed them until the end of the cold war; by that time they had enough money and contacts internationally to source and purchase their own weapons.

So while the US were instrumental in bringing what would be the Taliban/Al-Q and others together, they didn't 'create' the situation in the way you neatly want to ascribe blame in.

BTW - you need to go back to the 1950s to get a real perspective on Afghanistan, not the 70s.

 

[fela fan]

You can probably go back even further than the 50s.

Are you aware of just how much info cia and fbi agents were trying to get through to their bosses about imminent attacks on the US, in the US?

And can you just confirm for me that the koran explicitly calls upon its readers to kill those they cannot convert?

Can you also tell me why angry islmaic radicals wanted to kill those in the world trade centres? Were those working there unwilling to convert to islam? Had the islamic terrorists failed to convert them all? Had they failed to convert members of the USG?

Don't you think that these terrorist actions occurred in reaction to american foreign policy?

 

[kyser_soze]

Are you aware of just how much info cia and fbi agents were trying to get through to their bosses about imminent attacks on the US, in the US?

Yes, I'm also aware that much of it was contradictory - while the general tenor was that 'there will be an attack on the USA' where, when and how was a different matter - my point is that those who made the ultimate decision did not think that the threat was credible (for reasons outlined above)

And can you just confirm for me that the koran explicitly calls upon its readers to kill those they cannot convert?

If I can be arsed to, at some point yeah I will.

Can you also tell me why angry islmaic radicals wanted to kill those in the world trade centres? Were those working there unwilling to convert to islam? Had the islamic terrorists failed to convert them all? Had they failed to convert members of the USG?

What on earth are you going on about? A whole host of reasons - hell the Muslims may well have been 5 steps ahead of the US and at least have had one scenario which looked at 'America goes hog-wild and manages to alienate most of the world in 4 years', but in part, yes US foreign policy. But not completely, and as an adjunct to their own ambitions.

fela, for someone who is talking about wide reading, look at the rise of hardline Islamism around the Horn of Africa in the 1990s; look at Egypt and Turkey. There is an argument that says that 9/11 was actually a revenge attack for the success that US soft power (not Clinton getting a hard-on for cruise missiles) and, basically, money had on the reversals and retreats that the radical Islamists had in the late 90s.

You're talking a lot of sense, but your explicit need to find America the bad guy in this, that the Talibs were operating purely on a revenge tip and that radical Islamists didn't, and still don't, have their own plans and ambitions for how the world should look and pray, is clouding your ability to see that there is no single 'one' to blame - as with everything in life, it's an agglomeration of 10,000 little things that come together into a node where their combined stresses cause a fracture - in this case 9/11.

 

[kyser_soze]

So, as you can see, once the attacks were underway, incompetence took over, no army of people spotting things were not right, just being incompetent. That's what you've said. Incompetence.

Dude, have you actually listened to the ATC tapes of that morning? It wasn't just incompetence, people were scared shitless about what was happening; many were operating in the dark, all were operating without full knowledge of events.

 

[8den]

Pure conjecture.

You yourself have argued that incompetence accounts for the events that september morning. It of course was very helpful to the hijackers that those drills were going on that morning too...

So, as you can see, once the attacks were underway, incompetence took over, no army of people spotting things were not right, just being incompetent. That's what you've said. Incompetence.

Which helped those who organised the orginal plan, and that would only need a few people, maybe half a dozen, a dozen.

Why don't you acquaint yourself with some of the intelligence that the likes of rice, ashcroft, rumsfeld were getting? Just click on the link i've just this minute provided for bees.

 

[Jazzz]

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.

...such as?

 

[editor]

It of course was very helpful to the hijackers that those drills were going on that morning too...

Tell me more about these drills please, fela.

How many people were involved and from what floors? What companies? What are you suggesting was so significant about them that you had to bring it up here?

And how come not a single office worker has come forward to say that they thought anything was remotely unusual about their office drill that day?

Thanks.

 

[Spymaster]

You lot just crack me up.

Jazzz's theories have been pissed on, burnt, electrocuted, fucked, shat on, torn, exploded, ripped, nuked, destroyed, atomised and massacred on the prior 6 million threads on this subject.

Is there anything new in this thread?

No.

You just love it !

 

[Jazzz]

Tell me more about these drills please, fela.

How many people were involved and from what floors? What companies? What are you suggesting was so significant about them that you had to bring it up here?

And how come not a single office worker has come forward to say that they thought anything was remotely unusual about their office drill that day?

Thanks.

He's talking about the military drills which ensured that most of the the aircraft normally guarding Washington and New York were pissing around in Alaska! Such a coincidence. Lucky Osama!

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

You're talking a lot of sense, but your explicit need to find America the bad guy in this, that the Talibs were operating purely on a revenge tip and that radical Islamists didn't, and still don't, have their own plans and ambitions for how the world should look and pray, is clouding your ability to see that there is no single 'one' to blame - as with everything in life, it's an agglomeration of 10,000 little things that come together into a node where their combined stresses cause a fracture - in this case 9/11.

spot on imo

 

[Jazzz]

But for editor's reference, here's an office worker talking about a very unusual power-down in the weekend before 9/11. Final touches?

 

[Jazzz]

Here's that molten steel montage again for our NIST fans. Anyone like to comment? I noticed no-one commented either about the WTC impacts having the greatest seismic trace.

Oh look, still no-one commented on this. Cats bit your tongues?

I think people forget that while it might take a lot of supporting evidence to have confidence in a theory it takes just one sound objection to knock it on the head. And this molten steel is cast iron. If you see what I mean.

 

[8den]

But for editor's reference, here's an office worker talking about a very unusual power-down in the weekend before 9/11. Final touches?

Ah old Scott Forbes. Thousands of people work in the WTC yet Scott Forbes is the only person who's come forward with this claim.

Furthermore it doesn't even make sense, there were hundreds of banks and brokerage firms, handling millions of dollars of transactions, over extremely secure servers. You really think all of them would be okay with this power down? Or it wouldn't have been noticed anywhere else? Or any form of record of it?

Furthermore if theres was a "complete" power that means no lifts, which means all your explosives etc need to be walked up hundreds of flights of stairs.

Again, to reiterate, no coberating evidence, no logical reason for the power down and it hardly helps your conspiracy theories.

He's talking about the military drills which ensured that most of the the aircraft normally guarding Washington and New York were pissing around in Alaska! Such a coincidence. Lucky Osama!

There were 16 aircraft in total covering the entire United States.

I think people forget that while it might take a lot of supporting evidence to have confidence in a theory it takes just one sound objection to knock it on the head. And this molten steel is cast iron. If you see what I mean.

Prove it is molten steel. You can tell what metal it is just from a photo?

 

[Jazzz]

Ah old Scott Forbes. Thousands of people work in the WTC yet Scott Forbes is the only person who's come forward with this claim.

Well, that's one. Correcting editor who was unaware of ol' Scott.

There were 16 aircraft in total covering the entire United States.

Indeed! Kind of leaving the back door open isn't it?

Prove it is molten steel. You can tell what metal it is just from a photo?

Let me guess. All the metal from the aircraft somehow gathered together, with the jet fuel, and fell down together and then after the WTC fell the jet fuel lit and melted the aluminium and then little green men came along and kept adding gasoline for six weeks so it was still melting the worker's boots

 

[Balbi]

Let me guess. All the metal from the aircraft somehow gathered together, with the jet fuel, and fell down together and then after the WTC fell the jet fuel lit and melted the aluminium and then little green men came along and kept adding gasoline for six weeks so it was still melting the worker's boots

It's about as plausible as your ramblings Jazzz. Not just a box of frogs, but a box of frogs in a centrifuge listening to Sade at top volume while painting their froggy toenails a startling shade of purple yellow. That's how mad you are

 

[Jazzz]

I don't think so.

 

[Balbi]

You would say that though

 

[editor]

But for editor's reference, here's an office worker talking about a very unusual power-down in the weekend before 9/11. Final touches?

So that's another worker who failed to spot a single explosive out of the thousands you claim were invisibly installed. Is there a point here, Jazzz?

Are you aware that his statement directly contradicts another, btw?
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/ben-fountain-meet-scott-forbes.html

 

[editor]

Oh look, still no-one commented on this. Cats bit your tongues? .

You'll find a grown up answer here:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

 

[detective-boy]

What on earth brought that on?

I am saying "Because I believe 9/11 was an inside job, I believe there were missiles on the planes, because that's the way to make it happen". That is all I need say about the missile question.

 

[Jazzz]

"Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing."

And you really think that's credible? Despite no oxygen source the debris managed to turn into a furnace? Has there been any example of this extraordinary phenomenon before?

 

[Jazzz]

A 'grown-up' answer is that there was extensive molten steel in the WTC rubble because something, something that has not been investigated, and something we aren't being told about, generated extraordinary temperatures.

It makes as much sense to believe in Father Christmas as the official story.

 

[kyser_soze]

...such as?

Wellm, being as you're arguing that the USG as behind it all, why would they piss about with something as potentially unreliable as planes? Hell, if this is as 'deep' a conspiracy as you make out why not use a nuke?

Now that is a bigger nightmare scenario, surely?

 

[editor]

Has there been any example of this extraordinary phenomenon before?

Has there ever been an example of an occupied huge building being blown up by invisibly installed invisible explosives before?

Has there ever been an example of hundreds of thousands of people all failing to notice thousands of explosives charges all around them in their offices?

Has there ever been an example of a holographic plane blasting out missiles seconds before impact?

Has there ever been an example of Jazzz giving a straight answer to a straight question when he's been caught out?

 

[Jazzz]

Wellm, being as you're arguing that the USG as behind it all, why would they piss about with something as potentially unreliable as planes? Hell, if this is as 'deep' a conspiracy as you make out why not use a nuke?

Now that is a bigger nightmare scenario, surely?

Yes you could indiscriminately nuke a major city and create far greater carnage, but the job of the sheepdog is to bite the sheep as little as possible! The more people you kill, the messier it all is. You don't want to kill people with power and influence. The emotional impact of 9/11 was not defined by the body count, which in fact was not nearly as big as we all first feared.

What made 9/11 so particularly effective is that we all (well, millions/billions) watched it happen live - maybe we missed the South Tower impact but after that everyone watched it unfolding. And what a terrible drama!

 

[Jazzz]

Has there ever been an example of an occupied huge building being blown up by invisibly installed invisible explosives before?

Has there ever been an example of hundreds of thousands of people all failing to notice thousands of explosives charges all around them in their offices?

Has there ever been an example of a holographic plane blasting out missiles seconds before impact?

Has there ever been an example of Jazzz giving a straight answer to a straight question when he's been caught out?

You've been saying yourself that there was nothing like 9/11 before, when it's been pointed out about steel-framed building having never previously collapsed due to fire.

However, there have been plenty of example of debris piles. I venture that they have never yet acted 'like foundries'.

 

[editor]

The more people you kill, the messier it all is. You don't want to kill people with power and influence.

Hundreds of people with "power and influence" - as well as ordinary folks - lost their lives on 9/11, you fucking callous, insensitive cunt.

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/09/13/010913hntribute.html

 

[editor]

However, there have been plenty of example of debris piles. I venture that they have never yet acted 'like foundries'.

So you can't produce any answers to my points, and are choosing to wriggle away and change the subject yet again, yes?

PS Could you show me an example of a debris pile from a skyscraper complex the size of the WTC please?

 

[kyser_soze]

Yes you could indiscriminately nuke a major city and create far greater carnage, but the job of the sheepdog is to bite the sheep as little as possible! The more people you kill, the messier it all is. You don't want to kill people with power and influence. The emotional impact of 9/11 was not defined by the body count, which in fact was not nearly as big as we all first feared.

What made 9/11 so particularly effective is that we all (well, millions/billions) watched it happen live - maybe we missed the South Tower impact but after that everyone watched it unfolding. And what a terrible drama!

So you think that some buildings falling down would be comparable to wiping out Manhattan island and the rest of NY? That the 'emotional impact' would be LESS than what happened?

Interesting...

 

[Jazzz]

So you think that some buildings falling down would be comparable to wiping out Manhattan island and the rest of NY? That the 'emotional impact' would be LESS than what happened?

Interesting...

I'm saying that 9/11 achieved a massive emotional impact without the messiness of killing millions of people, who would include your own power brokers and friends. And that would be going far too far in terms of self-inflicted stuff anyway. How would it help the USA's military ambitions to have NYC blown off the map?