kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Which would negate another element of some accounts that claim pilots have said that in the time to train the hijackers would have been lucky to actually hit the towers, let alone fly into them with precision...
9/11 military tapes released - Pentagon lied to the 9/11 commission
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
Which would negate another element of some accounts that claim pilots have said that in the time to train the hijackers would have been lucky to actually hit the towers, let alone fly into them with precision...
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Well, what gets you your cries of conspiraloon is your apparent ready-made-up mind about the whole thing. I mean, could you be persuaded that it really was islamist terrorists slipping under the noses of a complacent US security? (which is, I presume we can all agree, the 'mainstream' view?)
squeegee said:
Let's revisit that 'absolutely valid' claim to show how you've consistently and conveniently changed your view. You did not claim that the commission did not investigate 'thoroughly enough,' you clearly claimed they didn't investigate it at all. See here:
squeegee said:
You'e being insulted for being a unashamed liar and playing hard and loose with the facts. If you had been apologetic I may have been more charitable, but you can't hold a open debate with unashamed revisionists like yourself.
And you can take your diversionary speculation about 'mainstream' journalists and shove it where the sun don't shine - it's clear that you're only guessing that folks haven't performed research into the financial irregularities. And the catch-all petition you've linked to is only of marginal relevancy to the actual thread, a sign of the paucity of your position and another diversion/justification technique.
Debate? You're not even being honest woth yourself, let alone the other contributors to this thread.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Well, not neccesarily. The floors were supported on open trusses, so you could easily place a charge on the bottom flange.WouldBe said:Don't forget that therite / thermate is a powder so trying to get the floors to melt by going through the ceiling would require defying gravity.
Floor
---------------
/ \ /o\ / \ / \ / \
---------------
Gap
---------------
Ceiling
In the 'o' for example. But this does not explain the explosions that are apparently visible in the collapse videos, which occour at the perimiter.
Crispy said:
Crispy, I can totally entertain that Islamic terrorists were invloved. In fact I think that highly likely. But as I said the day after 911 to an American couple who started shouting at me in a cafe after I criticised Bush's response, "the CIA trained Bin Laden". The islamists may well have thought their top man was OBL. but it could just as easily have been some CIA bod.
Still as the petition I posted mentions, the named terrorist pilots were all novices, so for them to do what they did seems more unlikely than likely.
But I have no problem admitting they could have done it, and it could well have been just OBL and a few dastardly fundies with laptops sitting in caves orchestrating all this. I just don't think it the most likely explanation.
It's one or two of the officialoons here who could never admit to entartaining the thought that the cover-up and the cock-ups could also have contained within it some state plot to murder civilians to instigate a war.
i'm not saying that this happened for sure. but in my reasonable opinion something like this seems more likely.
that is not to say there are not islamic groups who want to destroy the decadent west. or simply other muslim radicals who simply want US/UK/Israel out of the middle-east. But intelligence groups could use the information from surveillance to manipulate events and individuals in these cells.
I don't need to work in the security services to see how this might work.
The questions on that petition are so relevant, and in an honest world it wold be the main campaign of newspapers to get to the bottom of this.
But even though the questions are logical and deserve to be asked, to ask them at a mainstream newspaper would automatically lead to peers questioning the journalists's agenda.
even when i have tried to hand politically charged music to music writers at the times i've was met with suspicious looks. i'm seen as someone who has an agenda. they treat me like an activist, which i wouldn't be worthy to call myself. and then there's the people here who call me a conspiraloon just for asking these questions. it's great to be loved so much!
that's how debate is stifled within journalism and how the bbc, guardian, and some posters on urban 75 indirectly allow the government to get away with not being challenged on these very contentious points.
there has to be more insistence from the public. but right now it seems no one believes the government can be held to account as they seem to be able to fob off any calls for inquiries, impeach blair etc. with their power and influence over, not only the judiciary and mainstream media, but also in how public opinion views these suspicions, as evidence and proof that the questioner has some nefarious agenda themselves, or the obligatory attack on the questioner's sanity.
But i feel that this cannot be sustained indefinitely and the next major crisis may well galvanise the forces of resistance, which comprise not just activists or muslims, but the general public, who I feel are starting to get the idea that the lie is bigger than they could possibly have imagined.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Crispy said:
I understood that the floor trusses were 'hung' from the top so you would need to melt the top 'I' beam to do the most damage which wouldn't happen if thermite was placed below the beam.
E2A: As thermite doesn't explode, it mearly burns very hot, what causes the windows to blow out for the white Al2O3 'ash' to blast out of?
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
The official explanation - which I personally find convincing - is that when one floor deck collapsed onto the one below, it compressed the air at that level, blowing out the dust, smoke, debris and windows. As each floor fell on the one below, it caused a similar event on the next floor. This creates the 'cascade' of smoke/debris puffs down the sides of the building.
Maybe those things are true then.fela fan said:
Why is it when someone who knows tells you something which confirms something good about the Old Bill everyone jumps up and down shouting "Apologuist", "You would say that", "You're just spouting the police line" but when someone who knows tells you something which confiorms something bad about the Old Bill everyone jumps up and down shouting "See. We knew it"?
fela fan said:
I was merely observing that that is exactly what you appear to be doing.fela fan said:
Well that explains a lot ... (about the state of the fucking media)squeegee said:
If you read my posts you will see that I only post about things where I have knowledge.squeegee said:
As for "I'll gladly listen" that is exactly what you and others do not do. And that is when you get told by me to fuck off and bother someone else.
And am I not allowed to have an opinion on where things are going? Is that the preserve of journalists? Is that why we should buy papers - so we can be told by you what to think? Don't make me fucking laugh.
This is exactly the bollocks which pisses me off.squeegee said:
We know some journalists lie, some of the time. Does that mean we ignore evrything written in the medi, by every journalist?
In case you're wondering, the answer is : "No, of course it fucking doesn't".
detective-boy said:This is exactly the bollocks which pisses me off.
We know some journalists lie, some of the time. Does that mean we ignore evrything written in the media, by every journalist?
In case you're wondering, the answer is : "No, of course it fucking doesn't".
No, but it does mean you should be very wary of what they say, particularly when it works in the favour of the "war against terror".
Not all journalists are corrupt, and i've already stated that not all politicians, police and intelligence are corrupt. But all these insitutions, and that goes for the medical establishment as well, are set up in such a way that it protects the institution rather than looks to undermine it in search for truth. the good name of the insitution stands above the search for truth.
But the suggestion that because i work in the media i can have an opinion but you can't was over the top and i apologise for suggesting that. I was just responding to your accusation that i can't have an opinion and trying to suggest that your epxerience working for the flying squad does not automatically mean your opinion is fact.
and fyi i don't do much writing in the media (yeah, i wonder why?), save for some articles in an astrology magazine
and the odd film and music review (which was ages ago).The last two stories i tried to write about were rejected, one by the guardian who two weeks later took the article and got another writer to do the story (they admitted this and it's on email - it was the story about psilocybin being tested in the States as a medicinal alleviation of suffering for terminal cancer patients). i should have pursued it further with the NUJ but in then end decided to leave it be.
i've worked as a sub-editor at the times, sunday times, independent and various consumer magazine (sitting in the offices of loaded at the moment subbing a men's fashion mag - well inside the system
) so i'm not some hotshot journo, just that having worked in the places mentioned, i can see what the primary objective is, and that's to keep the advertisers happy and make shit up, or not puruse what needs to be pursued. and the lack of knowledge among some journalists to the most basic questions about the UK/US agenda, leaves me in despair sometimes.
you defend the police alot and seem to suggest that it could only be incompetence that leads to the fuck ups the police have made recently.
can you at least accept that corruption can exist, and also that, rather than police instructing the PM, it might actually be the other way round?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Wikkid, can yo get me some freebies?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Hey, freebies is freebies...and I doubt that the great and crazy days of James Brown still take place at Kings Reach Tower these days now that IPC is part of Warner Bros...
lads having a laugh playing video games and music very loudly and slagging off nuts magazine which is just acroos the hallway. only working here for a week, last day today, and working on a slick men's fashion mag on a desk in the corner. but it is funny watching them work. stacks of booze in the fridge behind me. drink, arse, feck
If you read my posts carefully you will find that I rarely "defend" the police as opposed to try and explain posible alternative explanations or to explain that what they are alleged to have done wrong isn't actually wrong at all (i.e. there is actually nothing to defend).squeegee said:
Of course there are violent / corrupt / whatever officers. But they are a tiny minority. There are rude / unhelpful / lazy officers. There are nore of them, but they are still not a majority. Most officers, most of the time, are trying to do the best they can, based on imperfect information. That is the reality.
And I know that when someone starts their complaint with "You're all the fucking same" then it will almost inevitably get binned one way or another because, right from the off, the complainant has revealed basic potential unreliability. Which is why I urge people to be realistic and not to exaggerate their claims as they simply undermine their position.
And as for Tony Blair "instructing" the police - he may try and tell the Commissioner what to do but, in my experience, it has very little effect at grass roots level - the majority of police officers take their directions from their sergeants and inspectors (if at all!). You are very, very mistaken if you believe that whatever Tony Blair utters today is translated into action on the street tomorrow.
I agree with everything you say apart from the last sentence. he is the prime minister in a time of war. surely he has the authority to make decisions about when information is released, when a major operation is carried out. all the details, of course would be carried out on the ground by the front line officers, and specific operational decisions would be under their control. but even then wouldn't there be one officer in charge of a specific operation? and wouldn't he be in close contact with someone at the home office? and wouldn't that person be answerable to the PM?
personally i don't think the PM has the intellectual capacity to make such decisions. but they are surely constructed within political circles and in conjunction with senior police officers.
individual police officers, like the forces, have to deal with life or death situations so wouldn't the priority be personal safety and the safety of the public on a moment to moment level? I wouldn't expect police or soldiers to question whether every decision is right or wrong. not to say they may not question it privately. but the actual questions should be asked by senior journalists. that's their job. But they are patently not doing this.
and that's what troubles me.
i do believe that in order to end this crazy situation of state oppression requires both the members of the police and the army to be on the side of the public.
i've never been one to slag off the police as one group. i detest it at marches some of the comments. i can understand some full-on non-violent activists who have been treated terribly by police at demos being angry. but it's wrong-headed thinking and only leads to entrenched positions.
but i can see the look of some officers at certain demos that suggest they do not agree with what they are doing but are in the position of having to carry out orders under the possible threat of real violencve from other factions. but when officers arrest 70 year-old women and refuse to arrest anyone else (as happened at the pariament square demo against the socpa law) then it's got to make an officer at least privately question what the fuck they are doing (i didn't join the force to do this kind of thing).
i was stopped recently at stansted airport by two officers who searched me under section 44. i mentioned i was a journalist and that i believed that section 44 did not allow for police to search my belongings.
they disgreed and said that they were gonna search anyway. i was on my own at 11pm at an airport. well that must be reasonable cause to be suspicious of me.
on the form they filled they had me down as "dark bomber jacket ... dark trousers" i must have looked pretty dark to them.
now i know they were just doing their job, but i ask, how is that aproper use of police manpower? they were probably just bored and needed to do something. maybe i look shiftier than i thought (and i'm bald-headed and no beard with glasses and in my late-thirties).
anyway, like i said, agreed with everything apart from the last sentence. blair and whoever he's fronting (ok supposition - or reasonable cause) surely are manipulating these events for political expediency.
personally i don't think the PM has the intellectual capacity to make such decisions. but they are surely constructed within political circles and in conjunction with senior police officers.
individual police officers, like the forces, have to deal with life or death situations so wouldn't the priority be personal safety and the safety of the public on a moment to moment level? I wouldn't expect police or soldiers to question whether every decision is right or wrong. not to say they may not question it privately. but the actual questions should be asked by senior journalists. that's their job. But they are patently not doing this.
and that's what troubles me.
i do believe that in order to end this crazy situation of state oppression requires both the members of the police and the army to be on the side of the public.
i've never been one to slag off the police as one group. i detest it at marches some of the comments. i can understand some full-on non-violent activists who have been treated terribly by police at demos being angry. but it's wrong-headed thinking and only leads to entrenched positions.
but i can see the look of some officers at certain demos that suggest they do not agree with what they are doing but are in the position of having to carry out orders under the possible threat of real violencve from other factions. but when officers arrest 70 year-old women and refuse to arrest anyone else (as happened at the pariament square demo against the socpa law) then it's got to make an officer at least privately question what the fuck they are doing (i didn't join the force to do this kind of thing).
i was stopped recently at stansted airport by two officers who searched me under section 44. i mentioned i was a journalist and that i believed that section 44 did not allow for police to search my belongings.
they disgreed and said that they were gonna search anyway. i was on my own at 11pm at an airport. well that must be reasonable cause to be suspicious of me.
on the form they filled they had me down as "dark bomber jacket
... dark trousers" i must have looked pretty dark to them.now i know they were just doing their job, but i ask, how is that aproper use of police manpower? they were probably just bored and needed to do something. maybe i look shiftier than i thought (and i'm bald-headed and no beard with glasses and in my late-thirties).
anyway, like i said, agreed with everything apart from the last sentence. blair and whoever he's fronting (ok supposition - or reasonable cause) surely are manipulating these events for political expediency.
You would be surprised how little politicians - or even senior officers - get involved in managing information in relation to specific investigations (as opposed to general publicity campaigns / strategy announcements). The main reason for this is that they know perfectly well that it could interfere with a trial ... and, if it did, the judge may jump up and down and say "Which fucking idiot announced this?. Get them here to explain themselves..." and the officer in the case (probably equally pissed off by the fact that months of hard work is about to go down the drain) will name and shame them!squeegee said:I agree with everything you say apart from the last sentence. he is the prime minister in a time of war. surely he has the authority to make decisions about when information is released, when a major operation is carried out. When there is an operation likely to have national implications (such as the latest one) there are meetings of the police and all interested government departments and politicians (the so-called COBRA committee). Whilst these are an interchange of views, and whilst there may be suggestions that such-and-such information should be released, operational primacy is still usually left with the police.
...
I can see the look of some officers at certain demos that suggest they do not agree with what they are doing but are in the position of having to carry out orders under the possible threat of real violence from other factions.
...
i was stopped recently at stansted airport by two officers who searched me under section 44. i mentioned i was a journalist and that i believed that section 44 did not allow for police to search my belongings ... on the form they filled they had me down as "dark bomber jacket
....
anyway, like i said, agreed with everything apart from the last sentence. blair and whoever he's fronting (ok supposition - or reasonable cause) surely are manipulating these events for political expediency.
In relation to demos, some officers will sympathise with the demonstartors and others will not. As I have said previously, the police do tend to be somewhat on the conservative side, but not exclusively so. But they will usually put up with any demonstration so long as it does not become violent / cause undue hassle. Once the demonstrators start causing problems, how much patience the officers have will (inevitably) be affected by their sympathy for the particular cause. But arrests will usually only be made where they have to be (because they mean an officer or two less for policing the demonstration if nothing else). In a mass deployment situation following orders is probably more prevalent than usual - it would be a total shambles if every officer did their own thing and they know that but, like in the Army, an officer giving a ridiculous order is likely to be met by a Sergeant saying "Er, no, sir ... we're going that way and I suggest you come with us".
As for your getting stopped ... the whole point about an authorisation issued under s.44 Terrorism Act 2000 is that it does NOT require any suspicion at all (unlike every other type of stop and search). That is why lots of people complain about it. I have some reservations about it's use myself - there is probably a time and a place for it but it is used more widely than I suspect was envisaged when it was enacted. As for why you, it would have been something but it could have been something as simple as you looked a bit lost, or something like that. Where the authorisation has been given officers will stop and speak to / search people using the powers because visible activity is a deterrent to criminal activity (including terrorism). And, as I am sure you know, a "bomber jacket" is a description of a type of clothing (albeit somewhat 70s / 80s) rather than an indication of your being a bomber. I would not describe such activity at an airport as a waste of police time to be honest, certainly not now and probably not at any time in the last twenty years -even putting terrorism to one side there is a HUGE amount of opportunistic crime at airports - lots of distracted people, vulnerable potential victims and bags stufefd full of valuables like credit cards, passports, wallets ....
Finally, I would be extremely surprised if politicians didn't make the best of any opportunities events present them (e.g. John Reids change of speech the day before the arrests) but manipulating events (i.e. changing what actually happens) way, way less, if at all. When asked for their views (e.g. DAC Clarke at the COBRA meeting asking something like "Well, you've heard what we've got. We intend giving it another weeks surveillance before intervening, what do you think?) they may well tailor them to suit their own purposes but I would be extremely surprised to find anything more definite (e.g. DAC Clarke saying that and being TOLD - "No. Arrest them now.") because (a) the police do have acknowledged primacy (and there is no legal way they can be directed by anyone to make arrests, etc.); (b) when it was a fuck-up the police would say "It was their directions" and (c) the majority of professional police officers would not do it anyway.
beesonthewhatnow said:So, yet again, you are one of the few "truth seekers" who are soooo much cleverer than us poor peopoe who just can't see the bigger picture
If finding the truth is your job, god help us becuase you are woefully underqualified.
You're probably one of the most pathetic posters on this site. Funny how you've managed to put truth seekers in inverted commas. It's the term used by 'peopoe' like yourself whose egos run rampantly amok.
I'd not call squeegee a truth seeker, more like a rightful thinking kind of person.
Whereas you are an apologist, the very worst sort of member of society.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
