9/11 The Conspiracy Files

[Cid]

As I have tried to explain above my position on all this is that while not believing in all the fruitloopery i do believe there is something not quite right with the official story. There are some parts of the story which sit uneasily in my mind, the Bush tv thing being one. I dont know and never will I guess, where the smell of fish eminates from, but a fishy smell there is! i dont know what any of it means, but the longer the authorities refuse to answer questions the fishier it appears to be.

The Bush TV thing is a ridiculous thing to take up, plenty of people make things up when they're put on the spot - common human trait, simply forgetting exactly what happened and substituting the version that seems likely. As to other things - the CIA keeping quiet about certain parts etc, it's perfectly normal in such a massively important events... Government organisations simply won't release sensitive information (which some of this may be) without very good reason. There's nothing unusual about it, the CIA/FBI are going to keep as quiet as they can about any bungles made in the run up to the event as it may reveal parts of their operational procedure. It may also reveal failings in their systems, whichever way it is a bunch of conspiraloons asking for the truth aren't going to make them compromise their own security/integrity.

 

[EddyBlack]

If anyones is interested, you can dowload the ALex Jones radio show at Infowars.com.

He interviews both Dylan Avery and the producer of the BBC documentary Guy Smith. It will be on there until 8.00 p.m tommorrow (20th).
Afterwards it might be on you tune.

Hour long interview with Smith.

 

[Cid]

I doubt I could take 1 minute of Jones' bullshit, let alone 1 hour.

 

[Jazzz]

As the woman on board the supposed United 93 plane (another wonderful factual claim brought to you by those Loose Change boys) that landed in Cleveland, they're all just: "Whispering down an alleyway".

This was a typical piece of straw-manning by the documentary. They briefly showed the Loose Change thing with Cleveland but just a few seconds. Then they go, hey, Delta 89 was the plane that landed there, not UA93 as the media report said. Brilliant!

Except that no-one disputes that Delta 89 landed there. The theory is that BOTH Delta 89 and UA93 landed at Cleveland - Delta 89 providing the cover.

 

[Cid]

Ok, so prove UA93 landed there then.

 

[EddyBlack]

I doubt I could take 1 minute of Jones' bullshit, let alone 1 hour.

a discussion between one of the conspiracy theorists featured and the guy who made the programme isn't interesting?

 

[Cid]

In a manner of speaking, yeah, but I can't stand Jones and don't feel like wasting an hour listening to him talk crap. I may anyway though as I'm bored.

 

[1927]

I don't like the official story either, but more to the point here, it is clear you are not going to answer my point about what Bush' lie on this point means. No surprise there. I won't waste my time asking you again.

So quote me giving you an answer and then state I haven't answered you! weird.

 

[editor]

He interviews both Dylan Avery

I've seen enough of that clueless cock, thanks. The BBC docu told me all I need to know about his credibility as an 'investigator.'

 

[editor]

Except that no-one disputes that Delta 89 landed there. The theory is that BOTH Delta 89 and UA93 landed at Cleveland - Delta 89 providing the cover.

According to who, exactly?

Or are the flight controllers at Cleveland all in on it too, because I suspect they might just have noticed a plane landing.

 

[Jazzz]

You can read about it here... I believe this was the original analysis

http://911review.org/inn.globalfreepress/Cleveland_Airport_Mystery.html


Doubtless you'll have something to say about that editor. But not even you would attempt to discredit the theory in the dreadful way our BBC documentary did, by implying that because we know Delta 89 landed there we know flight 93 didn't, and that all the CTists assume Delta 89 vanished into thin air instead.

 

[editor]

You can read about it here... I believe this was the original analysis

http://911review.org/inn.globalfreepress/Cleveland_Airport_Mystery.html

.

Sorry, I've no interest in wasting my time reading yet another amateur 'analysis' from some fucking nutter on another mind control conspiraloon site stuffed full of the usual barking shite.

But why don't you tell us all what really happened to Flight 93?

 

[Jazzz]

Sorry, I've no interest in wasting my time reading yet another amateur 'analysis' from some fucking nutter on another mind control conspiraloon site stuffed full of the usual barking shite.

But why don't you tell us all what really happened to Flight 93?

The point here is a critique of the documentary's handling of the issue, which was shocking.

But listen to you. Why is it that it is demanded of me to say exactly what happened to flight 93? I can only have theories. It's up to the USG to prove it's version of events.

 

[editor]

I can only have theories. It's up to the USG to prove it's version of events.

Err, seeing as it's you going around shouting that it's all a big evil conspiracy, it's up to you to provide credible proof of those claims, backed by proper research and solid evidence.

And much as I dislike the current US administration, I fail to see why they should feel obliged to waste time and resources dealing with your wild, fact-free personal flights of fancy.

If you were capable of coming up with a remotely credible alternative theory then they might have a case to answer, but you're living on Planet Wibble Boing if you think anyone's going to take your incredible yarns about invisible explosives and holographic, missile firing planes from sci-fi manuals seriously.

Oh, and as an aside, you're wasting your time if you think I'm going to accept you as a MySpace friend if you're going under the name of a site that actively publicises Holocaust denying fucktards.

 

[Jazzz]

Err, seeing as it's you going around shouting that it's all a big evil conspiracy, it's up to you to provide credible proof of those claims, backed by proper research and solid evidence.

And much as I dislike the current US administration, I fail to see why they should feel obliged to waste time and resources dealing with your wild, fact-free personal flights of fancy.

If you were capable of coming up with a remotely credible alternative theory then they might have a case to answer, but you're living on Planet Wibble Boing if you think anyone's going to take your incredible yarns about invisible explosives and holographic, missile firing planes from sci-fi manuals seriously.

Oh, and as an aside, you're wasting your time if you think I'm going to accept you as a MySpace friend if you're going under the name of a site that actively publicises Holocaust denying fucktards.

No, it's not up to me to provide proof of anything at all in order to ask questions and have alternative theories, it's up to the USG to prove their story. But can't this thread stick to the topic of the BBC documentary rather than turning into a wider 9/11 debate? Even I'll admit one of those is plenty.

If you wanted to say something about myspace surely that could have been done by pm? In fact my username (same as my tagline) is simply my own creation, But if it bothers you don't add me to your 'offline' pals. I shall cry myself to sleep, but hey. gadzooks!

 

[Jazzz]

I hardly think allowing an isolated thread on a reasonable busy BB counts as 'actively publicising' either. Otherwise urban75 is 'actively publicising' masturbation and kittens

(not at the same time, that wouldn't be very good)

 

[Cid]

The point here is a critique of the documentary's handling of the issue, which was shocking.

But listen to you. Why is it that it is demanded of me to say exactly what happened to flight 93? I can only have theories. It's up to the USG to prove it's version of events.

Well they've published photographs of wreckage including the black box, there're eyewitness accounts, there's the account of the coroner, extensive reports etc.

I'd say the onus of proof is on you here Jazzz...

 

[Cid]

Quickly, though, from the site you link to:

The proof is based on local newspaper and radio reports from September 11th and 12th (mainly from the Akron Beacon Journal and the Cleveland Plain Dealer), statements of eyewitnesses and internet postings in the morning of 9/11 (people were listening to the radio and immediately submitted the breaking news to the net). One of the flights was indeed Delta 1989. We don't know the identity of the other one, so we call it "Flight X"...

AP and two Ohio newspapers report a landing at 10:45 (1A). However, Delta Airlines has registered 10:10 as the landing time and Cleveland firefighters can confirm that the landing took place before 10:30 (1B). Because Delta Airlines did not loose the track of its plane, the 10:10 plane was surely Delta 1989. So the 10:45 plane is - by definition - Flight X.

Do you remember the chaos around the tube bombings? how speculation about the number of bombs went on well after the events themselves? News agencies recieve conflicting official reports as the bigger picture becomes clear, eyewitnesses get it wrong (I particularly remember an American tourist saying 'yeah, it was one of them big reds' on july 7th, which had the BBC convinced for half the day that it was a tourist bus). This website is basing its entire analysis on discrepancies that will arise in any situation. There is no proof in there whatsoever, no eyewitness accounts of two planes, no photographs, nothing from air traffic control or ground staff (or do you think you can land a 757 in the middle of a fucking airport without coordinating with it?).

I know this will make absolutely no difference to your opinion of course...

 

[wishface]

If anyones is interested, you can dowload the ALex Jones radio show at Infowars.com.

He interviews both Dylan Avery and the producer of the BBC documentary Guy Smith. It will be on there until 8.00 p.m tommorrow (20th).
Afterwards it might be on you tune.

Hour long interview with Smith.

i'd listen to that, if the website wasn't such a mess. got a link? I can't be bothered to wade through all the advertising propaganda and bullshit website design to find it.

 

[nick1181]

i'd listen to that, if the website wasn't such a mess. got a link? I can't be bothered to wade through all the advertising propaganda and bullshit website design to find it.

God that would be a tragedy wouldn't it...

<slugline>Only they knew the truth... but no one would believe them because it was all so badly designed</slugline>

 

[Dubversion]

Monbiot says PRECISELY what i feel about 9/11 here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2017005,00.html


And he's right - Jazz et al - you're cowards

 

[editor]

I hardly think allowing an isolated thread on a reasonable busy BB counts as 'actively publicising' either.

Thing is, several of your fellow 'truth seekers' agreed with this vile Holocaust denying scum and - crucially - the thread is still up on the site, quietly promoting its agenda.

And then there's the disgraceful way that same site has hassled 7/7 survivors.

You should be fucking ashamed of associating with such a bunch of utter, utter cunts. The same cunts who published a private email of mine.

 

[pk]

I can't wait to attend a CT meeting armed with video camera.

 

[nick1181]

Monbiot says PRECISELY what i feel about 9/11 here.

Similar to Chomsky's take on it, though slightly more passionate.

I don't know if they're damaging the work done by Monbiot in building political movements exactly.

I'd say that conspiracy theories just symptoms of a much larger flood that's carrying the political movements bobbing along like twigs etc. Last week people were complaining that Obama's new social-networking site would undermine the work done by more serious bloggers who are accountable, properly researched etc... exactly the same complaint that the old media outlets were making a few years earlier. These sorts of disruptive, democratising technologies used to take decades if not hundreds of years to come round.

So what have we got? Hundreds of millions of opinions hitting the fan at the same time - people who would normally never be exposed to each other's opinions - and it's created a global culture war. There are all these patriotic Americans who don't really care about Iraq, or Iran, or Muslims... what they really hate, and I mean really, seriously bitterly hate, are other Americans. Liberals.

Monbiot's carefully built movements have been utterly swamped by these culture wars, but although credibility isn't as easy to manage, I think shear biomass will out. There are a LOT more people who care about the things that Monbiot cares about these days.

Conspiracy therories are a kind of celebrity gossip in my opinion. They aint going to go away - the best you/we can do is stop giving them so much attention... something u75 is particurlarly bad at. Jazzz wouldn't be able to carry a thread on for over 100 pages on his own. I doubt that even two or three Jazzzs could. Conspiracy theories get more support (in the way of attention, even though it's negative) than any other subject on these boards - by fucking miles.

 

[editor]

Conspiracy therories are a kind of celebrity gossip in my opinion. They aint going to go away - the best you/we can do is stop giving them so much attention... something u75 is particurlarly bad at.

I have proposed banning all threads that simply repeat the same old loon garbage several times and would be happy to implement such a ban if that's what people wanted. I've certainly had enough of seeing the same bullshit being endlessly circulated here.

But I'm glad the other 9/11 thread was allowed to flourish because I've rarely seen CT'ers get such a total kicking, with each wild claim being thoroughly debunked and utterly torn apart, piece by piece.

 

[nick1181]

But I'm glad the other 9/11 thread was allowed to flourish because I've rarely seen CT'ers get such a total kicking, with each wild claim being thoroughly debunked and utterly torn apart, piece by piece.

That's been happening for years now hasn't it?


Have you ever met one of these guys face to face?

When I was back in the UK I was involved with Greenpeace and FOE - and CT'ers were the kiss of fucking death. As soon as one turned up at any meeting you'd know you'd basically have to reconvene.

They love attention - in fact I think they love people disagreeing with them more than agreeing.

 

[Dubversion]

Have you ever met one of these guys face to face?

Jazz crops up sometimes, being all wacky with a some sort of puppet on his arm

 

[nick1181]

Jazz crops up sometimes, being all wacky with a some sort of puppet on his arm

Dude, that's his conscience.

 

[wishface]

God that would be a tragedy wouldn't it...

<slugline>Only they knew the truth... but no one would believe them because it was all so badly designed</slugline>

well i found the broadcast and im listening to AJ interviewing Guy Smith right now. I have to say i didnt see the whole of his show.
Prior to the interview Jones is talking to someone called Dylan I've never heard of and they keep harping on about the shooting down of U93. I don't really understand the reasons for a government doing that but they claim that there were no bodies at the crash site and the distance that the debris covered is inconsistent.

 

[Cid]

well i found the broadcast and im listening to AJ interviewing Guy Smith right now. I have to say i didnt see the whole of his show.
Prior to the interview Jones is talking to someone called Dylan I've never heard of and they keep harping on about the shooting down of U93. I don't really understand the reasons for a government doing that but they claim that there were no bodies at the crash site and the distance that the debris covered is inconsistent.

That claim was fairly thoroughly debunked by the BBC when it was revealed that the entire theory was based on misunderstanding of what the coroner said (including interview with said coroner) and the fact that press measurements of the distance between the beginning and end of the crash were taken from a route finder that listed the long way round (because you're unlikely to drive through a lake).