911 - please don't flame me

[fubert]

fubert, you're not either. I'm sorry. I carried some other baggage into that post, which was about me, not you. Apologies are most in order.

But some of that baggage by way of a tiny excuse is that i'm fed up with how these threads become 'conspiracy theories'. I had been hoping this one might get by without this particular language, and then coming in after my beers, i saw your post, a red flag went up! Sorry man.

don't sweat it. i thought you didn't sound like your usual self

 

[editor]

Why is the current investigation entirely glossing over the specific internal and external warnings prior to 9/11 and instead just dealing with general banalities of lessons to be learnt. What is your explanation of how they failed to act in response to these specific warnings?
Ian

I've no idea, although I suspect that a combination of arrogance, abysmal organisation, cock ups, an indecisive leader and an inability to deal with a completely unprecedented situation played a part.

Have you got any solid proof of anything else?

PS Hindsight's a marvellous thing, isn't it?

 

[editor]

Go on, why don't you comment on this cooperativeresearch website? I mean you love giving us your critiques on websites to do with 911, why not this one? Why are you ignoring commenting on this particular website when it was the focus and central tenet of this thread?

What's the point?

I've wasted long, long hours trawling endless sites to address the trillions of ever-shifting 'arguments' presented by the likes of you, only to be instantly presented with yet another reassembled set of minutiae supposedly 'proving' something or another.

Just take a look at the "what happened to the passengers and planes" thread. Hundreds of posts and not a single credible answer from those proposing exciting 'theories' about what supposedly happened.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

What's the point?

I've wasted long, long hours trawling endless sites to address the trillions of ever-shifting 'arguments' presented by the likes of you, only to be instantly presented with yet another reassembled set of minutiae supposedly 'proving' something or another.

Just take a look at the "what happened to the passengers and planes" thread. Hundreds of posts and not a single credible answer from those proposing exciting 'theories' about what supposedly happened.

so you deny that looking at the site in question would further discredit the 'CT's' and therefore strengthen your argument then?

how about flipping this on it's head, seeing as you dispute the claims of the other trillions of website can you point to the factors which you feel are not credible about the website in question. alternatively, would you be prepared to formulate a response to say claims as quoted from that site? if so then i guess fela et al could merely post up quotes from the site and you could respond to them highlighting where you found them to be discredited.

 

[editor]

how about flipping this on it's head, seeing as you dispute the claims of the other trillions of website can you point to the factors which you feel are not credible about the website in question. alternatively, would you be prepared to formulate a response to say claims as quoted from that site?

Instead of expecting me to trawl through yet another website, why don't you present your argument, highlighting the specific points that supposedly 'prove' beyond doubt that the USG was complicit in 9/11?

Seeing as I'm still waiting for someone - anyone - to finally back up the oft-repeated bollocks about missile-spewing pretend planes, I'm a little reluctant to waste even more time trying to address ever-shifting points of detail.

 

[fela fan]

What's the point?

Dunno, it's up to you.

But if you have decided that you already know what happened (ie the USG version is acceptable to you), then no point at all. But interestingly you have accepted the official version without any evidence, or proof. Which of course you want off those who don't believe the USG.

On the other hand, if you retain an open mind as to what happened on that day, then you would look at this website, and spend a bit of time reading it. Precisely because it fits your criteria for credible websites.

But you seem to be deliberately ignoring it. I guess you might be worried it might literally open your mind when you'd rather just remain comfortable with the USG version.

You're on the back foot, and i must admit it's fun watching you wriggling...

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I know the ABSOLUTE TRUTH about 911. The FACTS were told to me by a bloke whose girlfriends best mates uncle worked as a toilet cleaner at JFK airport, so what he said must be TRUE. If that wasn't enough he had a WEBSITE listing SEVERAL IMPORTANT QUESTIONS that have NEVER BEEN ANSWERED. Plus he had an email address at HOTMAIL which is owned by MICROSOFT who everyone knows is responsible for EVERYTHING WRONG WITH THE WORLD. And probably the death of DIANA as well.

To find out this SHOCKING TRUTH simply send me a cheque for £9000 made payable "Crackpot publishing" and you too can be the envy of your friends. But BEWARE this knowledge may make you look very SILLY indeed when you constantly keep going on about it on bloody internet message boards and may atract the attention of the EVIL MEN IN BLACK. Or lizards.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

But why do you think the results of the SEC investigations into 'insider trading' are unknown?

 

[editor]

But interestingly you have accepted the official version without any evidence, or proof.

Perhaps you might like to point me to a post where I have said that?

Why do you discount the phone calls? They sure look like a mighty big pile of proof to me.

 

[fela fan]

Instead of expecting me to trawl through yet another website, why don't you present your argument, highlighting the specific points that supposedly 'prove' beyond doubt that the USG was complicit in 9/11?

I'd advise garfield, or anyone else, to not bother. I did that and have done a few times, normally at your request, but then you ignore it.

I, and others, have consistently pointed out to you that we cannot provide proof and evidence that is satisfactory to you.

Yet you believe the USG version, even thought there is not one iota of evidence available for you to base you belief on.

I can't make up my mind if you know what you're doing, or if you are unaware. But one thing's for sure, what you ask of others you cannot provide yourself.

Why not have a look at the website? Are you frightened of it? I think i'll get digging to get this thread back on topic, since all CT accusers have gone to the wind...

 

[editor]

But why do you think the results of the SEC investigations into 'insider trading' are unknown?

I don't know.

Why don't you write to them and ask them?

 

[fela fan]

Perhaps you might like to point me to a post where I have said that?

Why do you discount the phone calls? They sure look like a mighty big pile of proof to me.

Proof of exactly what?? I have told you so many bloody times, why not do it again: I don't discount the phone calls, becausei believe the events happened pretty much as we have been told, but i believe the USG knew they were going to happen, and not only let them happen, but actively helped it to happen more smoothly.

And i also leave myself room to accept the scenario that elements of the US elites organised it themselves. But so far, nothing to sway me conclusively.

And no, i don't want to trawl through these threads looking for a post of yours.

Instead let me check with you, much quicker that way; have you accepted the official version given us by the USG?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Instead of expecting me to trawl through yet another website, why don't you present your argument, highlighting the specific points that supposedly 'prove' beyond doubt that the USG was complicit in 9/11?

Seeing as I'm still waiting for someone - anyone - to finally back up the oft-repeated bollocks about missile-spewing pretend planes, I'm a little reluctant to waste even more time trying to address ever-shifting points of detail.

if you could point to one of my posts where i claim any form of bollocks regarding missile-spewing pretend planes, otherwise this slur will only represent an evasive and clear attempt to obfuscate and seemingly disrupt or derail the thread, whilst avoiding the obivus question you have failed to answer.

back up your claims or withdraw them.

one might go so far as to suggest that your claim of such impropriety and attempt to tar me with a 'CT' brush is conspricy-tastic....

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I'd advise garfield, or anyone else, to not bother. I did that and have done a few times, normally at your request, but then you ignore it.

Oh i am undecided, I'm just making an attempt, as a member of the community to ensure fair debate, and trying to prevent the thread from being derailed, nothing more...

edited to add

as a responsible memeber of the community one likes to draw attention to all parties involved to the FAQ's

in particular

4. Replying to posts. Do not post up huge reams of cut and paste text, but make things easier for others by summarising the article and including a link to the unabridged version.

which i'm sure the editor would have no issue with you doing and also,

6. Trolling.... Persistently disruptive posters will be banned.

as well as This

The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

but then I'm a hypocrite remember, something which has still not been withdraw even though the person who made the accusation was subsequently proved wrong about that slur...

 

[Ae589]

Well, cheers everyone, for keeping what I consider to be a really good link at the top of the boards for so long!




There are certain things which I am suspicious about, such as the massive short trading of United Airlines... and the fact that it was reported, but the SEC found nothing, is suspicious. However, I know no more than that, so there is no point in discussing stuff like that... apart form to maybe say 'Ooh, that's suspicious'.

However, the most interesting stuff is with the Bush connections to Saudi Arabia and the Bin Ladens. I believe, and hope, Moore will cover this in Farenheit 911. It's so important, it frustrates me beyond belief... I am sure that when Americans see it they will be unable to contain their fury.

Editor - er... I understand your frustration with conspiracy theories, but I really don't think fela fan intended to do anything but comment on the importance of this site.

fela fan - seems I evaded a flaming and it hit you instead! Sorry about that...

 

[bigfish]

I know the ABSOLUTE TRUTH about 911. The FACTS were told to me by a bloke whose girlfriends best mates uncle worked as a toilet cleaner at JFK airport, so what he said must be TRUE. If that wasn't enough he had a WEBSITE listing SEVERAL IMPORTANT QUESTIONS that have NEVER BEEN ANSWERED. Plus he had an email address at HOTMAIL which is owned by MICROSOFT who everyone knows is responsible for EVERYTHING WRONG WITH THE WORLD. And probably the death of DIANA as well.

To find out this SHOCKING TRUTH simply send me a cheque for £9000 made payable "Crackpot publishing" and you too can be the envy of your friends. But BEWARE this knowledge may make you look very SILLY indeed when you constantly keep going on about it on bloody internet message boards and may atract the attention of the EVIL MEN IN BLACK. Or lizards.

What a fucking tosser!

 

[editor]

but then I'm a hypocrite remember, something which has still not been withdraw even though the person who made the accusation was subsequently proved wrong about that slur...

FFS: grow up and get over it.

Your irrelevant, off topic, selectively recalled, Posting FAQ-quoting, prima-donna, self-obsessed post is ample proof of your hypocrisy.

Or perhaps you conveniently missed this part of the Posting FAQ you're so fond of quoting:

...but posters using these forums to re-enact infantile playground battles will be clipped around the ear by the milk monitor

If you want to continue such dull, deary playground battles, I suggest you return to dissensus where the site made it into something of an art form.

Now why don't you try answering my on-topic question?

 

[editor]

if you could point to one of my posts where i claim any form of bollocks regarding missile-spewing pretend planes, otherwise this slur will only represent an evasive and clear attempt to obfuscate and seemingly disrupt or derail the thread, whilst avoiding the obivus question you have failed to answer.

back up your claims or withdraw them.

Could you could point to one of my posts where I claim that you've posted any form of bollocks regarding any belief in missile-spewing pretend planes, otherwise this slur will only represent an evasive and clear attempt to obfuscate and seemingly disrupt or derail the thread, whilst avoiding the obvious question you have failed to answer.

Back up your claims or withdraw them.

If only you'd taken time to properly read my words you wouldn't be in the position of appearing such a clueless hypocrite.

But just to help you, here's my words again. There is NO reference to you in relation to 'missile spewing planes' anywhere. You made that up on your own. I'll look forward to your apology.

Instead of expecting me to trawl through yet another website, why don't you present your argument, highlighting the specific points that supposedly 'prove' beyond doubt that the USG was complicit in 9/11?

Seeing as I'm still waiting for someone - anyone - to finally back up the oft-repeated bollocks about missile-spewing pretend planes, I'm a little reluctant to waste even more time trying to address ever-shifting points of detail.

Now, why don't you try addressing my on topic question because I'm bored with your irrelevant 'me! me! me!' whining...

 

[Ae589]

Instead of expecting me to trawl through yet another website, why don't you present your argument, highlighting the specific points that supposedly 'prove' beyond doubt that the USG was complicit in 9/11?

Seeing as I'm still waiting for someone - anyone - to finally back up the oft-repeated bollocks about missile-spewing pretend planes, I'm a little reluctant to waste even more time trying to address ever-shifting points of detail.

I'll take this. There is no point being made in the site, it's just a timeline, starting with CIA involvement in Afghanistan. It is free of comment, that's why it's so good. This thread was not put up to make any other claim.

There is nothing on here (unless I have missed it) about missile spewing pretend planes.

Editor, if you don't want to read it, fine, but I am unable to distill it for you, as that would be putting my spin on it, and rendering it useless.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

FFS: grow up and get over it.

Your irrelevant, off topic, selectively recalled, Posting FAQ-quoting, prima-donna, self-obsessed post is ample proof of your hypocrisy.

so the FAQ's don't apply to all equally is that what you are claiming?

and a request that posters stick with in these is hypocrisy is it?

btw

What the fuck does 'butch mike' mean?

Shall I hit the 'report this post' button for that stupid insult?

Hypocrite.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=74017&page=8&pp=40

and all the subsiqunent response remind you of anything.

now then stop with the adhomine attacks on me and address the issue i have rasied.

i cannot vouch nor actually raise proof for 9/11 theories conspiracy tastic or other wise as i have no issue with them one way or the other, i do have issue with you jumping down people throats including mine when it suits you or you cannot substantiate your argument. as you have done time and time again on these type of threads. might i suggest if you don't like them you don't post on them and just

FFS: grow up and get over it.

 

[fela fan]

Editor - er... I understand your frustration with conspiracy theories, but I really don't think fela fan intended to do anything but comment on the importance of this site.

fela fan - seems I evaded a flaming and it hit you instead! Sorry about that...

He knows that Ae.

And any flaming i get is not a problem mate! I talk from solid ground, editor is balanced on ever-shifting sands, and he shifts them each and every way he chooses, according to his mood.

But his underlying method is transparently obvious. When presented with debate that becomes 'difficult', he simply attacks the poster that posed him problems of substance. The pertinent point is buried under his character assassination of the poster that made the point.

He is evasive, and hypocritical: he asks others to constantly answer his questions, but never answers the questions of others. He accuses others of ad hominem attacks, but does them himself almost all the time. He asks others to remain on-topic, but goes off-topic deliberately much of the time.

He has lost his whole point of view. Which he won't even state categorically. But after two years of debating on these threads, his view has not changed one iota. This is amazing, and indicates he knew what happened two years ago, and still thinks the same. Absolutely no new information has hit his senses that might have changed his position with regard to what happened on 911.

This is simply amazing.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

He has lost his whole point of view. Which he won't even state categorically. But after two years of debating on these threads, his view has not changed one iota. This is amazing, and indicates he knew what happened two years ago, and still thinks the same. Absolutely no new information has hit his senses that might have changed his position with regard to what happened on 911.

that is unkind fela and does no one any good to resort to that level od ad homien attack, even if they choose to do it you ...

 

[fela fan]

Garfield, do not expect fair play and equal application of his own rules from editor.

He has amply demonstrated that this does not occur on 911 threads.

He has been slyly trying to insert into posters' minds opinions i hold on americans. Except i don't hold those opinions. But it doesn't stop him from dishonestly portraying me as a person i'm not, with regard to my thoughts on americans.

Like i say, we just have to accept editor's rules for us, and his rules for himself. They are not one and the same.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Garfield, do not expect fair play and equal application of his own rules from editor.

He has amply demonstrated that this does not occur on 911 threads.

He has been slyly trying to insert into posters' minds opinions i hold on americans. Except i don't hold those opinions. But it doesn't stop him from dishonestly portraying me as a person i'm not, with regard to my thoughts on americans.

Like i say, we just have to accept editor's rules for us, and his rules for himself. They are not one and the same.

regardless of what fair play you expect you should attempt to uphold the idea of fair play even when those around you are not. failing to do so only make your own argument inconsitant and drags you away from the real point you are attempting to make....

 

[fela fan]

that is unkind fela and does no one any good to resort to that level od ad homien attack, even if they choose to do it you ...

I'm confused by your smiley symbol as to your true meaning...!

But either way, i've been subject to a lot of crap and personal attacks by the editor over the recent months. Most of the time i keep calm and reply in a calm manner. Occasionally, under such a concerted provocation maybe i resort to type. But this is what these sorts of people do, they keep digging at you, keep attacking, keep on with their ad hominems, and then when you do react, they are most happy to welcome you into their world of such negative machinations.

Luckily i only visit for split seconds. Mostly i remain outside of such cunning.

It's not a world i want to be part of at all, but occasionally it becomes satisfying to resort to their own tactics...

 

[fela fan]

regardless of what fair play you expect you should attempt to uphold the idea of fair play even when those around you are not. failing to do so only make your own argument inconsitant and drags you away from the real point you are attempting to make....

I totally agree with you mate, and normally i would. But i realise in the last 24 hours i've been dragged away from my normal methods of posting. I realise i've let others drag me into alternative ways of posting.

I've actually enjoyed it. But i think by tomorrow i'll be back to normal. After reading crap about me for so long, there obviously comes a point where you don't respond logically and calmly. Obvious coz that point reached me yesterday and continues today.

But i'll get back to normal. Meanwhile nice to see you pointing me straight...! And i do feel somewhat not quite right for having attacked the editor.

Despite the fact he deserves it. For deliberately trying to portray me as someone i'm not.

Normal service to be resumed tomorrow. But i will keep on editor's case. Coz he needs watching...

 

[editor]

He has been slyly trying to insert into posters' minds opinions i hold on americans..

No I haven't.

I've responded to your own words and repeatedly asked why you hold such a low opinion of American culture.

You've described America as a place where "TV is the only culture" and "less than 1% of Americans visit art galleries".

Both these statements are wildly, outrageously and provably untrue, so I can only assume you made them from a position of ignorance or xenophobia.

Which is it?

 

[editor]

and all the subsiqunent response remind you of anything.

Nope. Still can't see any post where I claim that you believe in 'missile spewing aircraft'.

So I'll look forward to your apology.

And you still haven't answered my question.

Funnily enough Ae589's had no problem answering it.

 

[sparticus]

Whilst co-operative research may express no opinions it does not meanit is without an agenda or impartial. With such a contensious subject as 911 how could it be, by deciding what is worthy of inclusion and what is not this site along with all others make judgements as to what is helpful in understanding the truth about 911. This is a subjective and not objective judgement.

So for example when the official story and accounts from key administration figures say they had no specific warnings and didn't see this coming and when they say they did everything they could to intercept the planes, then a website that draws your attention to the copious evidence of prior knowledge and the sequence of events that shows how the adminsitration did not adhere to standard operating procedures and dispalyed a level of incompetence that is beyond belief, then the website is leading you to conclude THEY KNEW and LIHOP. Incompetence as the editor suggests is just not consistent with events and the subsequent cover-up.

Editor, I condensed the timeline into half page to make it nice and accessible. It specifically deals with the inexplicable failures to intercept the planes over a 2 hour period and asks you for an explanation as to why USAF was unable to intercept the pentagon plane despite it being known that it was under the control of hijackers for A FULL HOUR prior to it crashing into the Pentagon and when you have 2 squadrons of battle ready fighter jets based at Andrews 10 miles from the Pentagon.

The official story is bullshit and you are insulting our intelligence by pretending not to understand the basis of our arguments that demonstrate USG complicity and the evidence presented that supports this. Instead you make lame references to the mobile phones when I'm sure you know that whether mobile phones were used or not has not relevance, insult posters who disagree with you or vainly try to deviate the discussion into cul de sacs.