911 - please don't flame me

[fela fan]

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, my own words have not talked about my opinions of american culture. The fact that i think a load of it to be a pile of crap is no doubt something you have correctly inferred. But please, stop putting words into my mouth.

Notice, i said a 'load of it', not all of it.

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

Yes i have. I also changed 'only' to 'most'. But you consistently ignore this. As for figures, you have mixed up numbers according to time and space. Easy to do, but nonetheless, it needs to be acknowledged.

Now will you finally get out of your head that i have xenophobia and ignorance in mine.

Coz i don't. And if you're not prepared to take my word for it, then fine. But i am stating here that you're attributing stuff to me that is simply not true.

What you do with it is your choice.

 

[editor]

As for figures, you have mixed up numbers according to time and space. Easy to do, but nonetheless, it needs to be acknowledged.

You'll have to help me here.

You unequivocally expressed your opinion that less than 1% of Americans visited art galleries. Here's your own words:

But to me, probably less than 1% of americans go to galleries and such like. Most of americans watch the telly to excess, just like britons. When one reads that the average person takes in about five hours a day, i'd say the odd visit to a club or gallery is minimal. Telly rules. It virtually IS the culture of the majority of americans. A minority of course will avail themselves of the beautiful things in life like art music and so on.

That seems pretty straightforward to me, so I'd be delighted if you might explain which numbers I "mixed up".

And then you might ponder why your reality-untroubled figures are so far askew of the actual figures:

Almost 40 percent of adults in the U.S., or 81 million people, attended at least one arts activity during the year 2002.

Counting all art forms and all types of participation, 76 percent of adults, or 157 million people, made the arts part of their lives during the survey period. Nearly one-third of adults reported going to at least one jazz, classical music, opera, musical, play, or ballet performance, not including elementary or high school shows.

About one-fourth of adults said they visited an art museum or art gallery.

Forty percent reported personally performing or creating art, while more than half watched or listened to the arts on television, radio, recorded media, or the Internet. About five percent took an arts-related class..

Why do you assume that Americans are so culturally backward, fela?

 

[Ae589]

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.

True, and a note slipped in that compares a jet shot down by a rocket to the plane that crashed is an example of bias by inclusion. To avoid that though, they'd have to put every media report in from the last 20 years (maybe a slight exageration).

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.

I don't think so. Anyone who has worked for a goverment agency or a large organisation will know that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and sometimes doesn't know of the existence of a right hand.

I don't think everything was done to investigate 911. The FBI has had it's hands tied in some cases, and I'd want to know why. I don't think this is the same as a cover up.

In the case of the last plane crashing, the site seems to point to a lot of evidence that the plane was shot down, and then covered up, yet many think the planes were called off, and this is being covered up. There are reasonable cases for both, yet it probably isn't both.

As I mentioned before, the Bush/Laden connection is something I (and I believe that many British people) would be baying for blood over if this was my leader - and this connection is not in doubt, nor is it supposition.

By the way, what's LIHOP?

 

[editor]

By the way, what's LIHOP?

Something that sparticus likes to repeat as many times as possible in as many posts as possible

 

[Dirty Martini]

By the way, what's LIHOP?

Laughably Incoherent Hokum On Planes, I think

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Laughably Incoherent Hokum On Planes, I think

more likely in recent cases to be

Laughably Incoherent ad Homiens On Posters

 

[sparticus]

Hi Ae 589

LIHOP=let it happen on purpose

I also know how incompetent organisations can be and individuals panic or make mistakes. But the incompetence required to explain the actions of the FAA, NORAD, military chiefs and the USAF on the day stretches this beyond any reason. There are standard operating procedures so that individuals don't have to think and checks and systems and chains of command, so whilst one or two people can have a bad day at the office for the whole air defense system to go AWOL without explanation, I think not. Please have a look at my past few posts that detail the timeline of events.

If you still believe the official version afterwards, please explain or guess how you reckon that so many people can be aware that the plane that hits the pentagon is hijacked for so long (over an hour) and still they are unable to intercept it when there are flighter squandrons on stand by just 10 mlies from the pentagon at Andrews Air Force Base.

 

[editor]

more likely in recent cases to be

Laughably Incoherent ad Homiens On Posters

See the title at the top of this thread?

How about posting up something remotely relevant or do you intend to drone on a bit longer and become really boring?

 

[editor]

If you still believe the official version afterwards, please explain or guess how you reckon that so many people can be aware that the plane that hits the pentagon is hijacked for so long (over an hour) and still they are unable to intercept it when there are flighter squandrons on stand by just 10 mlies from the pentagon at Andrews Air Force Base.

Once again you're viewing the world blessed with hindsight.

I'd say basic incompetence, panic, indecision and a host of others factors could have contributed to the delay.

After all, they were dealing with a situation that had never, ever, ever happened in the entire history of the world: America had never been attacked in such a manner and - let's be honest - they weren't exactly blessed with the smartest and sharpest fella at the top of the command chain.

Who knows what went on behind the scenes, but if you're suggesting that it was agreed to "let it happen", then that would have involved hundreds - if not tens of thousands - of people fully aware of what went on.

So, where's the whistle blowers?

But - I ask once again - why would America have to inflict such damage on itself in the first place?

There is absolutely no precedent for the US ever blowing its own cities to bits and mass murdering its own civilians in order to justify attacking a far weaker nation.

In fact, America's been at complete liberty to bombard, attack and invade a host of other countries since WW2 - with no mass murdering of US citizens needed.

Moreover, if they were so bothered about creating credible provocation to justify their subsequent actions, why did they invade Iraq without UN support.

And if they were so dastardly, why the fuck didn't they drop a load of nuclear parts in Iraq and bingo! Instant justification for the war.

I'm in no doubt that post 9/11 the USG has cynically manipulated what happened to further their own aims, but I still fail to be convinced of any logical or credible reason for mass slaughters of US citizens to be permitted.

There'd be too many people involved. How many Americans do you think could stay silent if they found that they had intentionally or unintentionally played a part in the mass murder of their fellow countrymen through their government's deception?

The silence of people who would have to have been involved speaks volumes about the credibility of your claims.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

See the title at the top of this thread?

How about posting up something remotely relevant or do you intend to drone on a bit longer and become really boring?

i ask for civility, not to become you ...

 

[bigfish]

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....

Fine words, but tell me, when fair play is determined by let's say the Marquis of Queensbury's rules, but then your opponent comes at you with an axe... what then?

 

[editor]

Fine words, but tell me, when fair play is determined by let's say the Marquis of Queensbury's rules, but then your opponent comes at you with an axe... what then?

I see that you would also prefer to go for the personal digs rather than answer my long and considered post above.

And as for all this pathetic whining about the nasty wotton editor being wough and unfair, I'll have to ask the question: how many of the whinees have had their posts deleted, edited or altered by me recently?

How about threads? Have any of them been deleted, edited or altered by me recently?

No?

Has anyone been banned recently? Threatened with a ban?

No?

So where's all this dweadful wotton 'unfair play' that people are whining about?

The only underhand antics I can see going on is that of the topic-evading posters who are completely ignoring the topic under debate and doing their best to gang up and personally attack me here.

I imagine that's because it's easier to keep up the lamentable, off topic, personal critiques rather than try answering the sensible points I've raised.

 

[fela fan]

I see that you would also prefer to go for the personal digs rather than answer my long and considered post above.

Truly amazing, like i said, a good case study...

'Long and considered' eh??

Have you actually read anything anyone's been saying in the last two years here? Or have you been so busy with dishing out your own colourful language-laden personal digs to bother?

"But - I ask once again - why would America have to inflict such damage on itself in the first place?"

Yeah, we know you're good at asking questions, but when posters bother to answer them for you you ignore them. Then, guess what, you ask the question again. Just like here. Fucking too incredible for words. I answered you this very question two days ago, and you zeroed in on one word describing american culture.

"Moreover, if they were so bothered about creating credible provocation to justify their subsequent actions, why did they invade Iraq without UN support."

Another example. God the answer is so simple. Particularly when you've been supplied it before. They needed american public support, geddit?? They obviously didn't need UN support, coz they did what they wanted without UN backing. But they needed US public support, geddit? And how did they get that, even though the public could see that UN support was not happening? Go on, do a bit of considered thinking.

"So, where's the whistle blowers?"

You've asked dozens of times, and been provided with the answers.

Can you read, or are you only able to write?

 

[bigfish]

After all, they were dealing with a situation that had never, ever, ever happened in the entire history of the world: America had never been attacked in such a manner and - let's be honest - they weren't exactly blessed with the smartest and sharpest at the top of the command chain.

I'm afraid that's simply not true. America was attacked from the air by Japan back in December 1941.

In addition, many contemporary historians, including American navel historians, now concur that Roosevelt deliberately provoked and then knowingly allowed the Japanese attack to unfold more or less unhindered in order for the US to gain entry into World War II—against the popular will. In other words, a classic LIHOP precedent.

But - I ask once again - why would America have to inflict such damage on itself in the first place?

There is absolutely no precedent for the US ever blowing its own cities to bits and mass murdering its own civilians in order to justify attacking a far weaker nation.

But such a precedent does exist. It was set by Roosevelt in 1941. By dispatching the two main carrier groups to the South Pacific while aware that the Japanese fleet was only days away approaching from the North, Roosevelt orchestrated matters in such a way as to leave the Pearl Harbor navel base without any meaningful air defenses. Hence the call from PNAC in their now infamous document for a similar "catalyzing event" to that of Pearl Harbor.

 

[fela fan]

‘Unequivocably’ eh? Get your dictionary out, your understanding of the english language is too suspect for words, you even quoted my sentence that you apply this to, here:

“But to me, probably less than 1% of americans go to galleries and such like. Most of americans watch the telly to excess, just like britons. When one reads that the average person takes in about five hours a day, i'd say the odd visit to a club or gallery is minimal. Telly rules. It virtually IS the culture of the majority of americans. A minority of course will avail themselves of the beautiful things in life like art music and so on.”

Notice the ‘probably’. It renders the figure largely meaningless in terms of being correct as the figure. It means I’ve used a deliberately (under)exaggerated figure to make a point.

And I’m saying that ‘most’ americans watch the telly to excess. I said the ‘odd visit to a club or gallery is minimal’. Your research actually confirmed this for me, not that you noticed. Hence my comment you’d make a good study for a linguistics student.

And look again, I’ve said telly ‘virtually’ is the culture of the ‘majority’ of americans. A minority do galleries and concerts and the like.

Now how have you managed to get yourself so worked up?

And look, it’s that question again, “Why do you assume that Americans are so culturally backward, fela?”

My my, I answered you again last night, but still you keep on asking it. Have you been programmed?

 

[fela fan]

But such a precedent does exist. It was set by Roosevelt in 1941. By dispatching the two main carrier groups to the South Pacific while aware that the Japanese fleet was only days away approaching from the North, Roosevelt orchestrated matters in such a way as to leave the Pearl Harbor navel base without any meaningful air defenses. Hence the call from PNAC in their now infamous document for a similar "catalyzing event" to that of Pearl Harbor.

He won't accept that bigfish. He's been presented with this information dozens of times, but ignores or just dismisses it.

I asked him the other day (coz he keeps asking the same questions, seemingly not in the slightest bit intereste in any answers that he can't pigeon-hole into CT stuff) how can you get a precedent of a precedent?

Everything that ever happened for the first time did so without a precedent, otherwise nothing would ever have happened!!!

But editor takes as proof the fact there wasn't a precedent.

Even when it is pointed out to him that there have been precedents, he still says there was no precedent = proof the USG weren't complicit.

Stunning!

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

And as for all this pathetic whining about the nasty wotton editor being wough and unfair, I'll have to ask the question: how many of the whinees have had their posts deleted, edited or altered by me recently?

... etc

I imagine that's because it's easier to keep up the lamentable, off topic, personal critiques rather than try answering the sensible points I've raised.

can you point to where this has been claimed by myself other than to ask you to say on topic and play by the FAQ?

nope didn't think so, you know why because it hasn't happened...

now then aside from flaming, are you going to answer the question i posted?

 

[editor]

can you point to where this has been claimed by myself other than to ask you to say on topic and play by the FAQ?

nope didn't think so, you know why because it hasn't happened...

now then aside from flaming, are you going to answer the question i posted?

I give up. Seeing as you've chosen to ignore all my on-topic points in this thread, make idiotic accusations, endlessly ramble on about some long forgotten, selectively recalled grudge, and hypocritically break the FAQ while endlessly requoting irrelevant sections of it, I'm going to ignore any further whining 'contributions' from you.

I've reminded you enough times to say on topic and I've lost interest in entertaining your bizarre bleating any further.

The only people who seem to think I'm breaking the FAQ are in this thread. Strange that, isn't that?

 

[editor]

Another example. God the answer is so simple. Particularly when you've been supplied it before. They needed american public support, geddit??

Right. Let's play ball with your fantasy.

So they allowed the mass murder of their own citizens and the destruction of large parts of New York in order to gain public support for the war?

Right. So if they're prepared to go to such murderous, unprecedented lengths to gain public support, why haven't the undertaken the considerably easier task of planting some weapons since?

Public support has fallen considerably so it seems rather odd that a government prepared to mass murder their own citizens in pursuance of such support aren't prepared to dump a few nuclear parts in the deserts of Iraq.

That doesn't quite fit your theory, does it?
Sorry to spoil your fantasy, but I'm still waiting for a single, credible 'whistle blower' to be produced here.

And I guess I'll have to keep on waiting...

Can you read, or are you only able to write?

Ah. More of the usual pathetic drivel.... (sigh)

 

[editor]

I'm afraid that's simply not true. America was attacked from the air by Japan back in December 1941.

Utterly different set of events from a different time with a different world order with a utterly different scenario that involved one country's airforce attacking a military target (note that the majority of historians don't support your Pearl Harbor LIHOP view either, not that I intend to entertain another off topic excursion).

Just like I said, what happened on 9/11 was unprecedented in the history of America, and indeed, the world.

 

[Lock&Light]

So they allowed the mass murder of their own citizens and the destruction of large parts of New York in order to gain public support for the war?

Right. So if they're prepared to go to such murderous, unprecedented lengths to gain public support, why haven't the undertaken the considerably easier task of planting some weapons since?

Public support has fallen considerably so it seems rather odd that a government prepared to mass murder their own citizens in pursuance of such support aren't prepared to dump a few nuclear parts in the deserts of Iraq.

This, for me, is the crux of the matter, and has not been addressed by any of those who have accused the USG of being complicate, other than by incompetence, in the tragedy of 911.

 

[editor]

Get your dictionary out, your understanding of the english language is too suspect for words...
He is evasive, and hypocritical...
Do not expect fair play and equal application of his own rules from editor...

I'm a published author and a working journalist.

I've had enough of your defamatory comments.

And this thread.

The Posting FAQ is very specific on such personal, defamatory attacks.

Another thread set on a bin bound course. Well done fela!

 

[fela fan]

I'm a published author and a working journalist.

I've had enough of your defamatory comments.

And this thread.

The Posting FAQ is very specific on such personal, defamatory attacks.

Another thread set on a bin bound course. Well done fela!

Takes two to tango mate. I'm only replying to your varied assaults on my character. And if YOU decide to pull the plug, you blame me????!! Fuck me down sideways.

You've had enough of my 'defamatory comments' eh? I've made none, show me where i've been defamatory...

And no wonder you've had enough, with that website that you refuse to acknowledge, the tide is turning. Why do you ignore this website? Why do you threaten to bin this thread?

And anyway, how many defamatory comments have you made about me? Including the non-stop dishonest questions over mygoodself.

Your mirror is unbelievably misty.

 

[fela fan]

I'm a published author and a working journalist.

Wow, i bow down. And i'm a toilet cleaner. And he's the king. What's the difference?

So, you've joined the professionals/experts have you? I sure hope you do a better job at dissecting the english language in your books than you do on your 911 threads.

 

[editor]

And anyway, how many defamatory comments have you made about me?

You can't defame a unknown person posting under a pseudonym, you clueless halfwit.

 

[fela fan]

You can't defame a unknown person posting under a pseudonym, you clueless halfwit.

Maybe not in a court, but here on urban you do a mighty good job of describing various posters using some of the most impolite language available. You do a very good job of dishing out insults like there was no tomorrow. You obviously get off on it. You are quite the most impolite insulting person i've ever come across.

What drives you to such hatred and lack of respect for other human beings?

 

[editor]

You do a very good job of dishing out insults like there was no tomorrow. You obviously get off on it....

What drives you to such hatred and lack of respect for other human beings?

And there you go again, posting up yet more deeply insulting, highly defamatory insults.

I won't warn you again.

PS Seeing as I'm supposed to have such 'hatred' and 'lack of respect' for other human beings, ponder this: I've provided you - and thousands of others - with a totally free forum for you to express your opinions and share opinions with others.

You've made very good use of this facility over the years.

What have you ever done for me?

 

[fela fan]

You've made very good use of this facility over the years.

What have you ever done for me?

Yes i have, and i've thanked you more than a few times.

Done for you? Nothing that i can specifically remember. But in the whole scheme of things i've done plenty for plenty of other people, so it all kind of balances out in the end. Sorry you've not personally benefitted from my life, but be happy that loads have. My input is greater than my out-take from the community.

 

[Jazzz]

And there you go again, posting up yet more deeply insulting, highly defamatory insults.

I won't warn you again.

PS Seeing as I'm supposed to have such 'hatred' and 'lack of respect' for other human beings, ponder this: I've provided you - and thousands of others - with a totally free forum for you to express your opinions and share opinions with others.

You've made very good use of this facility over the years.

What have you ever done for me?

editor, what does "I won't warn you again." mean?

The obvious interpretation would of course be that you are threatening to ban him if he carries on responding to you in the same vein. But it would be nice to clarify this, so that next time you ask "have I threatened to ban anyone?" (as you just did a few posts ago) you can't pretend the answer is 'no' as you always do, although this kind of remark from you is hardly unprecendented.

To ask 'what have you done for me?' seems an extraordinary question to ask someone you have invited onto your discussion boards.

 

[editor]

editor, what does "I won't warn you again." mean?

It means that if he keeps on posting up personal attacks and seriously defamatory material, he will - at the very least - face a temp ban in accordance with the Posting FAQ.

The FAQ is quite specific on this:

There are civil and criminal laws against certain forms of speech like libel, defamation of character, harassment and threats....
...Threads that descend into personal abuse will be binned...
Remember the admin team run this site in their own time and for no profit, so unprovoked or sustained personal attacks may result in a ban - show some respect for their hard work!

But it would be nice to clarify this, so that next time you ask "have I threatened to ban anyone?" (as you just did a few posts ago) you can't pretend the answer is 'no' as you always do, although this kind of remark from you is hardly unprecendented.

He is not being threatened with a ban because of his 9/11 conspiracy-tastic opinions.

He is being threatened with a ban because he is posting up defamatory and insulting material in breach of the FAQ.

To ask 'what have you done for me?' seems an extraordinary question to ask someone you have invited onto your discussion boards.

I don't recall inviting him and I'm under no obligation to put up with his insults.