911: What makes you suspicious - now with added extra poll option!

[Jazzz]

It's not "huge".
It weighs just 20k. The FAQ specifies 60k. So it's not even close to the limit.
You're losing your grip on reality with every passing day.

ok... my mistake... still, it was off-topic though

 

[gurrier]

So, since i've had two or three dodgy aspects satisfactorily dealt with (not saying i'm agreeing, just that i can agree!), i'm still left with what to me is the biggest problem in accepting the USG version of events.

And that is the vast array of intelligence they had leading up to that fateful day. Need i post up my favourite link? Will you all tell me they were suffering from intelligence fatigue? Let's now deal with this aspect of immense dodginess!

How about a comparative example.

The UKG was apparently unable to stop the IRA blowing the shit out of London and Belfast and bombing loads of british soldiers, almost killing Thatcher, hitting Downing street, etc despite having some 40,000 officers to survey a population of about 400,000 people (catholics in NI) AND despite having their agents in many of the most important positions in the IRA AND despite knowing pretty much exactly who was in the RA AND despite being warned in advance of many of the bombings.

The really huge problem with such intelligence is the enormous volume of false positives that you get - as far as I know, the USG can monitor pretty much everything they want to, but if they were to act on a fraction of it, they'd be locking up loads of people every single day - which wouldn't exactly help matters.

 

[fela fan]

Here you are claiming it was a 'great feat of flying' yet on your second or third flying lesson you landed an aircraft, which I see no difference between the 2 acts.

If you want me to stop replying in a 'sarcastic and disbelieving tone' then stop posting drivel.

But i've pointed out that to me there's a big difference between a tiny two seater aircraft and a big jet plane. If that's drivel then so be it. But just as i have no problem with a car, nor indeed driving a mini van, i imagine a huge articulated lorry to be a different kettle of fish.

And i don't really care if you continue to post in this manner, but i just pointed out things could be somewhat more civil if you didn't.

But either way, it's your call.

 

[fela fan]

How about a comparative example.

The UKG was apparently unable to stop the IRA blowing the shit out of London and Belfast and bombing loads of british soldiers, almost killing Thatcher, hitting Downing street, etc despite having some 40,000 officers to survey a population of about 400,000 people (catholics in NI) AND despite having their agents in many of the most important positions in the IRA AND despite knowing pretty much exactly who was in the RA AND despite being warned in advance of many of the bombings.

The really huge problem with such intelligence is the enormous volume of false positives that you get - as far as I know, the USG can monitor pretty much everything they want to, but if they were to act on a fraction of it, they'd be locking up loads of people every single day - which wouldn't exactly help matters.

But it's not comparative in time though. Nowadays technology and intelligence gathering ability is vastly improved.

Echelon weren't around in those days for one thing.

When i get home i shall post up a very authoratitive link that patiently has recorded and compiled all major media outlets' stories on intelligence supplied to the US from non-US sources. It doesn't even cover intelligence gathered by the US itself.

One thing that the authorities in the US were quick to announce in the immediate aftermath of the attacks was that there was no way they could ever have imagined such a style of terrorist attacks.

Yet from the intelligence they had, even years before the day, and much more in 1991, they knew full well plans were afoot to attack tall buildings.

I'll be back on this later.

 

[laptop]

Echelon weren't around in those days for one thing.

So, tell us, what precisely is Echelon?

Equivalent capabilities certainly were around.

I interviewed one of the people supplying them to the NSA.

 

[pk]

ok... my mistake... still, it was off-topic though

Twat.

 

[dylanredefined]

I thought no one put 2 and 2 together .In hindsight they could put the picture together ,but, before it was all vague suppostions. Theres going to be an attack may attack wtc may hijack planes etc .
I guess he carried his passport as he needed id to get on the plane .And the cockpit was thrown clear of the explosion .

 

[pk]

“At best, conspiracy theorists are universally lampooned.* At worst, they are institutionalized as unstable.* In either case, they are taken seriously only by other conspiracy theorists.”

Pg 239 “The Road to Damascus”, John Ringo and Linda Evans

 

[WouldBe]

But i've pointed out that to me there's a big difference between a tiny two seater aircraft and a big jet plane. If that's drivel then so be it. But just as i have no problem with a car, nor indeed driving a mini van, i imagine a huge articulated lorry to be a different kettle of fish.

Why would driving an articulated lorry in a straight line be any more difficult than driving a mini in a straight line?

 

[WouldBe]

Interesting. From your first link (WouldBe's highlighting)

Investigating Explosions
Many types of explosions occur at fires. Firefighters operate at manhole explosions, gas main explosions, flammable liquid and gas cylinder explosions, oil burner explosions, vehicle gas tank explosions, terrorist bomb explosions and smoke explosions. Four common explosions at structure fires are: 1.explosions caused by leaking gas piping, 2.BLEVEs of propane gas cylinders, 3.explosions caused by flammable vapor left over from an arsonist's accelerant and 4.bombs.

Before a fire investigator declares the cause of an explosion at a structure fire to be one of the above, a post-fire analysis must rule out all other possibilities. For example, if the gas piping is intact, if no ruptured propane cylinders are found and there are no traces of an accelerant flammable liquid residue or bomb fragments, then the explosion may be recorded as a smoke explosion (backdraft).

It may come as a suprise to you Jazzz but smoke is normally found in fires. Also as a plane full of flamable liquid crashed into the towers it should be no suprise that flamable liquid could also have caused the explosions but how typical of you to ignore these 2 obvious sources of the explosions and highlight the bomb's option.

Strange, I don't think we have had a 'post-fire analysis' which has in any ruled out the possibility of bombs for the WTC - which is what many people heard. Nor does anything in this link imply that explosions are an inevitable consequences of a huge building being on fire, as you seemed to claim.

A post fire analysis requires the building to be relatively intact so that you can see where the most burning occured to determine the source of the fire. How do you think this would be possible when the towers have collapsed?

That's the Windsor Tower fire in Madrid... (click for a larger picture) burned for over 24 hours didn't it? That was a REAL inferno... completely gutted.

Note from your own picture that the steel frame of the building is sagging. Something the conspiraloon sites state cannot possibly happen in an office fire as the temperature of the fire is no where near hot enough.

 

[laptop]

Why would driving an articulated lorry in a straight line be any more difficult than driving a mini in a straight line?

I don't drive either, but I'd say from first principles that it's making it go not in a straight line that's harder

 

[sparticus]

When i get home i shall post up a very authoratitive link that patiently has recorded and compiled all major media outlets' stories on intelligence supplied to the US from non-US sources. It doesn't even cover intelligence gathered by the US itself.

One thing that the authorities in the US were quick to announce in the immediate aftermath of the attacks was that there was no way they could ever have imagined such a style of terrorist attacks.

Yet from the intelligence they had, even years before the day, and much more in 1991, they knew full well plans were afoot to attack tall buildings.

I'll be back on this later.

Don't bother Fela.

The editor and the other apologists for the official legend are so dug into their position you are not going to dig them out. That would be all well and good if they were familiar with the basic questions and evidence that surround 9/11 (such as the intelligence, air defense or fire engineering failures) but most are not as their posts repeatedly demonstrate. That's not arrogance, but simple observation. I would go back and illustrate this from the pityful postings of the Ed, Wouldbe, etc if I could be arsed but I can't.

So for example you can post a link to 30 odd pages of tightly researched and referenced evidence on the intelligence failures and you will still be told that there is no evidence to challenge the US govt account. It's disenguous bullshit and you, me and everyone else is wasting our time arguing about 9/11 here

 

[Techno303]

That's not arrogance, but simple observation. I would go back and illustrate this from the pityful postings of the Ed, Wouldbe, etc if I could be arsed but I can't.

No, go on because they all seem to make detailed and sound points frequently backed up by strong evidence and/or scientific reasoning and often with credible references to external sources. You on the other hand appear to spout tripe and consistently fail to demonstrate anything. Just saying this as a simple observation like.

 

[sparticus]

No, go on because they all seem to make detailed and sound points frequently backed up by strong evidence and/or scientific reasoning and often with credible references to external sources. You on the other hand appear to spout tripe and consistently fail to demonstrate anything. Just saying this as a simple observation like.

Well not surprisingly I disagree. But then it comes down to what you reckon to be credible evidence and sources and ultimately both of our observations are a matter of opinion. I was merely pointing out to Fela that regardless of what you post, it is futile. But then he knows this

 

[MikeMcc]

...

Strange, I don't think we have had a 'post-fire analysis' which has in any ruled out the possibility of bombs for the WTC - which is what many people heard. Nor does anything in this link imply that explosions are an inevitable consequences of a huge building being on fire, as you seemed to claim.
...

Post Fire Reports on the destruction of the WTC? Take your pick:

List from search on FDNY website

Report in Architecture Week

PowerPoint Presentation from NIST summarising findings on WTC7 collapse

 

[tarannau]

There's a huge credibility gap between saying that Govt intelligence had indications of possible terrorist attack methods and that Govt decision makers (particularly at VP/Presidential) level were aware of those specific threats though.

I can only speculate on how many threats listening protocols like Echelon and intelligence services can pick up globally, but I suspect there are thousands upon thousands of possible threats. It's far from beyond belief that oversights were made in which threats should receive priority.

It's somewhat like claiming that, in the aftemath of a bizarre assassination attempt, that there had actually been reports of the possibility of a poison tipped umbrella after all, but it wasn't taken as seriously as more seemingly plausible, prosaic ideas.

In the wider scheme of things, that isn't evidence of a conspiracy Sparticus and you know it. It's a possible indication, but it's nowhere near a smoking gun or credible evidence of govt. wrongdoing.

 

[WouldBe]

Well not surprisingly I disagree. But then it comes down to what you reckon to be credible evidence and sources and ultimately both of our observations are a matter of opinion. I was merely pointing out to Fela that regardless of what you post, it is futile. But then he knows this

So a picture of the IFF CDU from the manufacturer of the IFF system is not credible evidence

I deliberately posted a picture, that clearly shows there is no hijack button, to save you the difficulty of having to read.

 

[sparticus]

So a picture of the IFF CDU from the manufacturer of the IFF system is not credible evidence

I deliberately posted a picture, that clearly shows there is no hijack button, to save you the difficulty of having to read.

It is a piece of evidence but not an explanation as to why there were no hijack warning on any of the 4 flights was given and especially in the case of flight 93 where there was radio messages (allegedly from the hijackers) indicating the plane was hijacked and yet no hijack warning. The lack of warnings is one element of a huge jigsaw and when taken together cast doubt on the official story.

 

[editor]

The editor and the other apologists for the official legend are so dug into their position you are not going to dig them out.

"Apologist", my arse you pathetic little dreamer.

Four years on and you still haven't produced a single shred of credible 'proof' of your little boy fantasies.

You wouldn't know the 'truth' if it picked you up on a date, flirted with you in the pub, got you pissed and shafted you up the arse all night long - and then made you breakfast in the morning.

Aren't you embarrassed by your singular lack of success in persuading anyone here that your crackpot, nutjob yarns are true?

 

[laptop]

There's a huge credibility gap between saying that Govt intelligence had indications of possible terrorist attack methods and that Govt decision makers (particularly at VP/Presidential) level were aware of those specific threats though.

I can only speculate on how many threats listening protocols like Echelon and intelligence services can pick up globally, but I suspect there are thousands upon thousands of possible threats. It's far from beyond belief that oversights were made in which threats should receive priority.

It's somewhat like claiming that, in the aftemath of a bizarre assassination attempt, that there had actually been reports of the possibility of a poison tipped umbrella after all, but it wasn't taken as seriously as more seemingly plausible, prosaic ideas.

In the wider scheme of things, that isn't evidence of a conspiracy Sparticus and you know it. It's a possible indication, but it's nowhere near a smoking gun or credible evidence of govt. wrongdoing.

Whoop! Whoop! Whoup! Echelon alert state: on fire!

 

[WouldBe]

It is a piece of evidence but not an explanation as to why there were no hijack warning on any of the 4 flights was given and especially in the case of flight 93 where there was radio messages (allegedly from the hijackers) indicating the plane was hijacked and yet no hijack warning. The lack of warnings is one element of a huge jigsaw and when taken together cast doubt on the official story.

Whereas there isn't a hijack button for the IFF there is a button on the control column to put the radio into transmit mode. It is therefore a lot easier to operate a 'push to talk' button (and transmit the struggle in the cockpit) than it is to dial in the 7500 hijack code on the IFF.

 

[editor]

Whereas there isn't a hijack button for the IFF there is a button on the control column to put the radio into transmit mode. It is therefore a lot easier to operate a 'push to talk' button (and transmit the struggle in the cockpit) than it is to dial in the 7500 hijack code on the IFF.

No but yeah but yeah but yeah no but yeah I know but it can't be true 'cause I read it on some site that the truth is rubbish because Jazzz saw fela down the laundrette and he says he knows the truth and Jazzz said "Shut up! I ain't never done nuffink or nuffink!" and fela said "Don't go giving me evils!" because he saw a DVD about 9/11 and he knows it's the real truth and what's a hijack code anyway? etc etc

 

[WouldBe]

No but yeah but yeah but yeah no but yeah I know but it can't be true 'cause I read it on some site that the truth is rubbish because Jazzz saw fela down the laundrette and he says he knows the truth and Jazzz said "Shut up! I ain't never done nuffink or nuffink!" and fela said "Don't go giving me evils!" because he saw a DVD about 9/11 and he knows it's the real truth and what's a hijack code anyway? etc etc

Is that Spartacus at his last 9-11 film showing?

The audience figures are about right

 

[pk]

The editor and the other apologists for the official legend are so dug into their position you are not going to dig them out.

Go fuck yourself. Just because we're not all retarded enough to go along with your bullshit theories does NOT mean we are "apologists"... it just means we apply a modicum of logic to events, and don't tend to repeat "evidence" already destroyed and proven to be the imagination of fuckwits like yourself.

If you were familiar with the basic questions and evidence that surround 9/11 (such as the intelligence, air defense or fire engineering failures) then you might be worth listening to.

Otherwise you can expect only three people to show up again, at a 150 capacity venue, when you and your arsehole mates try to convince the world "it was the Jews and lizards what done it".

You're a twat.

And that's not arrogance, but simple observation.

 

[pk]

Is that Spartacus at his last 9-11 film showing?

The audience figures are about right

Shouldn't he be wearing purple, like that other fucking nutjob cunt mate of his with dodgy views on Jewish people and the Holocaust, David Icke?

 

[Techno303]

Let see Sparticus and his ilk deconstruct the NIST presentation linked above in MikeMcc’s post.

Go on, in your own words…

 

[WouldBe]

Let see Sparticus and his ilk deconstruct the NIST presentation linked above in MikeMcc’s post.

Go on, in your own words…

They won't. Any fact that doesn't fit with their fantasy is simply ignored.

 

[sparticus]

Don't bother Fela.

So for example you can post a link to 30 odd pages of tightly researched and referenced evidence on the intelligence failures and you will still be told that there is no evidence to challenge the US govt account.

To which Editor gives us...."Four years on and you still haven't produced a single shred of credible 'proof' <adds standard childish insult to make himself feel big> ."

I rest my case. Proof is a matter of opinion. The fact that the evidence cited by the 9/11 truth movement is not proof enough for you is your opinion, but that is not same as saying there is no evidence.

 

[Techno303]

They won't. Any fact that doesn't fit with their fantasy is simply ignored.

The NIST presentation is excellent.

 

[WouldBe]

The NIST presentation is excellent.

Even more reason for it to be ignored then.