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

[editor]

What a great way to start the New Year. A 9/11 thread. It's like deja vu all over again.

You'd think that Santa might have finally brought them some credible evidence, but it looks like, once again, there was nowt in his sack apart from some more dodgy DVDs!

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Err, the claim was very clear and emphatic, and that was that "half" of the hijackers "are alive and well and have been interviewed by the Telegraph."

Can you point me in the direction of these articles please or would you agree that q_w_e_r_t_y was talking out of his arse?

As for identity theft - well, it's hardly unusual, is it?

Al-Omari, Ah Ghamdi, Al-Hamzi, Al-Nami- interviewed by the telegraph (23/09/01)
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml

These people shared the same name, place and date of birth, occupation and photos as the hijackers.

Al-Sheri - spoke to the BBC from Casablanca (23/09/01)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

No mistaken identity there it seems
He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.

But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco.

So we have five who were actually interviewed.

According to mainstream media sources tho, same article also suggests that Al-Midhar is alive, Kamfur is alive (cant find link, reported in middle eastern papers) and the Bukari brothers according to CNN one is alive and well in Florida, the other died in a small plane crash in 2000.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/investigation.terrorism/

...and four who were reported as either alive or already deceased.

Making 9 out of the 19 named by the FBI wrong.

Yes, yes....identity theft...

But who were they really - no further investigation was undertaken, and why are innocent mens' names and pictures still being flashed around the world as the hijackers, with no public apology or redress. If that was me I would be pretty pissed off.

3,000 people died, yet with no murder inquiry and they dont have a clue who did it (as there is no reason to assume that their other ten alleged hijackers were any more accurate), except that they have managed to rule out 9 people seeing as they are alive and the culprits are dead.

 

[editor]

Al-Omari, Ah Ghamdi, Al-Hamzi, Al-Nami- interviewed by the telegraph (23/09/01)
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml
These people shared the same name, place and date of birth, occupation and photos as the hijackers.

Err, the Telegraph refers to just four people, and no matter how you try and spin it, that's most certainly not "half" of the alleged 9/11 hijackers you claimed had been interviewed in the paper.

So you're wrong. Again.

 

[Jazzz]

It's like deja vu all over again.

You nicked that one from Yogi Berra

 

[editor]

You nicked that one from Yogi Berra

Don't forget now!

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4013190&postcount=54

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Err, the Telegraph refers to just four people, and no matter how you try and spin it, that's most certainly not "half" of the alleged 9/11 hijackers you claimed had been interviewed in the paper.

So you're wrong. Again.

Yes, you're right, I did claim that 9 and a half people had been interviewed by the telegraph.

No cheese huh.

My claim was that these 9 people had been interviewed by the telegraph - True only four of them had, one interviewed by the BBC and four others reported alive (and thus available for interview) or previously deceased, thus none of them could have flown airplanes into buildings.

The US governments claim is that these 9 people flew hijacked airplanes and flew them into buildings (and it should be noted that they have never offered a retraction).

Yet still you find the US government quite believable compared with mad crazy conspiraloons like me that suggests that people who were interviewed on 23/9/01 could not have been involved in a suicide mission on 11/9/01

 

[editor]

Yet still you find the US government quite believable compared with mad crazy conspiraloons like me that suggests that people who were interviewed on 23/9/01 could not have been involved in a suicide mission on 11/9/01

Could you find a quote from me where I say that please?

Thanks!

And why is the concept of identity theft so hard for you to grasp? It's really rather widespread, you know.
And who do you think was really involved with this suicide missions?

 

[Jazzz]

I note you're ignoring the rest of the page as usual....



Could you answer my questions now please?
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4013190&postcount=54

Oh dear, poor editor is bleating that bad jazzz is ignoring him again.

I think the Popular Mechanics big 'straw man' has been dealt with, I put up at least three links which go into great detail countering it. Of course, although you demand that others pay great attention to your links I doubt you looked at them. Had you done so, you would have discovered one of the them making the very good point that while the PM article trumpets all these people, it makes little reference if any to what substance of the of the article, if any, they actually endorse. Presumably, none would endorse a blatant falsehood such as the ridiculous and extremely poorly researched claim in the PM article that only one flight, Payne Stewart's, in the years leading up to 9-11 was actually intercepted despite dozens of scramblings.

The rest of your post I simply dismiss as an extremely weak argument you have countless times before, a sham trick which precludes people playing passive roles or simply being mistaken.

 

[editor]

The rest of your post I simply dismiss as an extremely weak argument you have countless times before, a sham trick which precludes people playing passive roles or simply being mistaken.

Still going for the head in the sand approach, eh?

Ever wondered why virtually no one believes a word of your conspiraloon yarns here, despite the fact that you've been at absolute liberty to post up hundreds of the things over several years?

 

[Belushi]

Still going for the head in the sand approach, eh?

Ever wondered why virtually no one believes a word of your conspiraloon yarns here, despite the fact that you've been at absolute liberty to post up hundreds of the things over several years?

I'm still waiting for those American servicemen to be arrested for murdering those little girls in Soham...

 

[Jazzz]

Still going for the head in the sand approach, eh?

Ever wondered why virtually no one believes a word of your conspiraloon yarns here, despite the fact that you've been at absolute liberty to post up hundreds of the things over several years?

May we clarify that the phrase 'absolute liberty' means there is absolutely no policy of restriction of any sort in the discussion of 9-11 and related topics on urban75?

 

[editor]

May we clarify that the phrase 'absolute liberty' means there is absolutely no policy of restriction of any sort in the discussion of 9-11 and related topics on urban75?

"We" can inform you that you have been at absolute liberty to post up a long, long, long stream of evidence-free bonkers yarns, but if you're just repeating the same old fact-free shite from the same fruitloop sites, "we" will most likely shunt them straight into the bin.

 

[Jazzz]

So 'absolute liberty' is subject to moderator approval. Interesting.

Have you ever thought of writing speeches for Tony Blair?

 

[editor]

So 'absolute liberty' is subject to moderator's approval.

That's not what I said at all, actually, but I can understand how your conspiracy-tastic mind might try and twist it into something a bit more exciting.

Perhaps you could give some examples of 9/11-related threads containing important, new, credible information from a reliable source that have been banned?

No? Well, there's your answer.

 

[tarannau]

You know, I misread the thread title from the forum's front page as: '911: What makes you moist...'

And somehow, seeing Jazzz's name as the last poster, it all seemed so horribly appropriate...

 

[Jazzz]

That's not what I said at all, actually, but I can understand how your conspiracy-tastic mind might try and twist it into something a bit more exciting.

Perhaps you could give some examples of 9/11-related threads containing important, new, credible information from a reliable source that have been banned?

No? Well, there's your answer.

It was what you said, the thing is you don't actually realise what you say. There has been anything but 'absolute liberty' in the posting of 9-11 topics on urban75, your use of the phrase was a utterly ridiculous one.

With 'absolute liberty' of discussion there would not be the caveats you now bring in, ones that have a great flexibility in interpretation.

And I can indeed think of one very recent thread where a significant development was reported on these boards and the thread binned by fridgemagnet. It involved the academic paper by Steve Jones Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?. Strange of course, considering the esteem in which you hold peer-reviewed academic work. The thread, I think, was started by sparticus, perhaps he will confirm it.

Anyway, seeing as we are now not binning peer-reviewed academic papers, let's find another link or two on Steve Jones... here he is on MNSBC.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

So 'absolute liberty' is subject to moderator approval. Interesting.

Why is that any surprise? Aint you heard of moderation on a message board before?

 

[Streathamite]

So 'absolute liberty' is subject to moderator approval.

oh heavens above! you and I both know there is no such thing as an 'absolute freedom' anywhere - all rights are tempered by an obligation to not abuse them, and by a greater collective need.

 

[Jazzz]

I should have said 'an exceptional policy of moderator approval'. To say that people have been at 'absolute liberty' to post on 9-11 is like saying we have absolute liberty to demonstrate outside parliament. Most of the time lately there has been no talk of 9-11, the threads that have cropped up have been quickly chucked in the bin. I along with many other posters have been keeping our mouths shut on the topic. This is hardly 'absolute liberty' RJ.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

And why is the concept of identity theft so hard for you to grasp? It's really rather widespread, you know.
And who do you think was really involved with this suicide missions?

Not difficult to grasp at all, after all we keep being told how widespread it is and hence the nice government is going to introduce ID cards so that we dont get mistaken for mad fundamentalists that crash planes into buildings.

As for who was involved with these plane crashes... I dont know who was, but I do know that it wasn't the people that the US g'ment says it was.

 

[editor]

As for who was involved with these plane crashes... I dont know who was, but I do know that it wasn't the people that the US g'ment says it was.

So who was it then?
Aliens?

 

[Jazzz]

So who was it then?

Well, this is indeed the question being asked by the 9-11 truth movement.

 

[editor]

There has been anything but 'absolute liberty' in the posting of 9-11 topics on urban75, your use of the phrase was a utterly ridiculous one.

I said that you have been at absolute liberty to post up hundreds of conspiraloon threads over the years and that is entirely correct.

Perhaps you've already forgotten your 'Huntley is Innocent' thread? Or your hilarious 'Missing Planes' yarn? Or what about that amazing fairy story about those two illegally-flying aircraft thundering invisibly over a population the size of Greater Manchester? Or the pods? The Mike Yarwood CIA Team? Or any one of the zillions of utterly barking, fact-free odysseys you regularly slap up here?

 

[editor]

Well, this is indeed the question being asked by the 9-11 truth movement.

"Truth movement." Bwahahahaha!!!!

From what I can see it's mainly a loose collection of book-shifters, DVD floggers, paranoid nutjobs, anti-American weirdos, bullshitters, liars and totally unqualified deluded individuals desperate for a bit of excitement in their sad lives.

 

[Jazzz]

You will have them to thank one day, editor.

 

[editor]

You will have them to thank one day, editor.

Bless.

There may well be issues to be uncovered around 9/11, but it certainly won't be any of those DVD-flogging conspiraspuds coming up with the answers...

 

[brixtonvilla]

Funny, innit, how conspiracy theorists expound these grand theories, but when you pen them in too close on trivialities like hard evidence, they revert to this "Well-I'm-just-asking-questions" or "that's-what-I-want-to-know" schtick?

 

[brixtonvilla]

You will have them to thank one day, editor.

History will absolve us! Hahahaha!

 

[sparticus]

*cough* bullshit

A 9/11 meeting??

Yeah right.

When all your previous meetings have had less than 5, all of a sudden 100 turn up?

Bollocks.

I don't believe a word of it, any more than I believe your oft-debunked "evidence".

You really don't know shit do you? You don't know how many meetings I have been involved in or their attendence. I would prove you wrong if I could be arsed, but I can't. Indeed message to self, 'stop wasting time on urban 9/11 threads, they only end up in the bin'

 

[editor]

You really don't know shit do you? You don't know how many meetings I have been involved in or their attendence.

Why don't you answer my question on this meeting then? I asked politely.