Al Qaeda a myth says Russian

[Backatcha Bandit]

As for the visas, Given that the US puts most of its effort into policing the border with Mexico (with the knock-on effect this must have for INS everywhere else) there were an awful lot of entry points that were badly policed and an awful lot of overworked bureaucrats who "rubberstamped" rather than checked visa applications.

That doesn't rule out American collusion, of course, but it doesn't rule it in either. As far as I'm concerned so-called "conspiracy theories" are/were unnecessary. There was more than enough common or garden incompetence and laziness abounding that what happened did happen.

Can anyone remember the name of the guy who worked at the US embassy (in Sudan???) handling visa applications who 'blew the whistle' on how his concerns regarding the issuance of visa to certain individuals went ignored by his 'superiors'? I'm sure there's a video of him floating about. A timid lilltle bloke - his presentation skills were appauling..? *racks brains*

It's just I seem to remember what he was saying went well beyond the bounds of 'common or garden incompetence and laziness'.

 

[fela fan]

Or, alternatively, he could tell you to fuck off. What business is it of yours, or mine, or anyone who uses this bb?

Pick your tongue up off the floor

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Pick your tongue up off the floor

Is that like a brownnoser gibe?

 

[fela fan]

Yes.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yes.

So anytime I agree with the Editor, I'm a brownnoser?

Isn't that a little bit elementary school?

 

[fela fan]

So anytime I agree with the Editor, I'm a brownnoser?

Isn't that a little bit elementary school?

Yes, your post is very elementary school mate.

You should realise that i didn't talk about 'anytime', i responded to one post of yours, one act of brownnosing. Which is what it was, for sure.

In the grown-up school, the students would have realised the difference between one time and every time.

Now mate, don't be digging yourself in any further, my brain is fresh, yours at the end of the day...

 

[bigfish]

There's been tens of thousands of posts about 911 and I'm happy for there to be more (non-repeated) posts on the subject.

But when sparticus started a thread recently called - 'Jet fuel fires cannot 'melt' steel' - the only thread I have seen dedicated to this particular aspect of the WTC attacks, it was met by you with this immediate response: "FFS, this has been discussed to death, you conspiraloon muppet. And it's becoming really fucking boring now." That was post number 2. The tag "conspiraloon" gets used or quoted a further 38 times over 16 pages and just about every post you made contains the insult. Indeed, your final post, in which you sentence the thread to death, contains a grand total of 3 "conspiraloon" references. Here it so you can count them for yourself:

"Right. I've had enough of this conspiraloon(1) bullshit.

Thread binned. All future 9/11 conspiraloon(2) threads repeating the same cult-like drivel about (non-existent) invisible missile-firing pretend planes and (non-existent) invisible explosives will be binned on sight.

The deluded conspiraloons(3) might think they they know better than highly-qualified, world renown experts on structural engineering and the people who actually built the WTC, but the rest of the sane world doesn't, and I'm fed up giving free pubicity to book shifting charlatans from Planet Bonkers."

That's why you've been free to contribute over a thousand posts here with no editing or censorship.

Well, it depends on whose definition of "free" and "censorship" one chooses to employ doesn't it? Personally, I think your definition sucks because I would call your incessant barrage of ignorant and insulting posts directed at those who refuse to swallow your BBC inspired "it was al-Qaeda wot done it, honest guv" howler, as a form of censorship by disruption. You behave like a loudmouthed drunken bully in a pub who uninvited imposes himself on a group of people in free conversation at a table and tells them all to shut the fuck up or else to go and build their own pub!

 

[bigfish]

Can anyone remember the name of the guy who worked at the US embassy (in Sudan???) handling visa applications who 'blew the whistle' on how his concerns regarding the issuance of visa to certain individuals went ignored by his 'superiors'? I'm sure there's a video of him floating about. A timid lilltle bloke - his presentation skills were appauling..? *racks brains*

It's just I seem to remember what he was saying went well beyond the bounds of 'common or garden incompetence and laziness'.

His name is Michael Springmann BB. Springmann was formerly chief of the visa section at the US Embassy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and claims that he rejected hundreds of suspicious visa applications, but the C.I.A. officer overruled him and ordered the visas to be issued. Springmann protested to the State Department, the Office of Diplomatic Security, the F.B.I., the Justice Department and congressional committees, but in vain.


I wonder why the CIA overruled him.

 

[fela fan]

The CIA: Conspiracies In Action.

Politicians conspire, the likes of urbanites (as an example of the public) theorise, and the CIA practise.

And in the middle of all that are the deniers

 

[cynical_bastard]

Politicians conspire, the likes of urbanites (as an example of the public) theorise, and the CIA practise.

So the CIA, who were so incompetent they couldn't assassinate Castro, predict the fall of the Soviet Union or achieve anything useful even when given a free rein such as in Operation Phoenix managed to pull off the largest terrorist act ever and suppress all media investigation without a hitch?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Yes, your post is very elementary school mate.

You should realise that i didn't talk about 'anytime', i responded to one post of yours, one act of brownnosing. Which is what it was, for sure.

In the grown-up school, the students would have realised the difference between one time and every time.

Now mate, don't be digging yourself in any further, my brain is fresh, yours at the end of the day...

Wrong, dude. I gave up brownnosing because I'm a bad actor.

I'm glad your brain is fresh. Mine actually works best from about 8 p.m. to about 3 a.m. It's sort of backwards, I know.

 

[Wess]

MR BOMBASTIC! Why are you so afraid of a discussion taking place around 911 and how it has affected western democracies? Why are you so afraid to tell Urban who funds the site? Why do you first take to calling me a conspiraloon and then accuse me of being a drunk! I can see a pattern of bullying and abuse here consistent with someone who is drunk on their own power and with someone who has an agenda to prevent these discussions.

This thread started out as an excellent thread, I only started reading it last night and was quite immersed...but as soon as Dr. J turned up (and this isn't a personal attack on Dr. J) and introduced conspiracy's into the topic (knowing full well the consequences and that the other Cter's would respond in kind) it immediately went downhill.
Seriously, You guy's know the policy of Urban, you know whats going to happen, why do you consistently screwup decent threads when you know Ed. is going to intervene?

 

[Wess]

So the CIA, who were so incompetent they couldn't assassinate Castro, predict the fall of the Soviet Union or achieve anything useful even when given a free rein such as in Operation Phoenix managed to pull off the largest terrorist act ever and suppress all media investigation without a hitch?

...and...not one single person let the secret out even to this day...even though there are many ambitious politicians and others who would absolutely just gag at the thought of being able to screw their boss over and get paid millions by the media....not a chance in hell would they all keep their mouths shut.

 

[Lock&Light]

I'm glad your brain is fresh.

You know the joke I'm sure, about the brain transplants, and the President's brain costing the most, as it was unused.

 

[fubert]

So the CIA, who were so incompetent they couldn't assassinate Castro, predict the fall of the Soviet Union or achieve anything useful even when given a free rein such as in Operation Phoenix managed to pull off the largest terrorist act ever and suppress all media investigation without a hitch?

ah, now, y'see.. you've made a good point there. amongst the whole 911 conspiraloon schools thought there are two camps. you've got your dr j's who believe it was made to happen, then there's the likes of me who believe it was allowed to happen. you're highlighting of how utterly wank the cia are kind of lends weight to the "allowed to happen" argument...

 

[editor]

Pick your tongue up off the floor

Once again: Let's talk about your claim that I am "increasingly ready to ban those that have the wrong opinion", adding that my behaviour was "scary" and "perhaps reflective of the current Britain, the Blair Britain".

Heavy accusations indeed!

Seeing as we need to sort this out for fear of open debate being suppressed, it's time for you to back them up.

So who's been banned by the beastly editor just for expressing the wrong opinion?

To help you out, I've compiled a list ready for you:

PEOPLE BANNED BY THE EDITOR IN THE LAST MONTH FOR HAVING THE 'WRONG OPINION':

1.......................
2.......................
3.......................
4.......................
5........................

Then, perhaps, Raison may finally explain her curious desire to know "who funds this site" in a thread about Al Qaeda. Why won't she just come out and say what she realy means?!!

Strange how some people are so quick to accuse and slur, yet so devilishly slow to actually back up their comments, isn't it?

 

[kropotkin]

cheers for destroying the thread everyone.

 

[Yossarian]

Is this going to turn into another thread full of fifty pages of people making hundreds of posts complaining about how they're not allowed to post?

On google '9/11 conspiracy' returns 842,000 hits. Who's getting censored, exactly?

 

[editor]

Well, it depends on whose definition of "free" and "censorship" one chooses to employ doesn't it? Personally, I think your definition sucks....

Says bigfish, with over 1,700 unedited*, uncensored posts to his name!



(*apart from the constant stream of snipped Posting-FAQ bustin' cut'n'paste odysseys, of course)

I'm fed up with these obsessed types complaining and accusing all the time.

fela fan claims that I ban people for merely expressing "the wrong opinion", yet has failed spectacularly to to produce a single name.

Raisin clearly thinks there's something iffy going on with the site's funding but can't...quite....bring herself to actually articulate her thoughts on the topic, preferring to just leave an unpleasant suggestion in the air.

bigfish posts like a demon while whining and complaining about censorship (and regularly breaking the FAQ) - but is still free to post here

And DrJ... well, where do I start?!

 

[fubert]

cheers for destroying the thread everyone.

dunno about that, in order to discuss al-qaeda you have to bring up what they may or may not have been responsible for, which will lead to the usual inevitable yes it was/no it wasn't discussions. which have been done before.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

dunno about that, in order to discuss al-qaeda you have to bring up what they may or may not have been responsible for, which will lead to the usual inevitable yes it was/no it wasn't discussions. which have been done before.

It didn't *have* to end up like that, though. It's perfectly possible to discuss al-q, their actual state of existence, and propaganda relating to them from various quarters without bringing up one's pet theories about 911, insulting anyone who doesn't agree with them, calling them CIA dupes and hirelings, speculating that the site is funded by the CIA or MI5 or lizards, and whinging that people get banned and we're horrible horrible censors.

I'm really fucking sick of it. Grow the fuck up.

 

[fubert]

I'm really fucking sick of it. Grow the fuck up.

would that be addressed to me personally ?

 

[ViolentPanda]

His name is Michael Springmann BB. Springmann was formerly chief of the visa section at the US Embassy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and claims that he rejected hundreds of suspicious visa applications, but the C.I.A. officer overruled him and ordered the visas to be issued. Springmann protested to the State Department, the Office of Diplomatic Security, the F.B.I., the Justice Department and congressional committees, but in vain.


I wonder why the CIA overruled him.

Probably because some CIA spook (they don't exactly have a history of non-corrupt behaviour) had trousered a nice fat wad.
Then again, it could have been because they wanted their agants to visit the US and lliase with Langley before crashing into the twin towers.

The question I like to ask myself is "Cui bono?" with regards to if a plane had hit the White House and offed Shrub.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

would that be addressed to me personally ?

oh no, not you, sorry if it sounded like that

 

[Raisin D'etre]

At least lets try to get back on topic! How has 911 impacted on civil liberties, for instance? Naomi Klein makes a very acute point about how since 911 "there has been this assault of civil liberties which is basically an intensification of the assaults on the right to protest and essentially the right to dissent that predated September 11th". In effect activism has been equated with terrorism and the lines between legitimate civil disobedience and acts of terror against the state have been blurred.

In the UK we can see how prescient her analysis is. Claire Short as minister of Development, prior to the WTO meeting in Qatar remarked “We haven’t heard much from the anti-globalization activists since September 11th. I think that’s because they realize that their goals were the same as the goals of the terrorists.”

The new Anti-terror laws that were rushed through the UK parliament recently will be used, Blair has hinted, to place G8 "rioters" under "house arrest" . He feigns puzzlement about why anyone would want to protest at Gleneagles this July when the focus of the meeting will be African poverty and the environment.

The Anti-terror laws were initially touted as a means of locking up the most dangerous terrorists and the switch to where they are now being used against British subjects who choose to protest G8 should not pass without vigorous debate.

 

[Raisin D'etre]

And here's another point I want to throw into the pot. After 911, Afghanistan and Iraq, shouldn't we be developing a new mindset, one where we no longer hold whole countries responsible for the actions of a few?

 

[fela fan]

So the CIA, who were so incompetent they couldn't assassinate Castro, predict the fall of the Soviet Union or achieve anything useful even when given a free rein such as in Operation Phoenix managed to pull off the largest terrorist act ever and suppress all media investigation without a hitch?

No, and nor was i saying that. What's your point?

 

[fela fan]

The thought does occur to me that Al Q are indeed pretty mythical, certainly when it comes to their professed enemies whose freedoms they hate so much.

I mean one attack on US soil on September 11, over three years ago. And no attacks on British soil.

Pretty damned active aren't they?

Oh wait a minute, i can't remember if it was them behind all those anthrax attacks shortly after 911... but there again they all stopped pretty quick.

Where is obl? Where are Al Q? Why aren't they fighting their enemy? Why is the war kept off the streets of their avowed enemies?

 

[Raisin D'etre]

And another thing - there was this global outpouring of sympathy for America on 911 when 3000 people died but there has been no similar outpouring of sympathy for the 100,000 victims of the US invasion of Iraq or the uncounted dead in Afghanistan to remove mythical WMD and TWO men, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

 

[editor]

At least lets try to get back on topic!

Surely there's no point in even attempting a discussion related to 911 before some very important issues are cleared up?

Firstly, there's the lingering suggestion from you that this site has some dodgy external funding which promotes some kind of hidden agenda. Could you finally clear this up for me please and explain exactly what you are implying?

And then there's the troubling assertion from fela fan that people are banned from this site for merely for having the "wrong opinion."

Naturally, I rather resent the site's credibility, independence and honesty being attacked in this way, so I'd like the both of you to clarify your claims please so that there's no confusion for other posters.