Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Al Qaeda a myth says Russian

FridgeMagnet said:
Well, generally, we call them "theories".

When someone eventually capitulates to the demands for speculation, they are called "theories" - generally with the word 'conspiracy' tacked on the front.

When it's the mainstream media in the jackanory chair, they are seldom referred to as 'theories', conspiracy or otherwise. The media line is taken as the default position.

It is truly pitiful when the only response to pointing out inconsitencies in that position (the 'official' story) is to demand yet another story that (in order to escape being censured) must seamlessly account for everything in the 'official' story AND the inconsistencies.
 
Backatcha Bandit said:
It is truly pitiful when the only response to pointing out inconsitencies in that position (the 'official' story) is to demand yet another story that (in order to escape being censured) must seamlessly account for everything in the 'official' story AND the inconsistencies.
Just a simple answer to a simple question is all I'm asking for, and not a front row seat watching bf's stab at the World Wriggle Endurance Challenge.

What do you think caused the towers to collapse, by the way?
 
Backatcha Bandit said:
When someone eventually capitulates to the demands for speculation, they are called "theories" - generally with the word 'conspiracy' tacked on the front.

When it's the mainstream media in the jackanory chair, they are seldom referred to as 'theories', conspiracy or otherwise. The media line is taken as the default position.

It is truly pitiful when the only response to pointing out inconsitencies in that position (the 'official' story) is to demand yet another story that (in order to escape being censured) must seamlessly account for everything in the 'official' story AND the inconsistencies.
I don't know who and what you're ranting at here, but the "stories" you refer to are known as "theories" under the current Western rationalist system. That might be open to attack, in the philosophy forum, but it's a common standard elsewhere.

There is no necessity to provide an alternative theory in order to challenge an existing one. Denying that theories are significant at all, however, and implying that any theory is a "story" (with all the resultant implications of it being imaginary) seems a bit much to me.
 
DrJazzz said:
Do you agree with this, editor?
Not when it's a load of fruitloops repeating the same evidence-free, barking shite from bonkers websites with zero credibility, no.

But then I don't think that's what FM meant anyway.
 
editor said:
It's a top down view, so what's supposed to be odd about it?

Perhaps you could explain what I should be looking for and suggest what you think really happened as reference?

What do you think hit the towers?
Now note the appearance of the computer simulation of the fire in one tower....and the total lack of the same simulation for the building that collapsed first and yet had the vast majority of the jet fuel burn outside the building. Why would that be? (i'm not making any claims - just pointing out that it's very odd that one of the largest questions of the official story is not addressed by this "thorough" investigation.)
 
Jangla said:
Now note the appearance of the computer simulation of the fire in one tower....and the total lack of the same simulation for the building that collapsed first and yet had the vast majority of the jet fuel burn outside the building. Why would that be? (i'm not making any claims - just pointing out that it's very odd that one of the largest questions of the official story is not addressed by this "thorough" investigation.)
Maybe we've only seen a small amount of the computer simulation footage that's been created? Does anyone know how much footage was generated?

Naturally, those thinking something is amiss have been in touch with the relevant govt department to ask for more details, and no doubt they'll be posting up a clarification here shortly.

After all, no one in their right mind would start drawing huge conclusions from a position of ignorance and promote fanciful theories based on press releases and no further research.

Er.... would they?
 
editor said:
Maybe we've only seen a small amount of the computer simulation footage that's been created? Does anyone know how much footage was generated?

Naturally, those thinking something is amiss have been in touch with the relevant govt department to ask for more details, and no doubt they'll be posting up a clarification here shortly.

After all, no one in their right mind would start drawing huge conclusions from a position of ignorance and promote fanciful theories based on press releases and no further research.

Er.... would they?
Correct. If NIST ever get back to me I'll let you know.
 
With reference to the OP, it's just turned out apparently that the whole 'North London Evil Terrorist Ricin Poison Plot' was also a complete load of bollocks.

UK TERROR TRIAL FINDS NO TERROR: Not guilty of conspiracy to poison London with ricin

Two days after the January 5th search of the Wood Green "poison cell" flat, and well before the outbreak of war with Iraq, the chief scientist advising British anti-terrorism authorities, Martin Pearce -- leader of the Biological Weapon Identification Group at Porton Down, had finished lab tests which indicated the ricin finding was a false positive. "Subsequent confirmatory tests on the material from the pestle and mortar did not detect the presence of ricin. It is my opinion therefore that toxins are not detectable in the pestle and mortar," wrote Pearce in one document.

But in an astonishing example of sheer incompetence, another employee at Porton Down charged with passing on to British authorities the information that the preliminary finding of ricin was in error, turned around and did the opposite, informing that ricin had indeed been detected.

At the time of Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council, expert sources in this matter within the UK government surely knew that no ricin had been recovered from the Wood Green group of alleged terrorists, men included by the Secretary of State as part of the US government's rationale for going to war with Iraq. Whether Powell, the Bush administration or U.S. intelligence also knew is unknown. Whatever the case, it was another example of the United States' horrendous intelligence on weapons of mass destruction...

The alleged existence of ricin and "the UK poison cell" in January 2003 would subsequently play a part of Colin Powell's presentation as rationale for war against Iraq. In his speech to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, Powell purported to show how a web of terrorists including the UK cell, was interconnected with Muhamad al Zarqawi, who was said to be directing terrorist plots from the safe refuge of Iraq.

There was a theory and allegedly intelligence on the UK cell and the Wood Green ricin within the US government.

On February 12, for example, CNN reported that Colin Powell had contended the British ricin had actually come from Iraq in a story entitled "Europe skeptical of Iraq-ricin link."

"The ricin that is bouncing around Europe now originated in Iraq -- not in the part of Iraq that is under Saddam Hussein's control, but his security forces know all about it," Colin Powell was alleged to have said.

An anonymous source in the UK disagreed: "... British authorities 'are clear' that the [ricin] was 'home-made.'"

Hundreds of news articles appeared in the coming months on the Wood Green terrorists and their toxin.

That is what I mean by 'stories', FM.
 
Will you cut out the fucking cut and paste for Chrissakes?

What is it with conspiracy types and cut and paste?

Are their heads so full of fantasies of invisible missiles that they've lost the ability to précis anything?
 
editor said:
Will you cut out the fucking cut and paste for Chrissakes?

What is it with conspiracy types and cut and paste?

Are their heads so full of fantasies of invisible missiles that they've lost the ability to précis anything?

Well, since you needed the last link posted up five times before you managed to find it... :D

And fuck off with your 'conspiracy types' and 'fantasies of invisible missiles' will you? Who the fuck are you calling a 'conspiracy type'? More to the point - on exactly what basis? :confused:

Fact is, 'AQ' is a myth invented to terraform the minds of gullible individuals into supporting their illeagal wars. No amount of personal sneering and tedious, repeated demands for speculation from you can change that.
 
editor said:
Can I see what you wrote to them please?
As it was sent from hotmail I don't have the exact email to give you but I informed them that I was very interested in their report and questioned the fact that they have produced computer generated simulations of the fire in one tower but not the other. I asked if the simulation was in fact done and whether it would be publicly reported.

Godd enough?
 
Backatcha Bandit said:
W
Fact is, 'AQ' is a myth invented to terraform the minds of gullible individuals into supporting their illeagal wars. No amount of personal sneering and tedious, repeated demands for speculation from you can change that.


So what did your cut and paste really tell us then Backatcha? That Colon Powell, representing the US army, may have favoured presenting a interpretation of events that seems to give support to his country's actions.

Propoganda stemming from the military and Government in a time of conflict eh. What a surprise eh - when has it ever been different? Tell you what though, I'm glad that we've got superior intellects like Backatcha, complete with their big bonus bags of cut and paste articles, to tell 'gullible individuals' that they've been had.

Patronising guff - give the public some credit eh. This story was reported in various late editions of the Evening Standard and was widely picked apart and discredited even then...
 
tarannau said:
Patronising guff - give the public some credit eh. This story was reported in various late editions of the Evening Standard and was widely picked apart and discredited even then...
when? dates! :mad:
 
Jangla said:
As it was sent from hotmail I don't have the exact email to give you but I informed them that I was very interested in their report and questioned the fact that they have produced computer generated simulations of the fire in one tower but not the other. I asked if the simulation was in fact done and whether it would be publicly reported.

Godd enough?
Not really, but I guess I'll just have to take your word that you supposedly sent off this email.

I would have thought that that anyone seriously trying to establish the facts of the matter would keep a copy of their own correspondence as a matter of course - after all, how else will you know if they've accurately addressed your points later?

Have they sent you a receipt of your mail yet? What address did you send it to?
 
Pickman's model said:
when? dates! :mad:

man, whatever happened to taking someone's word for things ? why can't people say "in report such and such by so and so"

most of these 9/11 and other such threads turn into cut and paste fests and off site link odysseys

(this is not directed at you specifically pickmans)
 
Pickman's model said:
when? dates! :mad:


Can't remember the exact date, but the supershockinggreat Evening Standard headline ('Ricin Terror Threat to Underground' or somesuch) certainly provoked a healthy discussion in our office. Let's put it this way - the reaction was somewhat tempered by our knowledge of the Standard's alarmist headlines of the past. Swans and hungry asylum seekers it may not have been, but it wasn't far off.

The BBC commentators on the breakfast programme the next morning were pretty dismissive of the claims the next day IIRC. More tellingly - particularly give the ES's unerring ability to milk as much panic from every alarmist headline as possible - the story fizzled out almost immediately.
 
tarannau said:
This story was reported in various late editions of the Evening Standard and was widely picked apart and discredited even then...

When, exactly?

Was that when they reported on 7/1/03:
The deadly chemical agent Ricin was recovered in a raid on a flat in Wood Green by the anti-terrorist squad

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/2799418?source=TiL

Or perhaps you're thinking of the 31/3/03 report that:
American troops have begun searching a terrorist camp in north-eastern Iraq they believe is the source of a deadly poison found in London this year...

General Myers said last night: "We think that is probably where the ricin that was found in London came from. At least the operatives and maybe some of the formulas came from this site."

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/waroniraq/articles/4099330?source=Evening Standard

The closest anyone appears to come to 'picking apart' the ricin yarn was Tim Lott's piece on 9/3/03 (Who's afraid of Bin Laden?), which doesn't question the validity of the information, he only discusses it's interpretation.
 
fubert said:
man, whatever happened to taking someone's word for things ? why can't people say "in report such and such by so and so"

most of these 9/11 and other such threads turn into cut and paste fests and off site link odysseys

(this is not directed at you specifically pickmans)
good.
 
I can't seem to find any mainstream news articles that would indicate that the ricin bullshit was 'widely picked apart and discredited'. Infact, quite the opposite.

Try searching BBC News: http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?tab=news&go=homepage&q=ricin&x=21&y=11

I just keep coming across more of this sort of thing:
BBC home affairs correspondent Margaret Gilmore said: "For six months now MI5 and the anti-terrorist branch have been getting intelligence reports indicating that extreme groups want to launch a chemical, biological or radiological attack.

"Now we're being told this is probably the first real evidence they were trying to do this here in the UK."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2636099.stm
 
tarannau said:
Can't remember the exact date, but the supershockinggreat Evening Standard headline ('Ricin Terror Threat to Underground' or somesuch) certainly provoked a healthy discussion in our office. Let's put it this way - the reaction was somewhat tempered by our knowledge of the Standard's alarmist headlines of the past. Swans and hungry asylum seekers it may not have been, but it wasn't far off.

The BBC commentators on the breakfast programme the next morning were pretty dismissive of the claims the next day IIRC. More tellingly - particularly give the ES's unerring ability to milk as much panic from every alarmist headline as possible - the story fizzled out almost immediately.
no, it ran for several days and then no one heard anything more about it. i don't believe any of those arrested was ever charged with terrorist offences. or at least proper terrorist offences, anyway.

it ran from circa 7 jan - 23 jan 03: so two weeks, which is quite a while for a story to go.
 
fubert said:
man, whatever happened to taking someone's word for things ? why can't people say "in report such and such by so and so"

Well, that would be nice.

Then we could perhaps sort out the 'patronising guff' from 'mis-remembered' anecdotes - like thinking that the ricin twadge was 'widely picked apart and discredited' in the mainstream media, when actually, it was just 'provoked a healthy discussion in [tarannau's] office'.

If there was any discrediting of the ricin story in the mainstream media, it seems a little odd that, say, the BBC have removed those (correct) articles and left all the (incorrect) ones that give the story credit. :confused:
 
Painfully slow weblink at work at the mo, so having a little trouble archiving searching.

Point is - at least in my decent sized London office - the Ricin/Underground allegations were widely perceived as unduly alarmist and caused no apparent difference to anyone's behaviour. We didn't sttart suddenly avoiding the underground, nor start swallowing the military's line unthinkingly, nor even start campaigning for more military action against Iraq. If it was a propoganda war, the UK and US governments really didn't do a particularly good job over here. Witness the success of the anti war march for example.

I do object to the patronisng view of the general public taken by some conspiracy fans (Backatcha Bandit and his'gullible individuals' for example) suggesting that it's mainly a special clique of conspiracy site/book readers that have special insight and cynicism towards the 'official' line. It's a ludicrous oversimplification and misreading of the situation. I'd far rather listen to the official line and then discount the unbelievable parts than have to listen to some even worse-qualified source pontificate on how gullible and foolish they believe the general public (and by extension, us) to be...
 
Backatcha Bandit said:
If there was any discrediting of the ricin story in the mainstream media, it seems a little odd that, say, the BBC have removed those (correct) articles and left all the (incorrect) ones that give the story credit. :confused:
This might help:
Two members of a radical Islamic group alleged to have planned to use ricin in a chemical weapons attack on a high-profile London target were never charged with terrorist offences. Instead, the brothers involved in the alleged plot, Samir and Mouloud Feddag, were jailed for possessing false passports.

Inayat Bunglawala, a spokesman of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: 'There is massive publicity given to arrests of so-called Islamic terrorists, giving the impression that there are Islamic cells all round the country.

'The vast majority of these are released without any charges, but the damage is already done. Politicians are too quick to make public pronouncements before they have seen the evidence.'
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1101744,00.html
 
Back
Top Bottom