Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Did Rumsfield and Chums want and allow 9/11 to happen? The Poll!

Did Rumsfield and Chums want and allow 9/11 to happen?


  • Total voters
    122
GarfieldLeChat said:
i do think that people have the right to discuss it,

Couldn't agree with you more Garf. That's why, er, I'm discussing it.

But my point is I still haven't seen a convincing case. And I speak as an open-minded bloke who would just love to see Dubya shot down in flames - I just don't think the evidence here adds up though.
 
GarfieldLeChat said:
and this insistence on repeating the same (answered) question to the boards is not only more sings of you impossibility to argue your own case but also the fact that you indeed have no real argument, just a sadistic will to repeat your self again and again and again....

So we weren't imagining it then...

Don't argue with the Editor Garf, it really isn't worth it. He'll gloat about the popularity of these boards for leverage and resort to cheap pendantry when that doesn't work (spell his name right ffs)!

Yes, I did spell pedantry wrong again Micheal.

As always with these kind of discussions, the Editor is more than happy to discuss anything other than the topic at hand. And when Editor stops repeating himself, Loki carries on from where he left off.
 
editor said:
Errr... what's so unusual or suspicious about that?

Haven't you ever 'genned up' on a subject on the way to a meeting, bigfish?

Sure I have editor, but the "hijackers" weren't on there way to a "meeting" they were on their way to their deaths!

Imagine for a moment you're one of the so called hijackers on your way to the airport knowing this was your final journey and that soon you would be dead.

Would you then spent these last precious moments:

A. Reflecting back upon your life recalling all of your most cherished memories of events, lovers, friends and family?

Or

B. Read a technical manual?
 
editor said:
Oh, and could you clarify what you meant by my "funny defintion of unprovoked", please?

You also have a funny definition of personal abuse. It looked like his opinion to me, like.
 
Citizen66 said:
GI Joe pops his head up again with another insightful quip for the debate...

You produced the lack of a cab as some sort of 'evidence'. Don't pretend you didn't.
 
Lock&Light said:
You produced the lack of a cab as some sort of 'evidence'. Don't pretend you didn't.

You imbecile. When have I mentioned a cab? Was it Fela Fan or Bigfish who actually did? Or was it Dr Jazzz or Garf? Fuck, it may even have been the Editor. It certainly wasn't me. Another prime example of actually how much attention you actually pay to the debate or any kind of 'facts'.
 
Citizen66 said:
GI Joe pops his head up again with another insightful quip for the debate...
And you're like a little yapping dog, trying hard to make a big noise but only succeeding in being an irrelevant little irritation.



yip yip!

Have your boards started to reflect the huge levels of interest in 9/11 conspiracy theories yet?
 
bigfish said:
Sure I have editor, but the "hijackers" weren't on there way to a "meeting" they were on their way to their deaths!

Imagine for a moment you're one of the so called hijackers on your way to the airport knowing this was your final journey and that soon you would be dead.

Would you then spent these last precious moments:

A. Reflecting back upon your life recalling all of your most cherished memories of events, lovers, friends and family?

Or

B. Read a technical manual?
This is actually one of the funniest things I've read here for some time.

bigfish has such a ridiculously narrow world-view he can only assume that fanatical suicide pilots can only think just like him and therefore must have spent their last moments mulling over previous top shags and the lovely things in life.

If someone feels strongly enough about to sacrifice their lives for it, it would be entirely normal for them to concentrate their laast moments in making sure that they do the job properly. That's entirely natural human behaviour.

What about the millions of people who have sacrificed their lives for religious beliefs, bigfish? Did they go out reciting religious scripts or in quote contemplation with their God or where they to busy thinking about their last legover and their mates down the pub?

Great evidence you've got here, bigfish!
 
editor said:
It's spelt 'Michael', you ignorant twat.

Irony is permanently beyond you. I was reffering to Garf who had previously misspelt it that way. You live within the constraints of ignorance, not me pal.
 
Citizen66 said:
Irony is permanently beyond you. I was reffering to Garf who had previously misspelt it that way. You live within the constraints of ignorance, not me pal.
Another pointless waste of space from the yapping poodle.

yip! yip!
 
editor said:
If someone feels strongly enough about to sacrifice their lives for it, it would be entirely normal for them to concentrate their laast moments in making sure that they do the job properly. That's entirely natural human behaviour.

What about the millions of people who have sacrificed their lives for religious beliefs, bigfish? Did they go out reciting religious scripts or in quote contemplation with their God or where they to busy thinking about their last legover and their mates down the pub?

You'd have a point, but Atta and some of his chums were/are playboys who prefer[ed] shagging birds, tearing it up in nightclubs, snorting coke and getting lagging drunk to "reciting religious scripts", according to Atta ex-girlfriend in Florida that is, and let's face it, she'd know wouldn't she?

The picture you paint of Islamic fanatics overburdened by a monolithic world outlook pouring over their Jumbo Jet manuals on their way to certain death doesn't square with the known MO of some of the alleged hijackers I'm afraid and so can be disregarded in their case.
 
bigfish said:
You'd have a point, but Atta and some of his chums were/are playboys who prefer[ed] shagging birds, tearing it up in nightclubs, snorting coke and getting lagging drunk to "reciting religious scripts", according to Atta ex-girlfriend in Florida that is, and let's face it, she'd know wouldn't she?

The picture you paint of Islamic fanatics overburdened by a monolithic world outlook pouring over their Jumbo Jet manuals on their way to certain death doesn't square with the known MO of some of the alleged hijackers I'm afraid and so can be disregarded in their case.
Oh so do tell: where are they now then if it wasn't them hijacking the planes?

And if wasn't them hijacking the planes, who was it?

And if there weren't any hijackers at all, how did they fake the phone calls from all those passengers?
 
bigfish said:
Is that 'I got you babe' I can hear playing on the radio alarm?
Is that "I've really had enough of this obsessed, question-avoiding, fruitloop twat wasting bandwidth on my website" I can hear on my CD?

I do believe it is.

Your last post sums up the sheer futility of entertaining your bizarre ramblings any further here.
 
Bigfish makes a good, if not wholly conclusive, point, it is very difficult to square Atta's known behaviour - strippers, alcohol, etc... with that of someone prepared to lay down their life for a religion which expressly forbids such activities.

Where are they now (the hijackers)?

If you are referring to the names on the FBI list, well we know eight of them are alive and well! I think it's rather up to the USG to provide evidence of who really was on the planes, not on us to assume that because the FBI gives us a name that means a corresponding person was up there.

Another possibility for the telephone calls, which I have alluded to before, is that they came from the right people but on the ground at gunpoint. I don't know. What I do know is that cellphone calls from airliners flying in excess of 230mph appear to be completely impossible.
 
DrJazzz said:
Another possibility for the telephone calls, which I have alluded to before, is that they came from the right people but on the ground at gunpoint.
Complete and utter, fact-free, preposterous, evidence-untroubled, fantastical tosh of the highest order.

There is not a single, solitary shred of even the teensiest weensiest shred of proof to support such a wild and truly ridiculous claim.

You may as well claim that they were teleported to the Moon.

PS Some of the calls came from in-flight plane phones. So how did they manage that if they were all sat on the ground somewhere, busily lying to their loved ones?
 
editor said:
PS Some of the calls came from in-flight plane phones. So how did they manage that if they were all sat on the ground somewhere, busily lying to their loved ones?
Such calls would not have been possible. Thing is, I don't believe something just because the USG tells me it happened. Evidence - if the calls are true, there should be documented records detailing all of the calls from the service providers - we haven't seen a single one! But strangely you place the burden of proof on detractors of the official theory...

... which of us is really 'evidence-untroubled'? Perhaps you would like to provide an example of anyone making a successful cellphone call from an aircraft moving in excess of 230mph, on any day other than 11th September 2001; a day when the laws of physics appear to have mysteriously changed :rolleyes:
 
DrJazzz said:
But strangely you place the burden of proof on detractors of the official theory...
I do when you're making such utterly ridiculous claims that don't even have the remotest connection with reality.

You haven't got even a single shred of evidence to support the bonkers suggestion that the passengers were on the ground. Nothing at all. Zip. Nada.

In fact the evidence available - the intimate phone calls from passengers to their loved ones - suggests the exact opposite.

Personally, I place the word of widow who "thinks of her last phone conversations with their her husband every single day" somewhat above your evidence-free fruitloop conjecture.

But if you've got some solid proof that all of the passengers who made calls were all lying to their loved ones without them even knowing, let's hear it.

So what have you got, DrJ?
 
DrJazzz said:
... which of us is really 'evidence-untroubled'? Perhaps you would like to provide an example of anyone making a successful cellphone call from an aircraft moving in excess of 230mph, on any day other than 11th September 2001; a day when the laws of physics appear to have mysteriously changed :rolleyes:

Er, mobile phone signals travel at the speed of light (186,000 miles per second). The planes were flying at low altitude which could well explain how the passengers were able to make the calls.
 
DrJazzz said:
Such calls would not have been possible. Thing is, I don't believe something just because the USG tells me it happened. Evidence - if the calls are true, there should be documented records detailing all of the calls from the service providers - we haven't seen a single one!
Why would have the service providers have to present you with details of the calls? What for?

None of the people who took calls off their loved ones has ever expressed the slightest doubt about the identity of the callers nor have they expressed any doubts about their location and circumstances.

But don't tell me! You think you know better! According to your bonkers, fact-free hypothesis, the passengers were all lying through their teeth and their loved ones too stupid to work it out!

And to support this wild piece of conjecture you have what proof exactly.....?

Anything?
 
editor said:
None of the people who took calls off their loved ones has ever expressed the slightest doubt about the identity of the callers nor have they expressed any doubts about their location and circumstances.

The thing about telephone conversations, editor, is that you can't really tell where they are coming from! I don't really understand the point you are trying to make to be honest. There is no documented evidence whatsoever to suggest that these calls came from the planes.

And the real physical evidence - not emotional appeals - say that the cellphone calls are not possible.

Of course, you haven't found an another example of anyone making a cellphone call from an aircraft at a speed in excess of 230mph. I wonder why?!

Oh and by the way, my flatmate's mum - who I had never spoken to before - addressed me as 'darling' the other day when calling from Australia... ;)
 
DrJazzz said:
There is no documented evidence whatsoever to suggest that these calls came from the planes.
Err, what about the passengers telling their loved ones that they were on the plane?

Or are you saying that they're all liars - the whole lot of them - and not one of their husbands, wives and loved ones even noticed their king size porky pies?!!

And your evidence to support this astonishing claim is where exactly?

And what 'really' happened to the passengers then? Where did they go? Who killed them? Where? How? Where are their bodies?
 
DrJazzz said:
Bigfish makes a good, if not wholly conclusive, point, it is very difficult to square Atta's known behaviour - strippers, alcohol, etc... with that of someone prepared to lay down their life for a religion which expressly forbids such activities.


You seem to be forgetting the Hashism 'dogma' that the reward for laying down your life will be received in paradise, where there are plenty of strippers and drugs and sex (according to the Hashishim 'training program/brainwash')

Why then is it so difficult to believe that a man who had only months left to live behaved as though he had already made it to paradise?

There is a mountain of evidence suggesting that the Bush administration had complete foreknowledge of the attacks of 9/11. That aside, it is certain that the Bush administration, and business interests tied to it, were the big winners in that catastrophe and the subsequent anthrax attacks. Bush himself was heard to quip on the day of the attacks, "I hit the trifecta!"12 As a result of 9/11, Bush's popularity surged to unheard-of heights. He and Dick Cheney declared a never ending "terror" war and ramrodded legislation through Congress that negated civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Whatever their connection to the 9/11 attacks (and whatever the attackers might ultimately be shown to be), the Bush administration has obviously capitalized on them to push ahead a fascist and imperialist agenda both at home and abroad.

Within a month after the attacks, Bush launched a war against one of the poorest countries in the world, though a country in a commanding position with regard to the potentially energy-rich Central Asian region. This gave him command of a vital strategic position at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Military units poured into the surrounding countries, as did exploration teams from the various oil majors. Yet, as the oil prospects were toned down, so was the military presence.
source: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/090203_peril_pt2.html
 
Dr Jazzz, I'm sure I'm not the first to say this.

Sometimes you have interesting things to say.

Sometimes you say ridiculous things you try to make interesting.

Sometimes you are infuriating bordering on offensive (Huntley - the claim wasn't actually offensive - the refusal to apologise was)

But I hate the way you avoid questions. I really want to know how you can explain away the fact that everyone who received calls believed them. That EVERYONE. There must've been a hundred or more. Now, rather than ask questions doubting the detail of mine - why don't you answer the question as to why that is? How were loved ones so duped?

And I'm not the editor. (Sorry, I needed to state the obvious). I feel like we get on relatively well in this virtual community. You can't claim that I am trying to destroy your argument through a motivation just to destroy it or silence you. I really want to see an answer to how those phone calls were faked. You seem to have been claiming that for over a year. Can you now answer?
 
Back
Top Bottom