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
fela fan said:
I'd be really disappointed if it got binned.

Well not me. You've had 630 posts to try to prove your point and (I speak as an open-minded person) I'm not convinced. I've waded through dozens of 9/11 threads in the past here and they also failed to convince me there was some kind of conspiracy (other than al qaeda pulling off a huge surprise attack)
 
Loki said:
Well not me. You've had 630 posts to try to prove your point and (I speak as an open-minded person) I'm not convinced. I've waded through dozens of 9/11 threads in the past here and they also failed to convince me there was some kind of conspiracy (other than al qaeda pulling off a huge surprise attack)

I"m not trying to prove a point.

You don't seem open-minded to me.

I know you're not convinced.

And i truly am off to bed now.
 
editor said:
And if I - as the guy that runs this boards for your benefit - has had enough of you abusing the boards by relentlessly posting up the same evidence free claims for months on end and causing disruption by refusing to engage with people questioning your ludicous fantasies, then I'm at total liberty to dump those threads.

Understand?
I haven't started any one of at least the last five 9-11 threads, and I've been a minor poster on them, certainly compared to you!

You are of course at liberty to do whatever you want with these threads. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to be scared that you are about to bin one, sorry ;)
 
Loki said:
Well not me. You've had 630 posts to try to prove your point and (I speak as an open-minded person) I'm not convinced. I've waded through dozens of 9/11 threads in the past here and they also failed to convince me there was some kind of conspiracy (other than al qaeda pulling off a huge surprise attack)

And the Lieutenant :rolleyes:
 
DrJazzz said:
I haven't started any one of at least the last five 9-11 threads, and I've been a minor poster on them, certainly compared to you!
Yes. That's because you post up your barking claims and then refuse to substantiate them with credible sources, generating a load of posts from people asking you to explain yourself or pointing out the weakness of your 'arguments'.

That's called disruption.
 
Citizen66 said:
Stop being creatively descriptive. It was a blindingly obvious observation.
What are you on about now? If you're going to post up this shit, please have the courtesy to explain what you meant and its relevance to this thread.
 
DrJazzz said:
When I hear someone other than editor using phrases like 'conspiracy-tastic' or 'evidence-lite' it becomes pretty clear that discussion is not going to serve any useful purpose. Attempting to discuss things with editor is bad enough, but there's no point trying to reason with his parrots. Sorry mate, come back as yourself and we might talk.


That's a great one. Someone who argues against your viewpoint with some pretty relevant and familiar terms is a parrot.

But someone who's willing to agree with you - frequently on the basis of dubious, discredited sources or just barmy supposition - is undoubtedly a free-thinking and open minded character in your book.

And is someone who - hook line and sinker - falls for Joe Viallis' claims and unsourced rubbish and posts them up as fact on another site, a genius in your opinion?

What a misguided arse you really are. Are you ever going to apologise for all those bullshit claims and misleading threads that you confidently started - or are you keep posting numerous unfounded allegations in the hope that one will prove partially true? Are you just going to keep avoiding questions that don't suit your theory and keep wriggling?

The boy who cried 'wolf' too many times, only with a tin foil hat on...


:rolleyes:
 
editor said:
What are you on about now? If you're going to post up this shit, please have the courtesy to explain what you meant and its relevance to this thread.

I merely pointed out that you somehow feel that you can make threats towards people being 'binned' in a copper-like fashion. You are an editor not an emperor. That's my explaination that you asked for. :)
 
Citizen66 said:
And the Lieutenant :rolleyes:

Great. I've been called a "parrot" (twice) and been invited to throw myself under a bus by bigfish. And now apparantly I'm a "Lieutenant". I really must take lessons on how to debate from you conspiracy fans.
 
Citizen66 said:
I merely pointed out that you somehow feel that you can make threats towards people being 'binned' in a copper-like fashion. You are an editor not an emperor. That's my explaination that you asked for. :)
Why thanks for that useless piece of information.

For your information, I have never made any claims to be an 'emperor' but as owner, admin and the guy who has built this site up from scratch, investing considerable amounts of money and time to its development, I'm completely at liberty to remove threads which I feel are being disruptive to the overall community

That's my judgement call, y'see, and I'm qualified to make it.

I can, however, understand your total naivety in this regard, seeing as you have no experience whatsoever of ever creating, developing or running a busy bulletin board.
 
editor said:
I can, however, understand your total naivety in this regard, seeing as you have no experience whatsoever of ever creating, developing and running a busy bulletin board.

But I've been contributing to one in particular for the last six years. Now, if being part of a community from the outset because you happen to agree with the ethos of the site in question and still posting six years on has absolutely NO relevance to how that particular community has been shaped over the years....

No, it was all down to you, wasn't it? :D

You used to be less aggressive back then too.
 
Citizen66 said:
You used to be less aggressive back then too.
And you didn't post up a long succession of utterly pointless personal insults.

Perhaps your conduct may be related to my 'aggression'?
 
tarannau said:
That's a great one. Someone who argues against your viewpoint with some pretty relevant and familiar terms is a parrot.

But someone who's willing to agree with you - frequently on the basis of dubious, discredited sources or just barmy supposition - is undoubtedly a free-thinking and open minded character in your book.

And is someone who - hook line and sinker - falls for Joe Viallis' claims and unsourced rubbish and posts them up as fact on another site, a genius in your opinion?

What a misguided arse you really are. Are you ever going to apologise for all those bullshit claims and misleading threads that you confidently started - or are you keep posting numerous unfounded allegations in the hope that one will prove partially true? Are you just going to keep avoiding questions that don't suit your theory and keep wriggling?

The boy who cried 'wolf' too many times, only with a tin foil hat on...


:rolleyes:
Not true at all. I am a great respecter of diverse opinions and well-made arguments. I don't want people to agree with me, I want them to make their own minds up.

I have called you a parrot because of your use of phrases such as 'conspiracy-tastic' - not a word you will find in the OED. I wonder where you got it from? :rolleyes:

Your post reveals that any questions you ask were simply a prelude to a sneering post such as this, and indeed attempting any discourse with you would be a very bad idea.

I spend my time answering countless questions here. Look at how many flimsier asked. I don't demand people answer mine, and they wouldn't anyway. But no-one has a right to have their questions answered, neither me, nor anyone else.
 
editor said:
And you didn't post up a long succession of utterly pointless personal insults.

I think you'll find that I've been called an ignorant twat and a poodle by you so far on this thread so you aint too bad at the personal insult lark yourself. Only, there's no-one to keep you in check and therefore perfectly feasible for you to break the rules of your own faq. Hypocrisy is the privilige of all our masters. ;)
 
editor said:
For your information, I have never made any claims to be an 'emperor' but as owner, admin and the guy who has built this site up from scratch, investing considerable amounts of money and time to its development, I'm completely at liberty to remove threads which I feel are being disruptive to the overall community

That's my judgement call, y'see, and I'm qualified to make it.

Is there not the teensiest possibility that getting some of your own medicine back as a poster might interfere just a little bit with a judgment of whether a thread is 'disruptive to the overall community'?

High court judges are pretty qualified people, yet they will not try cases where they have a personal association with the defendants or case. As such, it would demonstrate great fairness if you would defer moderation of threads where you are vociferous debater to another moderator who takes no part in them.

But oh dear, I'm telling you how to run the boards, aren't I ;) :oops:
 
Citizen66 said:
I think you'll find that I've been called an ignorant twat and a poodle by you so far on this thread so you aint too bad at the personal insult lark yourself.
I think you'll find my comments were in response to your continuing disruptive antics and personal insults so don't try and get smart with me, chummy.

Oh, and I wouldn't draw too much attention to the Posting FAQ if I were you.
 
DrJazzz said:
I spend my time answering countless questions here.
And that'll be because you insist on making massive claims and posting up wild speculation without offering any credible proof to support it.

Of course, if you bothered to research your claims more thoroughly first and provided credible, peer reviewed links to support your theories, there wouldn't be a need for so many questions.

Take your recent "Operation Pretend You're Going To Die" comments, for example. That was another fine piece of wild speculation, totally untroubled by credible proof, peer reviewed evidence or any kind of checkable sources.

Posting up such fanciful flights of fancy and not bothering to provide any sources just adds up to disruption and a concern for me that this site will become branded by such unchallenged, nutcase claims.

And believe me, it ain't going to happen.
 
DrJazzz said:
As such, it would demonstrate great fairness if you would defer moderation of threads where you are vociferous debater to another moderator who takes no part in them.
I'll debate where I like and with whom I like on my own boards, thanks.

And if you don't like the way I moderate these boards, well, I'm sure you know what comes next...

Oh remind me: what happened to your boards?
 
editor said:
Take your recent "Operation Pretend You're Going To Die" comments, for example. That was another fine piece of wild speculation, totally untroubled by credible proof, peer reviewed evidence or any kind of checkable sources.

Thank you. Can I remind you that you have repeatedly asked for possible theories as to explain the phone calls, if they did not come from flight 93? Of course I am in no position to give anything other than speculation - you are misplacing the burden of proof.

"Peer-review" refers to academic papers. It doesn't make sense to talk about 'peer-reviewed' evidence pertaining to 9-11, or you haven't got any, for sure. I wish you wouldn't just bandy about fancy-sounding words when you haven't really got a clue what they mean.

But hey, quantity over quality, eh?

;)
 
DrJazzz said:
TCan I remind you that you have repeatedly asked for possible theories as to explain the phone calls, if they did not come from flight 93?
All you've done is post up a tedious stream of ever-more unlikely and ridiculous yarns and then failed spectacularly to support them with anything remotely approaching credible proof.

Your latest preposterous fantasy about 'Operation Pretend You're Going To Die" is a case in point. As far as I can see you've made up the whole unlikely scenario in your head and posted it up here without a single shred of even remotely credible evidence to support your assertions.

And you know what? It's getting really tedious listening to your idiotic fantasies.
 
DrJazzz said:
Thank you. Can I remind you that you have repeatedly asked for possible theories as to explain the phone calls, if they did not come from flight 93? Of course I am in no position to give anything other than speculation - you are misplacing the burden of proof.
These links are getting very tiresome.

But let's talk about proof shall we?

You're the one claiming that the wives and husbands who took phone calls from their loved ones on the hijacked planes were:

1. lying through their teeth
2. too stupid to realise that their loved ones were actually not in a plane but just pretending to be hijacked ("Operation Pretend You're Going To Die")
3. too stupid to realise that their loved ones were in fact being expertly impersonated by the Mike Yarwood Special Forces who, apparently, can mimic complete strangers to complete perfection in seconds.
4. too stupid to realise that it was a complete stranger on the phone because people undergo complete character transformations when under pressure

Oh, and if I'm not mistaken, you're also accusing Ted Olson of being complicit in the death of his wife. Have I got that bit right?

Seeing as none of the people who took the calls off their loved ones have ever expressed the slightest doubt about their authenticity of the caller or their circumstances, what actual proof have you that they were all being deceived?

What's your proof, DrJ?

Prove to me that all of those people are either lying or have been fooled by a phenomonally complex USG plot. Can you do that?
 
Citizen66 said:
Interesting link DrJ. It's a bit like diffusion of responsibility.
Yes. DrJ it's no surprise that DrJ is very familiar with that page:

Appeal to Ignorance: Arguing that something is true because there is no evidence available that it is not true.
 
bigfish said:
Stop making it up as you go along flim, it makes you look like an ignorant chancer.

PK would have a case he can prove that a similar satellite phone system to the one installed by American Airlines was also fitted to United Airlines Boeing 757's like flight 93 before 9/11/01 for example, but so far he hasn't proved anything to anyones satisfaction other than his own.

As much as I hate to make you look like an ignorant twat, Bigfish, you had better read this...
http://www.public-action.com/911/finalmoments93/

The Final Moments of United Flight 93

From the back of the plane, Todd Beamer tries to use his credit card on an Airfone installed in one of the seatbacks, but cannot get authorization.

His call is automatically routed to the Verizon customer-service center in Oakbrook, Ill.
Although operators are used to crank calls from seatback phones, it is clear to the operator that Beamer’s report of a hijacking is genuine.
His call is immediately sent to Verizon supervisor Lisa Jefferson who alerts the FBI. When Jefferson gets on the line at 9:45 a.m., she immediately begins interviewing Beamer. “What is your flight number? What is the situation? Where are the crew members?”
* * * *
Beamer tells Jefferson that one passenger is dead. He doesn’t know about the pilots. One hijacker is in the rear of the plane, claiming to have a bomb strapped to his body. The conversation is urgent, but calm. Then Beamer says, “Oh my God, I think we’re going down.” Then adds, “No, we’re just turning.” At this point, investigators theorize, one of the hijackers was flying erratically.
The plane plunges from its assigned altitude and the transponder is turned off.

Mark Bingham uses an Airfone to call his mother, Alice Hoglan, who is still asleep at her brother’s home in Saratoga, Calif., having been up late the night before caring for triplets. “Mom, this is Mark Bingham,” he tells her, so rattled he uses his last name.

Bingham describes the situation for his mother, a United Airlines flight attendant. The call lasts about three minutes. Twice during the call, says Alice, “Mark was distracted. There was a five-second pause. I heard people speaking. There was murmuring, nothing loud.” She theorizes that Mark was talking to the other men, and planning to fight back.

"We’re going to do something. I know I’m not going to get out of this".
* * * *
At around the same time, Todd Beamer is telling the operator that the men plan “to jump” the hijacker in the back, claiming to have a bomb. “We’re going to do something,” Beamer tells operator Lisa Jefferson. “I know I’m not going to get out of this.” He asks Jefferson to recite the Lord’s Prayer with him. The last words Jefferson hears are “Are you ready guys? Let’s roll.”

It’s unclear when, in all of the telephony, Glick, Beamer, Bingham, Burnett and Nacke hatched their plot. It is also unclear if they attacked just once, or twice, first taking out the hijacker claiming to have the bomb, then storming the cockpit. Crucial evidence, NEWSWEEK has learned, may come from yet another phone call made by a passenger. Elizabeth Wainio, 27, was speaking to her stepmother in Maryland. Another passenger, she explains, had loaned her a cell phone and told her to call her family. “I have to go,” Wainio says, cutting the call short. “They’re about to storm the cockpit” referring to her fellow passengers.

Nacke is the only member of the group who is not known to have made a phone call, although his wife, Amy, did have a message on her answering machine that contained only noise and a click.

United Airlines later told his family that he was apparently one of the fighters. “If you knew Lou,” says Nacke’s father-in-law, Dr. Robert Weisberg, “he never would have been far from the action.”
* * * *
This much we know, they were big guys: Bingham was a 6-foot-4 rugby player; Glick, also a rugby player and judo champion; Beamer was 6 foot 1 and 200 pounds, and Nacke was a 5-foot-9, 200-pound weightlifter with a “Superman” tattoo on his shoulder. Investigators are operating on the theory that the men somehow made their way up 100 feet from the rear of the plane into the cockpit. The last transmission recorded is someone, probably a hijacker, screaming “Get out of here. Get out of here.” Then grunting, screaming and scuffling. Then silence.
* * * *

Note I have both a credible source and checkable facts, unlike you, Bigfish.
 
pk said:
Note I have both a credible source and checkable facts, unlike you, Bigfish.
Looking forward to bigfish's grovelling retraction.

Oh, and citizen appears to have made an arse of himself too:

citizen66 said:
The 'official version' says the calls were made from cellphones and there's no evidence that inflight calls were available on the flight in question...
 
My my - having just read the last couple of pages ...

I've just PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT that calls were made from Flight 93 using the Verison system.

So you tin-foil-hatted shitheads can SHUT THE FUCK UP about Flight 93.

You want to complain at people making up bullshit about 9/11?

Go moan at your mate - Joe Vialls - you know the one, Dr Jazzz - the one that MADE YOU LOOK A COMPLETE CUNT MANY MANY TIMES BEFORE.

And Citizen66 - you remember that time in that pub in the East End, when you had just joined this "community", and you got pissed and ran in there with a crash helmet on, screaming "this is a robbery, nobody move!".

And nobody laughed.

And everybody thought "what's wrong with that fucking twat?"

Well, you're acting the same way now.

Go have a spliff or something.
 
Back
Top Bottom