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

[Jazzz]

Please consider this calmly, editor.

I didn't say he had repeated corrupting my username. What he did was - after his apology - post a picture of 'tell-tale teddy'. It's like apologising in front of the ref and then stamping on the guy he fouled's face behind the ref's back! After something like that, you cannot possible take his apology as having any sincerity. Now I don't really care about being insulted, I get it most of the time and ignore it, but I do care about this because I know exactly what pk is up to - it is very deliberate, calculated, and nasty.

We have had exactly this situation before, pk making a string of offensive posts and me reporting them. pk knows exactly what he is doing - he will keep making contemptuous insulting posts, knowing that if there is no will to deal with him firmly, I will be blamed instead for reporting the posts.

I am well aware that you may take the latter option, and perhaps appear to be doing so already. But I intend to stand firm against this bullying and do what I think is right. That means reporting any post which is extremely offensive or contemptuous towards moderation policy. Whatever you do, is of course up to you.

 

[flimsier]

DrJ, can you answer the points raised, because they are WAY more important to me!

 

[Jazzz]

DrJ, can you answer the points raised, because they are WAY more important to me!

Sure flimsier, but it's getting late now so it might have to wait 'til tomorrow. I might also have to dig up another couple of links for the best reply.

 

[editor]

I didn't say he had repeated corrupting my username. What he did was - after his apology - post a picture of 'tell-tale teddy'. It's like apologising in front of the ref and then stamping on the guy he fouled's face behind the ref's back!

He has acted no worse than citizen, yet you're not asking for him to be banned.

I think I have been even-handed with both. Both were asked to stop their disruptive conduct, both (eventually) complied and both apologised. In pk's case, his apology was certainly more convincing than the one-liner I got from citizen.

I immediately acted upon your initial reported post and warned pk to desist, which he did - so why should I ban him?

Now, I really don't need to be bothered by any more frivolous reported posts and you may now want to consider answering the questions that both I, pk and flimsier have repeatedly asked of you.

 

[flimsier]

Sure flimsier, but it's getting late now so it might have to wait 'til tomorrow. I might also have to dig up another couple of links for the best reply.

So, for reference, are you refuting all three of pks qs?

The huntley thing actually is important as well. You do need to say 'I fucked up' or 'I'm sorry' imo.

 

[editor]

Sure flimsier, but it's getting late now so it might have to wait 'til tomorrow. I might also have to dig up another couple of links for the best reply.

I do hope that they're not going to be the same old dodgy links currently residing in the binned thread (which this thread is rapidly turning into a carbon copy of).

 

[Jazzz]

He has acted no worse than citizen, yet you're not asking for him to be banned.

I think I have been even-handed with both. Both were asked to stop their disruptive conduct, both (eventually) complied and both apologised. In pk's case, his apology was certainly more convincing than the one-liner I got from citizen.

I immediately acted upon your initial reported post and warned pk to desist, which he did - so why should I ban him?

Now, I really don't need to be bothered by any more frivolous reported posts and you may now want to consider answering the questions that both I, pk and flimsier have repeatedly asked of you.

I may not agree with this assessment at all, but I accept the judgment. I won't be posting on further 9-11 detail tonight though.

 

[pk]

Altogether now...

 

[Jazzz]

Altogether now...

Yeah. well I know your game, pk, even if editor can't see it. Perhaps he will realise that you take the piss out of him more than me.

 

[pk]

My "game" is to get you to answer the questions you beg of everyone else.

I have shown you PROOF of Saddam's family DNA tests.

I have shown you PROOF that cell phone or airphone conversations could easily have taken place midflight on a bright clear day in September 2001.

So I want you to merely concede that, yes, it is possible you might have been a little hasty in your casual assertion of what you believed to be a fact, when in fact it, like many of your "aha! I have the plan - here's how they did it!" kind of posts are far, far from factual.

Maybe there is some truth in what you say about Sept. 11th.

But so far there hasn't been has there?

You're beginning to sound like a born again Christian too. Very worrying.

There's nothing offensive in this post, so you can't hide behind that one.

Just admit you were wrong about the Hussein boys' DNA and the phone calls, there's a good lad.

 

[Jazzz]

I am genuinely interested in the DNA results link you posted.

I am not at all impressed by your link which does nothing to prove that mobile calls are possible from cellphones. It strikes me as an article written by someone seeing a story from the premise that it must be possible to call from cellphones in aircraft because it happened on 9-11, and dredged up a few techie people to muse about how it was possible.

I'll be posting more on that tomorrow.

Oh, and I'm not at all impressed by your string of offensive posts, and don't expect me to applaud the fact that you managed one that isn't.

 

[pk]

What you consider offensive is mere bulletin board banter.

What I consider offensive is your refusal to accept that you are being fed a pack of lies by very disturbed and paranoid people who happen to have websites, and your need to assert their speculative theorising as "facts".

But you know this already.

You only read what you want to read.

"I am not at all impressed by your link which does nothing to prove that mobile calls are possible from cellphones.

It strikes me as an article written by someone seeing a story from the premise that it must be possible to call from cellphones in aircraft because it happened on 9-11, and dredged up a few techie people to muse about how it was possible."

Isn't that the basic premise of every single conspiracy site you have ever linked us to, ever???

I think the words of spokespeople for both the airtime companies involved in the phone calls is enough proof for me, plus I know more about radio transmissions than most, and September 11th 2001 was an extremely clear and warm day, and you may or may not have heard of a condition known as "skip" which was the holy grail of us CB users in the 80's...

Google it.

Then accept that calls were possible, and we can move on.

That's why I get pissed off.

Someone proves to you that your theory sucks, and you dig your heels in, or accuse people of being offensive, just for destroying your particular precious conspiracy theory.

 

[pk]

One of you conspiranoids surely must have something to say regarding the evidence that calls can be made during a flight, and that the DNA results for Saddam's dead offspring have been completed to a satisfying degree.

Come on Bigfish, speak up, Dr Jazzz has fled the debate, who's next?

 

[editor]

Just say, for the sake of argument, that the entire thing was a big conspiracy and the passengers were either co-erced into making their calls as part of "Operation Pretend You're About To Be Murdered By Non Existent Terrorists" or they were being perfectly impersonated by the USG's Instant Mike Yarwood In A Box Division.

All this begs the question - why would the USG even bother inventing these conversations? What would be the point?

Surely they could have claimed that the hijackers had insisted that no calls be made off the planes and that would have been the end of it.

So what possible point would there be in endangering this amazing operation by spending zillions to create voice/personality-perfect fascilmiles of the passengers (some of whom weren't even due on the flights) or giving passengers the opportunity to blow the whole gaffe by talking to their loved ones who may become suspicious (not that any have, mind)

Going along with all the evidence-free conspiracy theories, it makes no logical sense at all why these calls should have been fabricated or allowed to happen. Why would the USG take such a needless risk?

It would only take one passenger to cry foul during "Operation Pretend You're About To Be Murdered By Non Existent Terrorists" and that wold have been the whole operation screwed up!

(Of course, there's been absolutely no evidence produced at all that the calls were anything but completely authentic. The fact that none of the people who took the calls from their loved ones has ever doubted the identity or the circumstances of the conversation is ample evidence of their credibility).

 

[Jazzz]

One of you conspiranoids surely must have something to say regarding the evidence that calls can be made during a flight, and that the DNA results for Saddam's dead offspring have been completed to a satisfying degree.

Come on Bigfish, speak up, Dr Jazzz has fled the debate, who's next?

You seem to think that because I am not online 24 hours a day means I have nothing to say.

But whether I do to you, I'm not sure. I find your launching of slimy, vicious personal attacks really odious. I cannot understand how you are allowed to get away with it when you spam incessant piss-taking pictures, corrupt usernames, or call people 'cunts'.

There has not been a single document showing any of the calls on 9-11, nor has anyone provided a single example of a mobile call being made from an aircraft on any other day - until the new pico cell technology came out. Further I have provided experiments of people trying to use mobiles and failing minutes after take-off.

In fact even editor's links have backed up the claim that cellphone calls are not designed for speeds greater than a fast car!

 

[Jazzz]

Just say, for the sake of argument, that the entire thing was a big conspiracy and the passengers were either co-erced into making their calls as part of "Operation Pretend You're About To Be Murdered By Non Existent Terrorists" or they were being perfectly impersonated by the USG's Instant Mike Yarwood In A Box Division.

All this begs the question - why would the USG even bother inventing these conversations? What would be the point?

Yet, whenever these threads come up, the one piece of evidence that you rely on for the official theory is 'the phone calls'. Without those even you recognise there is nothing that holds up.

 

[editor]

Yet, whenever these threads come up, the one piece of evidence that you rely on for the official theory is 'the phone calls'. Without those even you recognise there is nothing that holds up.

Another wriggle, I see.

Seeing as you're still to produce a single shred of credible evidence to support your bonkers theories, I'm here to remind you what solid evidence looks like.

And try as you might to avoid admitting it, the fact remains that those calls blow your ridiculous theories out of the water.

And - best of all - this evidence doesn't come from the USG: it comes from real people who knew their loved ones better than any paranoid homepageboy.

 

[Jazzz]

Another wriggle, I see.

Seeing as you're still to produce a single shred of credible evidence to support your bonkers theories, I'm here to remind you what solid evidence looks like.

And try as you might to avoid admitting it, the fact remains that those calls blow your ridiculous theories out of the water.

And - best of all - this evidence doesn't come from the USG: it comes from real people who knew their loved ones better than any paranoid homepageboy.

The phone calls are certainly not 'solid evidence'. That is exactly what they are not.

And here, you defeat your previous point completely ('what would be the point of faking the phone calls?') by again citing the phone calls as the crux that the official theory can rest on!

Are you good at yoga?

Because you sure can tie yourself in knots!

 

[editor]

The phone calls are certainly not 'solid evidence'. That is exactly what they are not.

Face up to the facts, DrJ: unless you can prove that the phone calls were faked or the passengers participated in your ridiculous 'Operation Pretend You're About to Be Killed By Non Existent Terrorists' all your ludicrous theories remain a piece of stinking, deluded horseshit.

If you weren't so fucking obsessed with conspiracies and devoid of common sense, you'd see that the only person making a complete arse of himself here is you.

And, frankly, anyone who thinks that Joe 'source-free' Vialls is a credible resource is a fool, a gullible moron or both.

But if you think he's so 'credible' kindly list some of his successful 'investigations' (one that's independently verified, not one of his Channel 4 fairy stories.)

After all, an investigator without a single, solitary successful investigation to his name couldn't be much of a credible source, could he?

 

[pk]

I thought I proved the phone calls were not faked - by the simple fact that one of the passengers had his credit card refused for a call and was put through to the Verison operator.

Try reading my links again Dr Jazzz.

I didn't call you a cunt, by the way, as you well know.

I said "is it any wonder you get called a cunt?".

Still, if you can't handle a few pisstake images (none of which too disturbing for even the most sensitive soul) then stop taking the piss out of people's intelligence.

You have NO PROOF.

You have NO CASE.

You are most certainly NOT a journalist, in fact I wouldn't employ you as a researcher on the Trisha programme.

So - in short - you keep posting your conspiranoid bollocks - and I'll keep ripping it apart whether you like it or not.

 

[pk]

Oh and in case you were wondering...

"conspiranoia"

"the tendency on the part of an individual or group toward rational or irrational, justifiable or excessive suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others based on the belief that others have joined in a secret agreement to commit an unlawful or wrongful act."

I might help your shrink if you bring a print-out of this thread along to your next session.

 

[bigfish]

Face up to the facts, DrJ: unless you can prove that the phone calls were faked [...]

Utter fatuous nonsense! Pure sophistry, designed to gaurantee you 'win' your argument.

You're the one making the assertion 'the phone calls were genuine', not Dr Jazzz.

Therefore, in both logic and law the onus is on you to substaniate your assertion with material evidence and not for anyone else to disprove it.

Incidentally, how can it be at all possible that the alleged hijackers mentioned in the suspect phone calls were in fact members of so called Al-Qaeda Islamic terrorist group when we have absolutely no hard evidence whatsoever proving any of the 19 named suspects ever passed through any of the targeted airports and then boarded any of the flights. If 19 alleged "Al-Qaeda" operatives never were on any of the flights in the first place, then it cannot possibly have been them apparently being referenced in the suspect phone calls.

As for the Dulles CCTV footage, no Judge in their right mind would ever allow it to be admitted as material evidence into a properly convened court of law, that is providing the state or crown managed to find a prosecuting council stupid enough to attempt it in the first place.

Out here in the real world, things happen in real time. The horse always comes before the cart. We need hard evidence establishing the presence of the alleged hijacker in the airports and on the flights otherwise the phone calls are a definite non sequiturs and consequently, an obvious deception.

 

[pk]

Oh you're a Bigfish in a rapidly shrinking pond aren't you?

No comments on the links I provided that totally destroyed your argument regarding Flight 93 phone calls?

 

[pk]

Utter fatuous nonsense! Pure sophistry

LOL!

As an aside - have you any idea how unintentionally funny you are?

 

[bigfish]

No comments on the links I provided that totally destroyed your argument regarding Flight 93 phone calls?

But PK, if you're unable to place the hijackers in the airports and on the planes then obviously the phone calls are a crude deception designed to fool the gullible in to believing that they were on them when really they weren't.

It seems to have worked a treat in your case.

 

[Jazzz]

I didn't call you a cunt, by the way, as you well know.

I said "is it any wonder you get called a cunt?".

I am tired of being alluded to in this fashion and have reported the post.

 

[editor]

You're the one making the assertion 'the phone calls were genuine', not Dr Jazzz.

Actually, it's the husbands and wives who lost their loved ones on the flights who aren't doubting the authenticity of the calls, not me. Haven't you read their testimonies?

But feel free to post up your evidence that they're all liars.

Have you got any then?

 

[editor]

But PK, if you're unable to place the hijackers in the airports and on the planes then obviously the phone calls are a crude deception designed to fool the gullible in to believing that they were on them when really they weren't.

It seems to have worked a treat in your case.

And your proof that husbands and wives were fooled is....... er....come on bigfish! Where's your proof?

None of the people who took calls from their loved ones has ever doubted the authenticity of their conversations. How could that be?

I'd certainly know if some USG lackey was trying to impersonate my girlfriend within seconds because when you've been with someone for many years, it becomes impossible for some outsider to fake your intimate knowledge of each other (have you got a girlfriend. btw?)

Seeing as some of the passengers who made the calls weren't even supposed to be on the 9/11 flights, how could the USG have instantly and perfectly impersonated them to such a high degree of accuracy that their long term partners didn't spot a thing?

I'd say that's utterly impossible. How about you?

 

[editor]

As for the Dulles CCTV footage, no Judge in their right mind would ever allow it to be admitted as material evidence into a properly convened court of law, that is providing the state or crown managed to find a prosecuting council stupid enough to attempt it in the first place.

Could you list the hard evidence of a conspiracy that would be 'admitted as material evidence into a properly convened court of law', that you've posted here please?

 

[Jazzz]

Actually, it's the husbands and wives who lost their loved ones on the flights who aren't doubting the authenticity of the calls..

Whether they do or not, if some did have any doubts, you wouldn't know about it.

I note that you didn't comment on the fact that I recently fooled my flatmate's mum into thinking I was her son - without even trying. That was without the benefits of an distressing situation, without any rehearsal, without any fancy software.

...does that mean she was thick? Not at all.

The phone calls are not hard evidence at all. You cannot say for sure who they were from or where they were from. 9-11 was the only day in history where we have examples of cellphones working in fast-moving aircraft. Fancy that!

Aside from 9-11, I note that you are allowing pk to continually refer to me in extremely offensive fashion which is exactly what I predicted he would do.