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
The current statistics of the two horse race:

Did Rumsfelt and chums want and allow 9/11 to happen:

Quite possibly: 18

All this bonkers 9/11 conspiracy stuff is fucking irritating and further threads repeating the same thing and should be binned: 23

The latter suggestion hardly represents the results so far, does it?
 
Citizen66 said:
Did Rumsfelt and chums want and allow 9/11 to happen:

Quite possibly: 18

All this bonkers 9/11 conspiracy stuff is fucking irritating and further threads repeating the same thing and should be binned: 23

The latter suggestion hardly represents the results so far, does it?
Oh yes. 'Quite possibly' is a really emphatic conclusion to an in-depth question, isn't it?


:rolleyes:

So where's your forums? I want to see how you're coping with all the traffic.
 
editor said:
I must have missed that. Where are your conspiracy forums?

Presumably, they're doing incredibly well and buzzing with fascinating threads and new posters, reflecting the interest you seem to think there is for endlessly repeated 9/11 threads here.

PS Be sure to invite bigfish to your forums. And fela fan and CaroleK too!

Don't be a dick all your life. I've set them up as you requested - Http://fruitloop.aimoo.com . Whether people actually want to post there or not is irrelevent and I don't actually give a fuck either way. I did as you asked, they're there to be posted on if anyone wishes and there they will remain.
 
editor said:
Oh yes. 'Quite possibly' is a really emphatic conclusion to an in-depth question, isn't it?


:rolleyes:

So where's your forums? I want to see how you're coping with all the traffic.

Well, they didn't pick the option you added did they? :p

My forums have been online for no more than 48 hours mate. Your forums, sorry, guestbook was online for 2 years before I started posting, and they weren't too busy then, I'll tell ya!
 
C66 - take your point re; spooks. However, there isa crucial difference; those ops were mostly run in/against other countries. They were not aimed at bringing about the murder of 3,000 US people in the most horrific fashion. Latin american jungle peasants don't vote in US elections.
It is important to remember that no event since Pearl Harbour has had such a huge impact on the American soul and psyche - and that, when all is said and done, was 800+ miles off the West Coast. it hit the Seppoe ego, sure, but people were, literally removed from it.
This was right in the heart of the de facto capital, and saw the destruction of a building(s) which for me, was the ultimate symbol of American wealth and power. It is virtually impossible to overstate the impact this had on the American people.
as for why such a poor State response to the catastrophe - because they believed themselves to be invulnerable, my guess is that they were simply taken offguard. what I mean by this is that armies, airforces and air traffic systems are large and cumbersome things which, by their nature, tend to be very slow in cranking up the gears-especially when doing so for the first time.

this was a new world for them, so factor into that the usual Washington internal politics, and you have the perfect recipe for catastrophe.
I'd also point out the prez, veep and Sec of Stae were all out of town.
 
Citizen66 said:
Don't be a dick all your life.
I asked you a question. If you can't answer it politely, fuck off.

But despite your rudeness, allow me to point out these typos on your site:

'Ganeral' is spelt 'general'.
'Avataars' is spelt 'avatars'.
 
Red Jezza said:
C66 - take your point re; spooks. However, there isa crucial difference; those ops were mostly run in/against other countries. They were not aimed at bringing about the murder of 3,000 people in the most horrific fashion. Latin american jungle peasants don't vote in US elections.
It is important to remember that no event since Pearl Harbour has had such a huge impact on the American soul and psyche - and that, when all is said and done, was 800+ miles off the West Coast. it hit the Seppoe ego, sure, but people were, literally removed from it.
This was right in the heart of the de facto capital, and saw the destruction of a building(s) which for me, was the ultimate symbol of American wealth and power. It is virtually impossible to overstate the impact this had on the American people.
as for why such a poor State response to the catastrophe - because they believed themselves to be invulnerable, my guess is that they were simply taken offguard. what I mean by this is that armies, airforces and air traffic systems are large and cumbersome things which, by their nature, tend to be very slow in cranking up the gears-especially when doing so for the first time.

this was a new world for them, so factor into that the usual Washington internal politics, and you have the perfect recipe for catastrophe.
I'd also point out the prez, veep and Sec of Stae were all out of town.

Maybe Prez, veep and Sec were out of town for a reason ;)

I didn't suggest that the US administration organised 9/11 so stop trying to take me down that road. I'm suggesting that they weren't arsed about the outcome because it would (and has) further their cause towards their foreign policy regarding their political and financial gains.

If you are insinuating that they were caught offguard because they haven't had to deal with such a situation before then you have clearly no understanding of how a military machine of a superpower (or non-super power) actually works.

They don't just sit around smoking spliffs and then design their defence strategies based around recent attacks. The army, navy and air forces permantly play war games with themselves and allied countries in preperation for attacks that are either based on their own defined weaknesess or that are intelligence gathered. They will permantly test reaction times, much like professional footballers kick balls at goals to practice or like office bods will do fire emergency drills to test times and prepare in advance for an event that may or may not happen.

The argument you provide could prove plausible for one plane hitting WTC as being bad luck, yeah. But another plane hitting and then 40 minutes later a plane hitting defence headquarters?

Were they all asleep that day?
 
editor said:
The majority did actually, despite me adding it later.

Majority by five so far. And it wasn't that much later. In fact, it seems your least favourable option has gained 10 votes in the last 2 days (I have been watching the results ;))

On saturday night it was 15 - 9

it's now 23 - 18
 
editor said:
I asked you a question. If you can't answer it politely, fuck off.

But despite your rudeness, allow me to point out these typos on your site:

'Ganeral' is spelt 'general'.
'Avataars' is spelt 'avatars'.

You assume that my typos are completely unintentional oh pedantic one?
 
Citizen66 said:
If you are insinuating that they were caught offguard because they haven't had to deal with such a situation before then you have clearly no understanding of how a military machine of a superpower (or non-super power) actually works.

The USA was caught by complete surprise by suicidal terrorists and there's nothing to suggest they had or could have predicted the time / date / logistics of the attack.
 
Loki said:
The USA was caught by complete surprise by suicidal terrorists and there's nothing to suggest they had or could have predicted the time / date / logistics of the attack.

After the first plane turned off autopilot and left it's flight path, they had their first alarm call that something was wrong on 9/11. The US military is fully trained, equipped and briefed about dealing with abnormalities regarding their airspace. Stop throwing a blanket of ignorance over the whole affair to support your view, Loki.
 
Citizen66 said:
You assume that my typos are completely unintentional oh pedantic one?
Sorry. I was trying to help.

I didn't realise that you were intentionally trying to look like an illiterate oaf.
 
Citizen66 said:
After the first plane turned off autopilot and left it's flight path, they had their first alarm call that something was wrong on 9/11. The US military is fully trained, equipped and briefed about dealing with abnormalities regarding their airspace. Stop throwing a blanket of ignorance over the whole affair to support your view, Loki.
OK post up some evidence, then. Mainstream newssites please.

Or do you think the whole lot of them are under this "blanket".
 
Citizen66 said:
After the first plane turned off autopilot and left it's flight path, they had their first alarm call that something was wrong on 9/11. The US military is fully trained, equipped and briefed about dealing with abnormalities regarding their airspace. Stop throwing a blanket of ignorance over the whole affair to support your view, Loki.
Good job you're on hand to point out the glaring errors that the rest of the world's highly qualified military experts missed, isn't it?

Why don't you give the press a ring with your amazing story?

Naturally, you'll be able to back up your story with a full analysis of US pre-911 military practice and be able to talk at length why you believe it to be a faultless machine, incapable of making mistakes when taken by surprise by an unprecedented attack.

Err... won't you?

PS Can't you transfer this debate to your forums with all those cray-zee 'intentional' misspellings?

That way, you could put your claims to the test about how much interest there is in this oft-repeated topic.
 
editor said:
Sorry. I was trying to help.

I didn't realise that you were intentionally trying to look like an illiterate oaf.

I wasn't intentionally doing anything. But you'd rather talk about anything rather than the topic at hand so I'll entertain your persistent distractions and provide for you the low level of discussion that you're clearly seeking from me.
 
editor said:
Good job you're on hand to point out the glaring errors that the rest of the world's highly qualified military experts missed, isn't it?

Why don't you give the press a ring with your amazing story?

Naturally, you'll be able to back up your story with a full analysis of US pre-911 military practice and be able to talk at length why you believe it to be a faultless machine, incapable of making mistakes when taken by surprise by an unprecedented attack.

Err... won't you?

PS Can't you transfer this debate to your forums with all those cray-zee 'intentional' misspellings?

That way, you could put your claims to the test about how much interest there is in this oft-repeated topic.

I'm not making claims. I'm having a conversation. You should try it sometime, you get to learn things.
 
editor said:
PS Can't you transfer this debate to your forums with all those cray-zee 'intentional' misspellings?

I didn't say they were intentional. I said you obviously assumed they weren't.
 
Loki said:
OK post up some evidence, then. Mainstream newssites please.

Or do you think the whole lot of them are under this "blanket".

Don't you think that kind of supports the point I was making umpteen posts ago replying to Jezza?
 
citizen, do you think it is in the realm of possibility for the USG to fabricate a rationale for invading a country without murdering over 3000 of it's own citizens on its own turf with the astronomical risk that entails?
 
Citizen66 said:
Don't you think that kind of supports the point I was making umpteen posts ago replying to Jezza?

I dunno, I can't be bothered to wade through your umpteen posts. But how about addressing this for a change:


OK post up some evidence, then. Mainstream newssites please.

Or do you think the whole lot of them are under this "blanket".
 
Loki, mate, do you know anybody personally who works for the mainstream media? I do. The organisations aren't complete independant bodies, there are strict guidlines and also an editorial that both the journalists and investigators work to so as to get paid for their work. An independant investigator may wish to do a special report on 9/11 but may end up out of pocket (or in prison?) as to the sensitivity of the subject. I know of some very interesting stories that have been blacked out and some very interesting questions that are KNOWN in the media world that aren't asked because it may reflect badly on the newspaper or the broadcaster. Ask anyone about some aspects of the James Bulger case if you disbelieve me or read about the Hutton report and the effect it then had on the BBC for a brief insight into that kind of thing.

So please, please, stop bleating on about the mainstream cunting media like it's the bible of all truth regarding covering stories of a sensitive nature.

Who do you think is pulling the strings of these organisations? Fucking Santa Clause?
 
Jo/Joe said:
citizen, do you think it is in the realm of possibility for the USG to fabricate a rationale for invading a country without murdering over 3000 of it's own citizens on its own turf with the astronomical risk that entails?

I think it's entirely implausible, as you do :rolleyes:
 
Citizen66 said:
Loki, mate, do you know anybody personally who works for the mainstream media? I do

So do I. one in the BBC, one in CNN. So I'm rather aware of the editorial guidelines and am satisfied they wouldn't have hushed up their journos if there really was something to this.
 
Loki said:
So do I. one in the BBC, one in CNN. So I'm rather aware of the editorial guidelines and am satisfied they wouldn't have hushed up their journos if there really was something to this.

Would they commision an independant investigation into it?
 
JUst to clarify citizen. You think it implausible for this US administration to find a way of invading a country, in this case Afghanistan, without murdering over 3000 of their own (american) citizens? Note that I said 'it's own citizens' in my previous post.
 
I don't know. Are you suggesting the BBC and CNN aren't independant news organisations? I've heard nothing to indicate any stories about 9/11 were hushed.
 
Jo/Joe said:
JUst to clarify citizen. You think it implausible for this US administration to find a way of invading a country, in this case Afghanistan, without murdering over 3000 of their own (american) citizens?

as i mentioned earlier in the thread, if the us want to invade a country, they will and bollocks to what anyone thinks.

if they want to introduce some of the laws that have come in since 9/11 then they do need some sort of justification, such as the death of 3000 of its citizens.
 
Citizen66 said:
I wasn't intentionally doing anything. But you'd rather talk about anything rather than the topic at hand so I'll entertain your persistent distractions and provide for you the low level of discussion that you're clearly seeking from me.
I think you'll find the 'topic at hand' has already been discussed for years on end here, ad infinitum.

That's why there's not much enthusiasm for your current bout of tedious regurgitation.

But if you think there's lots more to discuss, why not invite the handful of people still interested to your own boards?
 
People keep posting here that at least half the hijackers are still alive and well. Has anyone ever shown a list of the names claim by US government and then given any proof that these people are still alive? Thought not.
 
Back
Top Bottom