Former MI5 Agent Says 9/11 An Inside Job

[bigfish]

And here a picture of the McCormick Place Exhibition and Convention Center

1967 fire:

I don't know about the rest of you, but this building doesn't look much like a skyscraper to me.

 

[bigfish]

It's not written by a janitor, it's written by a fire chief.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

Feel free to tell me where he's got it wrong.

Frankly, as a working class guy, I find your sneering and derisive comparison of the janitor's eyewitness account with that of the fire chiefs highly selective an written with the benefit of hindsight account, odious and deeply insulting. All the more so, because this lowly paid man risked his own life time and time again to save the lives of others trapped inside the building. He was a hero until he began trying to tell the world what he actually saw and heard. Now people like you are trying to belittle and discredit him.

Ever heard of blowback?

 

[editor]

By the way, what does the fire chief's report you've linked to have to say about the collapse of building 7 ?

Address the points please.

Please explain out the supposed errors in those two articles, preferably without recourse to ludicrous UFO websites.

 

[editor]

Frankly, as a working class guy, I find your sneering and derisive comparison of the janitor's eyewitness account with that of the fire chiefs highly selective an written with the benefit of hindsight account, odious and deeply insulting. All the more so, because this lowly paid man risked his own life time and time again to save the lives of others trapped inside the building. He was hero until he began trying to tell the world what he actually saw and heard.

Any chance of you addressing the points please?

 

[editor]

So who did you rely on for your cartoon like 8 hour delayed action underground shock wave analysis for building 7 ? It wasn't any of those lie peddling Oxbridge toady conspiraloons down at the jolly old BBC gravy boat was it? Or was that one purely the product of your own fevered obsessions?

I've absolutely no idea what "gravy boats" (?!), Oxbridge or the BBC have to do with the arguments or links I've posted up here, so I can only assume it's another of your feeble attempts to avoid addressing the points put to you. Either that, or you're drunk.

Now, I'll try again.

I've posted up links to two, in-depth expert analyses of the WTC collapse, written be qualifed, credible authors.

Can you find fault with them or not?

 

[bigfish]

Address the points please.

Please explain out the supposed errors in those two articles, preferably without recourse to ludicrous UFO websites.

1. The McCormick centre was not a skyscraper (see pic above)

2. The McCormick centre was not insulated against fire as were the twin towers and building 7.

3. Therefore no meaningful historical comparison can be drawn.

4. I have already made these points clear in my previous posts

5. Try reading the posts and looking at the pictures objectively before jumping in with both feet.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

2. The McCormick centre was not insulated against fire as were the twin towers and building 7.

they were not designed to resist fuel laden big planes.

 

[bigfish]

Any chance of you addressing the points please?

Any chance of you cutting out the cheap insults against working class people?

 

[bigfish]

they were not designed to resist fuel laden big planes.

But building 7 wasn't hit by a "big plane".

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Any chance of you cutting out the cheap insults against working class people?

what's this bollocks about "working class people"? are you finally admitting you're losing the argument?

 

[guinnessdrinker]

But building 7 wasn't hit by a "big plane".

the fierceness of the fire must have done some serious damage to the area.

 

[editor]

4. I have already made these points clear in my previous posts

5. Try reading the posts and looking at the pictures objectively before jumping in with both feet.

You're avoiding the question yet again. Both those articles offered a scientific analysis as to why the WTC towers fell.

Are you capable of challenging that expert analysis or not?

 

[bigfish]

I've absolutely no idea what "gravy boats" (?!), Oxbridge or the BBC have to do with the arguments or links I've posted up here, so I can only assume it's another of your feeble attempts to avoid addressing the points put to you. Either that, or you're drunk.

What you appear to be saying in that somewhat 'sophisticated' style of yours, is that the delayed action (8 hour) underground shock-wave cartoon theory, invoked by you on a earlier related thread to explain the collapse of building 7, is in fact all your own work. Thanks for clearing that point up. Now, tell me, how "obsessed does a man need to be to be able to concoct such a howling conspiraloonagram as that, any idea?

 

[editor]

What you appear to be saying in that somewhat 'sophisticated' style of yours, is that the delayed action (8 hour) underground shock-wave cartoon theory, invoked by you on a earlier related thread to explain the collapse of building 7, is in fact all your own work. Thanks for clearing that point up. Now, tell me, how "obsessed does a man need to be to be able to concoct such a howling conspiraloonagram as that, any idea?

So you're really going to carry on pretending that I haven't asked you to challenge the two, in-depth expert analyses of the WTC collapse that I've linked to?

Quite remarkable.

Such evasive conduct means I'm running out of reasons why I should continue hosting these conspiraloon 'debates' because your last post makes no sense at all.

 

[bigfish]

the fierceness of the fire must have done some serious damage to the area.

I don't suppose you have any evidence to support your fierce fire hypothesis do you? You know, like pictures of the building being engulfed by flames, for example? Or should we just take your word for it?

 

[bigfish]

You're avoiding the question yet again. Both those articles offered a scientific analysis as to why the WTC towers fell.

Bollocks! You're playing the old flimflam, trying to switch attention away from building 7, which wasn't hit by any airplane.

How did building seven come down editor, any idea?

Stop running away. Show us just how "credible" you are and answer the question.

 

[editor]

Bollocks! You're playing the old flimflam, trying to switch attention away from building 7, which wasn't hit by any airplane.

I made my position very clear on conspiraloon threads that go around in endless circles repeating the same bollocks, so if you're incapable of actually offering anything new, this thread's binward bound.

So, for the very last time. Are you capable of adding anything to challenge the two in-depth expert analyses of the WTC collapse that I've linked to, or not?

If not, then it's clear that there's no prospect of any kind of meaningful debate - it's just going to be another pointless wriggle-a-thon.

It's your call.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Ed " I know what you're thinking. Did he ban six conspiraloons or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being as this is a conspiraloon thread, the most powerful irritating thread on the boards, and would suffer inevitable deletion, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya punk?"

 

[bigfish]

I made my position very clear on conspiraloon threads that go around in endless circles repeating the same bollocks, so if you're incapable of actually offering anything new, this thread's binward bound.

So, for the very last time. Are you capable of adding anything to challenge the two in-depth expert analyses of the WTC collapse that I've linked to, or not?

If not, then it's clear that there's no prospect of any kind of meaningful debate - it's just going to be another pointless wriggle-a-thon.

It's your call.

How did building seven come down editor, any idea?

Stop running away. Show us just how "credible" you really are and answer the question or else bin the thread and prove my point.

 

[editor]

How did building seven come down editor, any idea?

Let's start with the big ones first, seeing as I've asked you about six times now and am still waiting for answer.

So what do you believe brought the WTC towers down and how come none of the leading experts in related fields believe any of the bonkers yarns about explosives?

Or are you going to continue wriggling indefinitely - in which case you'll only have yourself to blame for the banning of all such future threads.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Oh come on, it deserved at least a "heh".

I don't like you lot anymore.

 

[editor]

Oh come on, it deserved at least a "heh".

I don't like you lot anymore.

Sorry. These threads would squeeze the last bit out of humour out of the laughing gnome.

 

[Diamond]

How did building seven come down editor, any idea?

Stop running away. Show us just how "credible" you really are and answer the question or else bin the thread and prove my point.

I can't believe that you are still going on about this bigfish after all these years.

If this has been such a big issue for you for so long, and if you are privy to such groundbreaking and truly revelationary information on 9/11, and if you think that this is of such absolutely vital importance to necessitate you being such a superb irritant on these relatively non-conformist boards for so long; why don't you take yourself and your rantings to a media where you might be heard by more than just some random peeps on some interweb boards?

Or are you so paranoid that you think the editor is at the hub of ZOG and needs to challenged directly. Or maybe you believe that every single media outlet is controlled by a mass US conspiracy and your facts will be ruthlessly suppressed.

Or maybe you're just a waste of space sitting in your darkened room in front of a glowing screen getting some bizarre paranoid power trip from the idea that you and only you know the whole truth, and that that truth can only be spread by aggressive posturing; and that you will be recognised sooner or later as a spout of eternal wisdom, as opposed to eternal wank.

Bigfish....in a small pond? Delusions of grandeur perhaps?

 

[bigfish]

Let's start with the big ones first, seeing as I've asked you about six times now and am still waiting for answer.

This is a discussion forum. It's up to you to precis your argument from the material you have linked to, not for me to trawl through it and make guesses about what your argument might be. So of you go.

So what do you believe brought the WTC towers down and how come none of the leading experts in related fields believe any of the bonkers yarns about explosives?

Kevin Ryan and Colonel Nelson are both experts in related fields. Morgan Reynolds is a former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush's first term. But for one reason or another, you contrive to forget about these experts and senior personnel who have gone on record to challenge the official story.

Or are you going to continue wriggling indefinitely - in which case you'll only have yourself to blame for the banning of all such future threads.

I'm not wriggling, you are. Look, I'll show you what I mean. How did building seven come down, bearing in mind that it wasn't hit by an airplane?

 

[Loki]

why don't you take yourself and your rantings to a media where you might be heard by more than just some random peeps on some interweb boards?

Yeah that's something I've often wondered. If the "story" is so shit hot why not talk to the BBC? And if you're worried about the BBC being in on this "plot", there's Al Jazeera, China Daily Post, Kompas and a zillion other news agencies who would be most glad to post a story that would see Bush impeached. But sadly the conspiracy fans prefer to post up threads here instead of unveiling this amazing plot they've unravelled to the world.

 

[editor]

I'm not wriggling, you are. Look, I'll show you what I mean. How did building seven come down, bearing in mind that it wasn't hit by an airplane?

Call me crazy, but possibly because two of the largest buildings in the world had just come catastrophically thundering to the ground in an explosive collapse just metres from Building 7?

Ever sat on a sofa and had an amply proportioned person crash their heavy arse right next to you?

But what do you think really happened to the WTC?

 

[bigfish]

I can't believe that you are still going on about this bigfish after all these years.

If this has been such a big issue for you for so long, and if you are privy to such groundbreaking and truly revelationary information on 9/11, and if you think that this is of such absolutely vital importance to necessitate you being such a superb irritant on these relatively non-conformist boards for so long; why don't you take yourself and your rantings to a media where you might be heard by more than just some random peeps on some interweb boards?

Or are you so paranoid that you think the editor is at the hub of ZOG and needs to challenged directly. Or maybe you believe that every single media outlet is controlled by a mass US conspiracy and your facts will be ruthlessly suppressed.

Or maybe you're just a waste of space sitting in your darkened room in front of a glowing screen getting some bizarre paranoid power trip from the idea that you and only you know the whole truth, and that that truth can only be spread by aggressive posturing; and that you will be recognised sooner or later as a spout of eternal wisdom, as opposed to eternal wank.

Bigfish....in a small pond? Delusions of grandeur perhaps?

D minus

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Diamond]

D minus

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

typical.

In 2003 I had some quite long debates with you on the subject matter at hand, but when I tried to continue the lengthier ones that might bore others on the board by pms you, of course, never responded.

Typical attention seeker....

 

[Diamond]

I can provide you with numbers, e-mail addresses, websites, normal addresses and many more contact details if you really want to publicise your incredible theories (incredible being the operative word there), but something makes me think that you won't want to go for that. After all it's not nearly as satisfying as getting all this attention is it?

 

[editor]

If this has been such a big issue for you for so long, and if you are privy to such groundbreaking and truly revelationary information on 9/11, and if you think that this is of such absolutely vital importance to necessitate you being such a superb irritant on these relatively non-conformist boards for so long; why don't you take yourself and your rantings to a media where you might be heard by more than just some random peeps on some interweb boards?

Because most of these self proclaimed "truth seekers" are lazy cunts that can only hope to spread their deluded bullshit by piggy backing on someone else's hard work.

The concept of getting off their arses and undertaking independent research (e.g. writing letters to check a story before repeating a barking 'found on the internet' yarn) is wholly alien to most of them, as is the notion that they cold possible be wrong about anything.

Highly qualified structural engineers, fire chiefs, architects and other experts the world all over can be safely dismissed out of hand, with the conspiraloons preferring the words of a bedroom nutjob, a janitor, a fruitloop - anyone - just so long as they've mumbled something that vaguely supports their ludicrous theories.

We've had invisible planes, invisible missiles, invisible pods, invisible explosives, invisible bulletin boards, invisible experts, vanishing aircraft, vanishing air crew, vanishing passengers, teams of instant Mike Yarwoods, CIA child murderers, wildly complex plots involving tens of thousands of conspirators all sworn to secrecy ...the lot.

I think it's time that we put an end to all this bollocks. The conspiraloons have had endless opportunities to endlessly repeat their fanciful claims here with the net result that even less people are interested in reading them than a year ago.