Former MI5 Agent Says 9/11 An Inside Job

[ZWord]

If it was all a big cover up, you'd think such a high profile incident would easily catch the eye of the architect who built the towers and all the structural engineers, scientists, experts, accident investigators, construction experts, fire investigators, trained safety experts etc etc.

Strangely enough, they've uttered ne'er a peep on the matter, so you're forced to rely on laughable, credibility-lite, UFO-loving conspiraloon sites for your 'analysis'.

So why do you think all the eminently qualified, highly trained experts in related scientific fields that you know Jack Diddly squat about are all wrong and the amateur bedroom sleuths on conspiraloon sites right?

Any ideas?

Without wishing to claim knowledge of what happened, I must say it seems that to people who already know what happened on that day, that any alternative theories are by definition not credible.

Any expert who has an alternative theory is by definition not credible and heading into conspiraloon territory, which seems reason enough why most people would not choose to publicly disagree with the official version of events. When someone as powerful as George Bush or the people for whom he is the front man says, you're either for us or against us, like Peckem in Catch 22, that's a reasonably good reason why people who publicly question like Bigfish are perhaps relatively thin on the ground, and only published by sources that can easily be dismissed as not credible. If by some chance, Bigfish were right, then credible sources who were in the know would be well aware that they were dealing with dangerous criminals who would stop at nothing and that in itself would give a powerful motivation not to publicly dispute the official version. Which is perhaps reason why more weight ought to be given to people who question than people who agree.

Who killed Kennedy, anyway.? Are politicians renowned for being trustworthy?

Did George Bush steal the 2000 election by having his brother disenfranchise a bunch of democratic voters.. ? Is it actually true that now it's all counted electronically, so the results can be determined by whoever writes the programs? The point is we already live in the realm of the unbelievable.

I don't get you lot in some ways, I mean I do with regard to myself, and I must apologise to bigfish as probably my tentative support will be construed as further reason to rubbish him.. But, honestly.. Is it all a mask? Why on earth should you lot be so credulous of an official version of events, when undoubtedly, you're in no position to know what really happened, and have nothing to go on, except what you've been told..

In the end, everyone believes what they want to believe, . Evidence neer seems to have much to do with it..

But I wonder what people in Germany said if anyone suggested that maybe it was the nazis rather than the Jews who started the reichstag fire.. Not conspiraloon maybe, but something else.

I don't believe much of any of this..
It all looks like a big pantomime.

 

[editor]

Why on earth should you lot be so credulous of an official version of events, when undoubtedly, you're in no position to know what really happened, and have nothing to go on, except what you've been told..

It's actually more of a case of being incredulous at the idiotic, fact-free fantasies that are constantly streamed up by conspiraloons who never, ever research their bonkers claims before boldly making them.

Their guffaw-attracting theories probably do more to stop people finding out the truth than anything else because they provide a handy tool to rubbish anyone having doubts about Bush's antics.

But invisible pods firing invisible missiles into towers already pre-wired with invisible explosives fitted by invisible workmen?

Pure fucking comedy.

 

[Loki]

I don't get you lot in some ways, I mean I do with regard to myself, and I must apologise to bigfish as probably my tentative support will be construed as further reason to rubbish him.. But, honestly.. Is it all a mask? Why on earth should you lot be so credulous of an official version of events, when undoubtedly, you're in no position to know what really happened

I can't speak for others, and yes I'm sure there are some discrepancies in the "official" version of events, whatever that is - it came as a complete surprise so it's hard to document exactly what happened in detail.

But the nonsense conspiracy shite spouted by the likes of bigfish, DrJazzz et al is far further from the truth. I saw the second plane slamming into the WTC live on TV. I then saw it collapsing, something I'll never forget. Yet the conspiraloons would have us believe the towers collapsing wasn't related to suicidal terrorists crashing huge fuel-laden jetliners into them.

 

[nick1181]

Well, tinfoil-hatters or not, the thing that characterises these threads isn't how barking the theories are, it's how violently they're attacked.

 

[Loki]

Well, tinfoil-hatters or not, the thing that characterises these threads isn't how barking the theories are, it's how violently they're attacked.

Anything wrong with attacking daft conspiracy theories?

 

[nick1181]

Is there anything wrong with overacting to a daft conspiracy theory?

It kindof depends what you want to do. Any behaviour that gets attention is encouraged.

 

[Loki]

If nobody said anything these obsessive conspiracy theorists' posts would go unchallenged.

 

[ZWord]

But invisible pods firing invisible missiles into towers already pre-wired with invisible explosives fitted by invisible workmen?

Pure fucking comedy.

Well when you put it like that, it's hard to disagree. I lack your knowledge of the extremes of conspiralunacy.

But what I edited into my post, was that the point I was trying to make is that we already seem to live in the realm of the unbelievable. So much of what our governments do and say, is unbelievable, unbelievable that they've got the nerve to do it, unbelievable that they're that immoral, and unbelievable that they can get away with it.. So, I reckon I agree with the guy who said,

"Reality is what you can get away with..."

how come your post count is stuck on 22,222, you one of Peckem's boys?
Oh it wasn't, just a coincidence. My mistake.

 

[nick1181]

If nobody said anything these obsessive conspiracy theorists' posts would go unchallenged.

And sink without trace.

 

[ZWord]

So maybe we should conclude from that that all the people who obsessively disagree are actually offering covert support. ?

 

[editor]

And sink without trace.

Or be referenced by other conspiraloons with urban75 being associated with their barking bonkers theories.

Err, no thanks.

 

[bigfish]

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?

Well thanks for answering at last. But I see you wish to persist with your rather far fetched 8 hour delayed action underground shock wave hypothesis. The big problem you've got here, is that buildings 3, 4 and 5 were even closer to the towers when they fell, than was seven. Building six was as close to the towers as seven. All of these buildings lie within your theoretical catastrophic shock wave radius, but none of them fell or even tilted as a consequence, as would be the case after the underground shock wave of an earthquake, for example. From the point of view of statistics, the odds of this occurring, without some kind of human intervention, are so astronomically high, that for all intents an purposes, we can dismiss the possibility completely. So, yes, you must be somewhat crazy to believe such a thing could happen in the way that you seem to imagine. In fact, what you imagine, is an idealized cartoon of a complex reality.

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

What, and after an eight hour time delay, react to the shock wave?

But what do you think really happened to the WTC?

"When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Building seven was not brought down by an airplane, or by a raging inferno, or by an underground shock wave delayed by eight hours. But something did bring the building crashing down into its own footprint, at free fall speed, in an explosive manner. Go figure.

 

[bigfish]

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....

Hang on a minute! You sent me pm's, but I'm a "typical attention seeker". How quaint.

Are you from Uranus?

 

[Loki]

Come on bigfish.

If the "story" you're sitting on 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.

If you're worried about anonymity you can tootle off to any internet caff, create a fake email ID and send away.

What's stopping you?

 

[bigfish]

Come on bigfish.

If the "story" you're sitting on 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.

If you're worried about anonymity you can tootle off to any internet caff, create a fake email ID and send away.

What's stopping you?

Loki, all I want to do, is to be able to discuss these and and other important questions with my fellow community members, on my local bulletin board, in an open and democratic manner, free of any harassment.

Your suggestion that I talk to the BBC is, quite frankly, laughable. The BBC can't even bring itself to comment seriously on the use of illegal chemical weapons by the Americans in Fallujah, or utter a feeble squeak about the devestating Downing Street memo, never mind the manifold contradictions that riddle the official 911 mythological concoction. In fact, the BBC are actively involved in covering-up all the crimes of US and British imperialism, including 911. The same goes for the rest of the mainstream media, owned as it is, lock stock and barrel, by the same huge corporations which also own the weapons manufacturers and oil companies.

Big Media Interlocks with Corporate America

 

[Loki]

And on and on it goes. I suggested several alternatives to the BBC, such as Al Jazeera, China Daily and Kompas who clearly have no links with the Bush administration and would dearly love to see him impeached.

There are zillions more.

What is stopping you from revealing your "amazing" insights to these news agencies?

 

[editor]

Loki, all I want to do, is to be able to discuss these and and other important questions with my fellow community members, on my local bulletin board, in an open and democratic manner, free of any harassment.

But you've done that here. Endlessly. For years.

And got nowhere - even less people are interacting with these threads than a year ago!

If you've got solid proof of what would be the biggest conspiracy ever known in modern times, involving the slaughter of thousands of innocent Americans on their own soil, then it's your duty dammit to make sure the world knows about it!

There's no point keeping "the truth" to yourself here, so why aren't you mailing off your incontrovertible proof to investigative reporters, newspapers, news agencies, TV companies and radio stations around the world?

Unless, of course, you're simply too lazy to get off your arse and actually stand up for your beliefs - which reflects rather badly on the strength of your claims.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

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?

I think that everyone will agree that there was a big fire in the area. and that the aftershock of the event might conceivably have done some damage.

and should we take your word for your wild claims?

 

[STFC]

...But I see you wish to persist with your rather far fetched 8 hour delayed action underground shock wave hypothesis. The big problem you've got here, is that buildings 3, 4 and 5 were even closer to the towers when they fell, than was seven. Building six was as close to the towers as seven. All of these buildings lie within your theoretical catastrophic shock wave radius, but none of them fell or even tilted as a consequence, as would be the case after the underground shock wave of an earthquake, for example. From the point of view of statistics, the odds of this occurring, without some kind of human intervention, are so astronomically high, that for all intents an purposes, we can dismiss the possibility completely. So, yes, you must be somewhat crazy to believe such a thing could happen in the way that you seem to imagine. In fact, what you imagine, is an idealized cartoon of a complex reality.

When earthquakes strike big cities, is every building destroyed? Some are, but most aren't. For whatever reason, some buildings remain intact, and others, for no apparent reason, are turned into rubble. Some buildings collapse hours or even days after the quake. I would have thought that the north and south towers collapsing in rapid succession (after being hit by fuel laden airliners don't forget, not an every day occurrence) would have a similar effect on the surrounding buildings as an earthquake would. I'm no expert, I don't profess to know anything about structural engineering or seismology, but it sounds reasonable enough doesn't it?

See, that's the difference between conspiracy theorists and the rest of us - we don't know anything for sure, but we try and come up with logical explanations for events. Occam's Razor and all that. The conspiracy theorist however, will use phrases such as "...for all intents an purposes, we can dismiss the possibility completely.". Really? How?

 

[Jazzz]

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?

...

OH THE IRONY. We cannot even believe our own words!

 

[DaveCinzano]

 

[Bob_the_lost]

That thread was much more fun.

 

[Jazzz]

Look, this is serious stuff!

(An honour to have a comic though)

 

[editor]

Beautiful.

 

[editor]

OH THE IRONY. We cannot even believe our own words!

You don't think explosions happen when huge, fuck off skyscrapers crash to the ground?

How very strange.

 

[axon]

The BBC can't even bring itself to comment seriously on the use of illegal chemical weapons by the Americans in Fallujah, or utter a feeble squeak about the devestating Downing Street memo, never mind the manifold contradictions that riddle the official 911 mythological concoction. In fact, the BBC are actively involved in covering-up all the crimes of US and British imperialism, including 911. The same goes for the rest of the mainstream media, owned as it is, lock stock and barrel, by the same huge corporations which also own the weapons manufacturers and oil companies.

Big Media Interlocks with Corporate America

You're right. As you say it's not just the BBC that are involved, as you say, the weapons manufacturers, energy companies. Also the reconstruction companies. The Democrats have towed the line on the official line for 911 so they must be in on the conspiracy, and the governments of the coalition of the willing. Then there are all th subsidaries of the big companies, and their employees. And there seems to be a lot of people on these boards willing to accept that planes and fires destroyed the buildings so they could be in opn the conspiracy.

There is a conspiracy. And everyone is in on it. Except you BF

 

[editor]

There is a conspiracy. And everyone is in on it. Except you BF

Damn! The cat's out of the bag now!

 

[Jazzz]

You don't think explosions happen when huge, fuck off skyscrapers crash to the ground?

How very strange.

Yes, because they are being demolished

 

[editor]

Yes, because they are being demolished

Bless. Welcome to DrJazzz's comic book fantasy world!

 

[Diamond]

Well if we can at last talk about it, can I just ask has anyone's brown paper envelopes been getting a little lighter in recent months?

I don't think the standard of my work has declined, so they might be running low on cash.