Latest doubts about 911 commission: Former Vice President calls for "Phase 2"

[Dillinger4]

Who authored the video please? What's their journalistic background? Are they seen as a credible independent film maker?

Only a fucking idiot - and I mean a real fucking idiot - would blindly accept a video clip shoved up on YouTube clip as evidence of anything meaningful without knowing a single thing about its provenance, and then go on to use it to back up wild claims of a colossal conspiracy.

Any idiot can selectively edit footage to provide a completely misleading view of what really happened, so where's your real evidence?

Apparently, it is more than enough to base an entire undergraduate dissertation on, in some peoples minds.

 

[fela fan]

Probably because it WON'T turn over any new evidence. Do you think the 'establishment' has any real desire to see any change in the present situation? The mainstream media don't seem to be too keen to win Pulitzers either for uncovering any 'dramatic new evidence'. It just seems pointless to worry about given the present state of affairs.

Well yes, i agree with you about the establishment, and the media, but not the last bit. The present state of (political) affairs is arguably (and persuasively so in my opinion) precisely because of the 911 attacks.

Let the USG get away with extreme incompetence or complicity in such deadly attacks purely because they don't want to take responsibility and the media aren't interested?? Well, if you want. And i remain interested and hopeful for one major reason: if complicity existed, and was uncovered to the satisfaction of the americans, it seems highly likely we'll get a major paradigm shift in the way western politics is run more specifically US foreign policy. I want a world of no wars, and that can only happen when the majority of people understand the root cause of just about every war. Complicity in 911 would be an earthquake revelation to many people in the US.

I also totally believe that complicity was the case. Not least because some american elites are perfectly amoral enough to plan such a thing.

 

[editor]

I also totally believe that complicity was the case. .

Really? And your proof for this remarkable assertion is....?

Or is just a "belief" like some people believe in fairies, hobgoblins and leprechauns?

 

[MikeMcc]

What do you think of the evidence and expert analysis of Philip Shenon and Walter Mondale?

The link I gave to witnesses was not itself conspirilunacy. It was a compilation of witness accounts that you have failed to accuse of being staged. I have stated why I find that link to be reasonably credible, it doesnt follow that I find everything on its page credible. Only a fucking idiot would think so.

But you seem to be avoiding something. Only a fucking idiot would post screeds and screeds on a side issue, not once adressing the central theme of the thread and think folk wouldnt notice and find it a little odd.

Are you such a person?

If you think there has been incompetence and cover-up I assume you would like to see some form of other body look into the scale of them and whether they constitute criminal levels.

What 'other body' would be acceptable to everyone? There's absolutely no one or any organisation that is trusted by all 'sides' in the issue. Most of the debris has been either processed as scrap or buried in landfill, there's been 6 1/2 years for any paperwork trail to have been destroyed or thouroughly confused. Many witnesses have changed their stories (particularly Rodriguez), or have had those 6 1/2 years to forget details. My belief is pretty much the same as Editors, there was a cover up of the ineptitude and institutional lethagy that essentially allowed it to happen (LIHBA). It doesn't seem possible to me that there was an active conspiracy to let it happen.

 

[MikeMcc]

Well yes, i agree with you about the establishment, and the media, but not the last bit. The present state of (political) affairs is arguably (and persuasively so in my opinion) precisely because of the 911 attacks.

Let the USG get away with extreme incompetence or complicity in such deadly attacks purely because they don't want to take responsibility and the media aren't interested?? Well, if you want. And i remain interested and hopeful for one major reason: if complicity existed, and was uncovered to the satisfaction of the americans, it seems highly likely we'll get a major paradigm shift in the way western politics is run more specifically US foreign policy. I want a world of no wars, and that can only happen when the majority of people understand the root cause of just about every war. Complicity in 911 would be an earthquake revelation to many people in the US.

I also totally believe that complicity was the case. Not least because some american elites are perfectly amoral enough to plan such a thing.

But they aren't competent enough to keep it secret.

 

[fela fan]

Really? And your proof for this remarkable assertion is....?

Or is just a "belief" like some people believe in fairies, hobgoblins and leprechauns?

Beliefs are dodgy things in life really, and i'm not normally too fond of them, one of the reasons being that there is no proof available, naturally enough or it wouldn't be a belief!!

But it's not the kind of belief to do with your examples. It's one i hold based on all sorts of related facts that you can have as much evidence as you wish to have.

But you must know we've been down this path before editor, and let's just leave it at that. You've gone for incompetence, fine, it's compelling of course considering this is the americans; i've gone for complicity, again that's fine, considering it's the americans and any vague student of world affairs in the last 60 years will know their propensity for killing people abroad, including happily sending american troops to their deaths, while also engaging in state-sanctioned killing at home, via the death penalty.

You believe incompetence, i believe complicity.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Who authored the video please? What's their journalistic background? Are they seen as a credible independent film maker?

Only a fucking idiot - and I mean a real fucking idiot - would blindly accept a video clip shoved up on YouTube clip as evidence of anything meaningful without knowing a single thing about its provenance, and then go on to use it to back up wild claims of a colossal conspiracy.

Any idiot can selectively edit footage to provide a completely misleading view of what really happened, so where's your real evidence?

I have stated numerous times why I consider the compilation to a reasonable representation of events ("the events" being the witnesses giving their statements) Though I would add that Any staged clips with channel logos on will be open to being sued by those channels as it would be fairly serious (and insulting) offence. lets see how much uber-pedantry you can make of that paragraph instead of remotely adressing the theme of the thread.

I would further add (again) that I have not used witnesses of explosions to back up a wild conspiracy, it was a side issue at the time on the thread and I used those witness accounts to back up claims there were "explosions". Only a fucking idiot would fail to see the difference. Or someone wantonly stubborn.

Now I know this side issue is a bit of an obsession of yours and each time you have had a queery I do the best I can to answer it. Sadly, I have not been able to speak to any of the individual witnesses concerned and get their sworn statements.

But the response I have given you on this issue over the past 5 or so days is a great deal more than can be said for the amount of times you have spoken to the theme of the thread despite polite requests. This amount being zero.

If only people with verifiable journalistic or film making backgrounds are to be deemed credible it would be helpful if you'd put a sticky detailing your requirements so that we can all know. Perhaps on this basis you believe Richard Littlejohn and Gary Bushell more than you believe mere proles who had the affrontary not to be involved in the media at a professional level.

Anyhow, below are biographies of the 2 main people cited in the OP (that being the issue you prefer to ignore i.e the theme of the thread)

I apologise that I have yet to ascertain the identity of the authors of those biographies or which University of Finding-Stuff-Out they got their post-grad in Finding-Stuff-Out at. If I get round to it I will obviously also do my best to verify the credibility of the people verifying the identity of the authors, if it is of import to you. At leat such a request would be more related to the thread topic.

http://freshfiction.com/author.php?id=18165

http://www.mnc.net/norway/Mondale.htm

Do the findings and thoughts of these people impact your estimation of the crediblity of the commission?

Given that you seem to think there was incompetence and cover up, do you think another formal body is required?

 

[fela fan]

My belief is pretty much the same as Editors, there was a cover up of the ineptitude and institutional lethagy that essentially allowed it to happen (LIHBA). It doesn't seem possible to me that there was an active conspiracy to let it happen.

I agree, it doesn't seem possible that it was allowed to happen. Too many people would have been involved.

But MIHOP is another matter, and far easier to conceal.

By the way, your post is a much more compelling reason to drop the whole subject. I wonder if i shall be able to just yet though...

Perhaps i'm not far away, because i too don't think anybody will ever find out who's fully to blame. The only minor hope is once bush is out of power. I'll redecide then whether to get the topic out of my pysche.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

It is important not to let the subject drop for very very obvious reasons.

I agree it would be hard to find a body everyone was happy with, but I think an international based panel would be interesting. However it would have no plans to compel testimony unless it was the ICC which the US have not signed up to anyway. I dont suppose the ICC can try on incompetence anyhow.

Somethings that would be neccessary (off the top of the head)

Full White House and Cheney phone logs from the day; Individual public questioning under oath of Bush and Cheney about what warnings they knew and when (when this pair are no longer in power it will be less likely they are soft balled) and any relationship with funders of the attacks; full public inquirey into funding of the attacks; full investigation of why avenues of investigation into hijackers by people like John O Neil were blocked; Questioning of people who recieved warnings not to fly on 9/11 including Mayor Willie Brown of Chicago and Salman Rushdie. Full research into who gave these warnings; full research into who was making "put" options. Any communications between state operatives and hijackers. It would be also be helpful to know why the FBI still dont feel they can attribute responsibility for the attacks to OBL on their website. Is it becuase they feel that to attribute such guilt to him is conjecture?

And plenty plenty more besides. These matters were all under the competence of the Keane / Zelicow commission AFIK. Zelicow decided what got looked into and what didnt. By and large he decided the above should not be looked into. He was in frequent touch with the Whitehouse during this time. Shendon states that many commissioners were not aware of his close ties till quite close to the end, and pretty annoyed when they found out.

NOTE: the above list is a suggestion of what a future body might look into. Comments, additions and critique are welcome enough but not as a pedantic clowndance diversion from the central theme of thread.

 

[editor]

But you must know we've been down this path before editor, and let's just leave it at that. You've gone for incompetence, fine, it's compelling of course considering this is the americans; i've gone for complicity, again that's fine, considering it's the americans and any vague student of world affairs in the last 60 years will know their propensity for killing people abroad, including happily sending american troops to their deaths, while also engaging in state-sanctioned killing at home, via the death penalty.

You believe incompetence, i believe complicity.

I don't "believe" in anything to do with 9/11 that isn't backed up by expert analysis, credible research and independent studies with Occam's razor never far away.

But can believe in whatever evidence-free stuff you like.

 

[editor]

It is important not to let the subject drop for very very obvious reasons.

I agree it would be hard to find a body everyone was happy with, but I think an international based panel would be interesting. However it would have no plans to compel testimony unless it was the ICC which the US have not signed up to anyway. I dont suppose the ICC can try on incompetence anyhow.

Somethings that would be neccessary (off the top of the head)

Full White House and Cheney phone logs from the day; Individual public questioning under oath of Bush and Cheney about what warnings they knew and when (when this pair are no longer in power it will be less likely they are soft balled) and any relationship with funders of the attacks; full public inquirey into funding of the attacks; full investigation of why avenues of investigation into hijackers by people like John O Neil were blocked; Questioning of people who recieved warnings not to fly on 9/11 including Mayor Willie Brown of Chicago and Salman Rushdie. Full research into who gave these warnings; full research into who was making "put" options. Any communications between state operatives and hijackers. It would be also be helpful to know why the FBI still dont feel they can attribute responsibility for the attacks to OBL on their website. Is it becuase they feel that to attribute such guilt to him is conjecture?

Do you think the intellectual credibility of the people demanding an enquiry is proving a major obstacle to it actually taking place?

 

[editor]

But MIHOP is another matter, and far easier to conceal.

It would *never* be "easy" to conceal a conspiracy of this magnitude, especially when it involved national humiliation, the destruction of one landmark buildings and the murder of thousands of their fellow citizens.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Do you think the intellectual credibility of the people demanding an enquiry is proving a major obstacle to it actually taking place?

There is a wide range of such people so I assume there is a range of inetellectual credibility. If however you have strong evidence as to the aggregate level of that crediblity Im sure you will post it along with the full relevant professional qualifications and experience of the people who have compiled that evidence.

Because anyone can do sarcasm. And anyone can do pedantry.

Assuming your intellectual credibility is worthy of asking a simple question: Does the evidence of the NYT journalist impact your opinion of the credibility of the commission?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I don't "believe" in anything to do with 9/11 that isn't backed up by expert analysis, credible research and independent studies with Occam's razor never far away.

But can believe in whatever evidence-free stuff you like.

Do you thus believe that the commission was selected for "conflicts of interest", that the excutive director (a neocon insider) was in constant touch with the Whitehouse, and that a "2nd phase" is required?

 

[editor]

There is a wide range of such people so I assume there is a range of inetellectual credibility. If however you have strong evidence as to the aggregate level of that crediblity Im sure you will post it along with the full relevant professional qualifications and experience of the people who have compiled that evidence.

You're missing the point competely. By linking to, and associating yourself with, conspiracy obsessed nutcases spouting lunatic drivel about invisible bombs and swapped planes, you do more harm to the cause of finding the truth of 9/11 than you'll ever know.

Chomsky said as much.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

You're missing the point competely. By linking to, and associating yourself with, conspiracy obsessed nutcases spouting lunatic drivel about invisible bombs and swapped planes, you do more harm to the cause of finding the truth of 9/11 than you'll ever know.

Chomsky said as much.

When I made the reference to witnesses to explosions I knew someone would say "WHAT WITNESSES" as if they didnt know. So as an afterthought I went looking for a compiliation cos I knew one was out there. When after 5 minutes I found one I had a quick look and recognised some of the clips from the day and some from other places. The validity of none of these specific witness statements has ever come into question from my knowledge, nor I suspect from yours. The clip stands on its own. If you or Chomsky chose to judge it by other YT clips in its vacinity, then whatever.

Chomsky is a well known official-ite and thats his privelidge. I agree with him that the issue can be too much a distraction for some, but that can be said of a lot of issues and it doesnt lessen the importance of the issue.

However, I wonder what he thinks of Shendons findings. The behaviour of the administration is entirely in keeping with Chomskys general opinions of them.

Well, as far as we know he doesnt post here so in his absence I'll ask you: Do Shendons findings impact you assessment of the credibility of the commission? Do you agree with Mondale that a "2nd phase" is needed?

 

[MikeMcc]

Beliefs are dodgy things in life really, and i'm not normally too fond of them, one of the reasons being that there is no proof available, naturally enough or it wouldn't be a belief!!

But it's not the kind of belief to do with your examples. It's one i hold based on all sorts of related facts that you can have as much evidence as you wish to have.

But you must know we've been down this path before editor, and let's just leave it at that. You've gone for incompetence, fine, it's compelling of course considering this is the americans; i've gone for complicity, again that's fine, considering it's the americans and any vague student of world affairs in the last 60 years will know their propensity for killing people abroad, including happily sending american troops to their deaths, while also engaging in state-sanctioned killing at home, via the death penalty.

You believe incompetence, i believe complicity.

But those have been carried out openly. All US administrations have been unable to keep secrets for long, the whole political apparatus leaks secrets at an alarming rate so that political figure can 'make their name' or as part of some scheme. Sometimes this has placed people at risk directly or indirectly, like the Plame affair.

I would still contend that MIHOP takes far more people than LIHOP (and none actively required for LIHBA) and makes it even more likely to have produced leaks.

I've worked for large bureaucratic organisations and it's so clear how lines of communication get fucked up, how empire building leads to barriers and secrecy. All of these make it easy for LIHBA. I don't believe Bush, Chaney, et al. had time to form the structures necessary to be able to manipulate the organisations into something that would allow LIHOP. Since then is a different matter, the creation of the Dept of HLS has further confused the various jurisdictions and made the lines of communication even more confused. To me that makes the potential to cover up evidence that much easier.

 

[8den]

Full White House and Cheney phone logs from the day; Individual public questioning under oath of Bush and Cheney about what warnings they knew and when (when this pair are no longer in power it will be less likely they are soft balled)

Oh for fucks sake, what you think they were complicit with the attacks and have no qualms in murdering people, but you think they won't lie about it under oath?

and any relationship with funders of the attacks; full public inquirey into funding of the attacks; full investigation of why avenues of investigation into hijackers by people like John O Neil were blocked; Questioning of people who recieved warnings not to fly on 9/11 including Mayor Willie Brown of Chicago and Salman Rushdie. Full research into who gave these warnings; full research into who was making "put" options. Any communications between state operatives and hijackers. It would be also be helpful to know why the FBI still dont feel they can attribute responsibility for the attacks to OBL on their website. Is it becuase they feel that to attribute such guilt to him is conjecture?

Oh for fucks sake and who is in charge of this inquiry Taffy? Who organizes it? funds it?

Independent from the government how?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

8den

"Oh for fucks sake, what you think they were complicit with the attacks and have no qualms in murdering people, but you think they won't lie about it under oath?"

I dont know if they were complicit, though I suspect negligence at the least. I do know that if they were then some skillfull questioning would stand a chance of tripping them up and / or opening new lines of enquirey.

By your standards there'd be no point of trying anyone serious crimes in courts of law, very few guilty people actually plead guilty (unless theres something in it for them like reduced punishment)

"Oh for fucks sake and who is in charge of this inquiry Taffy? Who organizes it? funds it?"

This is trickier becuase by far the best chance of setting up a half decent enquirey with half decent powers is a dumbocrat administration with some balls. Pretty chuffing unlikely as theyre a bunch of establishment sell-outs IMO. But look to the trouble the neocons went to in trying to stitch up slick Willy for a stain on a dress. By comparrison the Dumbos are a disgrace at the opposite end of the spectrum and there is no getting round the fact that they are a severe letdown.

 

[8den]

So you want a fucking investigation but you've no fucking clue who's going to do it.

I fucking adore the 911 truth movement

"Investigate 911"

Okay how should this investigation proceed?

"Er IMPRISON TEH BUSH WAR CRIMINAL"!

Jesus 7 years of this witless fuckwitology and you haven't figured out who's going to run the investigation you think this deserves.

Honestly the 911 truthers are morons lead by retards.

 

[editor]

This is trickier becuase by far the best chance of setting up a half decent enquirey with half decent powers is a dumbocrat administration with some balls. Pretty chuffing unlikely as theyre a bunch of establishment sell-outs IMO.

What do we want? "an independent 9/11 commission!"

When do we want it? "NOW!!"

Who's going to lead it? "...err.... um....err...."

*looks at shoes.....

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

So you want a fucking investigation but you've no fucking clue who's going to do it.

I know exactly who is in a position to do it. I have no faith in their ability to do it. Still anything would be better than nothing I guess.

What do you think of the evidence and opinions in the OP? (same question to Ed)

 

[editor]

I know exactly who is in a position to do it. I have no faith in their ability to do it. Still anything would be better than nothing I guess.

Who's that then? And what's the point if you have no confidence in them to do the job properly?

What do you think of the evidence and opinions in the OP? (same question to Ed)

I see three random links leading to three different stories with no apparent coherent conclusion. What am I supposed to be seeing?

 

[EddyBlack]

Oh do fuck, the first two are times articles the third is an substantiated report from Posner, from which you are drawing 100% pure speculation that because of Posner's claims the US could have been behind 911.

You have. NO. I repeat NO EVIDENCE this is pure conjecture on your part, even if Posner's story is true and it begs the question, how did this journalist get access to the behaviour of US agents in a prison cell in Saudi Arabia.

In fact while we're at it, lets look at some of Posner's claims in detail, shall we you conspiracy guff swallowing loon?



Like all fuckwit conspiracy bullshit it contains a grain of truth Prince Ahmed did die, however, for example bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud is still alive and didn't die one week after this, and instead was ambassador to American till 2006.

Posner's an incompetent liar, the Saudi royal family is incredibly large, in any large family there would be any number of deaths, all Posner has done has picked four people, not proven they are connected, announced their deaths as suspicious, and invented a conspiracy.

I need more than an unsupported claim from a journalist who will not reveal his sources for his incredible story, and your phenominally tenious reaching that you believe Posner is telling the truth, which allows you to believe that the US commited 911.

Your pathetic fantasy scrambling exposes a weak mind incapable of coping with reality.

Ok, now I'm confused.

The Saudi Embassy said he died:

http://www.saudiembassy.net/2002News/News/OthDetail.asp?cIndex=3676

Gives the name as:
Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki

Posner gives the same name as:
Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud
link

Same guy isn't it?


What do you make of the other bit, the revelation of former CIA Agent Sibel Edmonds?

The part that relates to 911 is:

‘Following 9/11, a number of the foreign operatives were taken in for questioning by the FBI on suspicion that they knew about or somehow aided the attacks.
Edmonds said the State Department official once again proved useful. “A primary target would call the official and point to names on the list and say, ‘We need to get them out of the US because we can’t afford for them to spill the beans’,” she said. “The official said that he would ‘take care of it’.”
link

 

[8den]

I know exactly who is in a position to do it. I have no faith in their ability to do it. Still anything would be better than nothing I guess.

So you want what Clinton received? A partisan witch hunt not interested in the truth, but out to destroy him?

What do you think of the evidence and opinions in the OP? (same question to Ed)

Well after seven fucking years of utter bullshit the truth movement cannot get over the fact that Osama Bin Laden's wanted poster not having 911 on it, witless fucks like yourself are left scrambling for anything with any semblance of a point, you're reduced to being shocked, shocked I tell, you!That a Bush appointee was in charge of the commission.

Tell you what Taffy, why don't you list off what the commission got wrong.

Spare us the "Pakistian ISI connection" one fucking article in the times of fucking India is not justification, spare us the Posner lies of Eddy,


TELL ME WHAT THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION GOT WRONG?

 

[EddyBlack]

... spare us the Posner lies of Eddy,

See 144 please.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

editor

Who's that then? And what's the point if you have no confidence in them to do the job properly?

A democrat administration to set up something independent, transparent and possibly with an international dimension for extra neutrality.

Not a bias witchhunt as 8den is concerned about but because they would be the only people with the authority to set anything up at all.

As I said I have little faith in them doing it or doing it well, but I guess we have to move past the point of saying we need more formal investigation into looking at what is possible, and anything would be better than nothing as I said. Even whitewashes like the Hutton report throw out stuff worth knowing.

"I see three random links leading to three different stories with no apparent coherent conclusion. What am I supposed to be seeing?"

Ah, we've had "strawman" and "blind alley". Now its time for our old chum the "play dumb" card.
I'll humour you because I think U75 totally rocks. The first 2, an account of a book and an interview with the author are for your information. The author is an established investigative journolist, so you should like that. He also sat in on the investigation so he knows more about it than you or I. As I previously said, he outlines the degree to which Zelicow was in touch with the white house during the hearings and how commissioners were selected for their "conflicts of interest". There is a whole load of other stuff too, much of which is knowledge we are getting for the first time. Thats what you are supposed to see (and hear): Expert testimony, which could be used towards the assertion (in my opinion) why the hearings lacked credibility (you may disagree but in very very many posts you havent bothered to try)

The last thing you can see is a former Vice President - a guy with long experience so you should like that. He says we need more investigation. That could be what you refer to as a "conclusion" i.e from what he sees with his experienced mind he has "concluded" something.

Does this help?

Do you concur with Walter Mondale or dont you? Come on, it cant be THAT hard to form an opinion when you have such a strong opinion on other matters related to the broader case. Even qualified indecision would be something.

8den

TELL ME WHAT THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION GOT WRONG?

1) Under the direction of a neocon insider it failed to look into a number of matters, some of which I summise in post 129 Thus for me it is not chiefly errors of fact which are a concern more than avenues of investigation not taken up. A classic example is the labelling of the funding issue as "insignificant" -that strikes me as "wrong", maybe you dont think it matters and will happily say so

2) In some instances, the identity of hijackers for example, conjecture was taken as fact. Ironic given that this is what skeptics are constantly accused of doing. The precise identity of all hijackers has always been a controversey. I dont lose sleep over it myself but the commission failed to interrogate the issue at all. This is indicitive of a tame attitude towards the official line. Now step back and watch the officialites go swivel eyed at me mentioning hijacker identity - this should keep folk busy for 50 posts or more while avoiding the evidence and opinions cited in the OP as the basis for topic discussion.

3) The commission was certainly wrong to allow the vice president and president to speak to them together, in private and not under oath rather than separately and publicly under oath. This is as weird as it is weak.

4) Finally, to prove the commission was wrong on almost anything of fine detail would probably require another body to do so. otherwise I would be dealing in conjecture (which is mostly all that people on either "side" can do)

 

[fela fan]

I don't "believe" in anything to do with 9/11 that isn't backed up by expert analysis, credible research and independent studies with Occam's razor never far away.

"I believe there are people who were guilty of letting 9/11 happen through a mixture of incompetence, arrogance and stupidity, and I believe there are many equally guilty of subsequently trying to cover up their failure to serve and protect the American people."


So mate, do you have "expert analysis, credible research and independent studies" to back up your beliefs about state incompetence? State arrogance? State stupidity? Where's your proof people were being stupid and arrogant and incompetent?

 

[editor]

"I see three random links leading to three different stories with no apparent coherent conclusion. What am I supposed to be seeing?"

Ah, we've had "strawman" and "blind alley". Now its time for our old chum the "play dumb" card.

Now here's a thing.

After entertaining thousands - yes, thousands - of posts relating to every conceivable exciting/bonkers/nutcase theory about 9/11 here, expecting people to try and make sense of assorted links thrown up in posts or spend ages sitting through lengthy videos just to find out what your point is really isn't a goer.

Still, talking of playing games, your "I'm only interested in the truth and not conspiracies" gambit isn't exactly the most convincing one I've seen.

The underlying tone of your posts - and your scatter gun, selective methodology and penchant for YouTube conspiraloons - reveal that your mind is already firmly made up.

So, let's not pretend, eh?

 

[fela fan]

change my mind for now, so deleted!