Should Urban Ban 9/11 Conspiracy Drivel?

[editor]

Despite your ridicule, I predict that the forthcoming documentary on Channel4 will not dare show that, and even less likely the slow-motion footage. The Sky one didn't.

So who's stopping them daring to show the footage, DrJ? Yet more dark forces involved in this enormous conspiracy?

And did the Sky documentary back up and produce proof any of your ludicrous claims about missile firing, pod wielding, remote control airplanes and the faked calls?

 

[Jazzz]

So who's stopping them daring to show the footage, DrJ? Yet more dark forces involved in this enormous conspiracy?

And did the Sky documentary back up and produce proof any of your ludicrous claims about missile firing, pod wielding, remote control airplanes and the faked calls?

As you know, the Channel4 program is going to be a hatchet job. They certainly won't show any slow motion footage (showing the missile) because it's way too clear - and I doubt very much that they will show the pod either. They will concentrate on 'straw men' by cherry-picking the arguments that can be twisted and then refuted.

The amazing thing is how we all censor ourselves. You have yourself said that a big worry of yours is that the BBC or other 'higher' media might look at your site and go 'ha ha ha, Urban75 has no credibility because of that thread' - the same applies to the rest of the media. However the truth will, and has been, breaking from bottom up, not top down.

 

[editor]

As you know, the Channel4 program is going to be a hatchet job. They certainly won't show any slow motion footage (showing the missile) because it's way too clear - and I doubt very much that they will show the pod either.

Amazing. You haven't even seen the program yet but you can already declare it a 'hatchet job'!!

Oh, and - as usual - you avoided answering my question, so here it is again:

Did the Sky documentary back up and produce proof any of your ludicrous claims about missile firing, pod wielding, remote control airplanes and the faked calls?

And how come Sky 'dared' to show the slo-mo footage while Ch4 didn't (or so you claim?). Channel 4 has something of an excellent reputation for investigative reporting, so what are you basing your claims on that they didn't have the nerve to show this clip?

 

[nino_savatte]

If it is one thing that American Right love to do, it's to dismiss any argument from the Left as a 'conspiracy theory'. Most every concern can be dismissed in this way, including the Florida 2000 electoral fraud. http://www.lindenreport.com/ac/. (And to think this guy used be my roommate at boarding school! )

However I will agree that there is an awful lot of nonsense out there that finds its way to these boards but I wouldn't advocate an out right ban. I quite love those tussles between editor and Dr Jazzzz. Very entertaining indeed.

 

[Streathamite]

As you know, the Channel4 program is going to be a hatchet job. They certainly won't show any slow motion footage (showing the missile) because it's way too clear - and I doubt very much that they will show the pod either. They will concentrate on 'straw men' by cherry-picking the arguments that can be twisted and then refuted.

The amazing thing is how we all censor ourselves. You have yourself said that a big worry of yours is that the BBC or other 'higher' media might look at your site and go 'ha ha ha, Urban75 has no credibility because of that thread' - the same applies to the rest of the media. However the truth will, and has been, breaking from bottom up, not top down.

DrJazzz-believe me, if any serious number of journoes really felt they had this scoop by the short and curlies - solid, knockdown HARD evidence, they would not 'censor' themselves. They'd trample each other to death in the race to publish, and blast it everywhere.
Y'see these bright visions would dance in front of their eyes...pulitzers...hack of the year...frontpage, 64-point caption, byline AND journoes mugshot....instant celeb status...six-fugure salaries...talkshows....book deals....they'd never need to work again!
any self-respecting hack would kill their grans for proof on this one.

 

[Rocket Romano]

I can't wait for this documentary which the theorists are already backtracking on

'It'll prove it all' (then they start using their common sense at this point)

'Actually it'll be hatchet job, erm, but we're right still'

So Channel 4 will show a documentary about the missile but won't show the actual missile...is this another Brass Eye?

Anyway, If Channel 4 don't have the balls, we onl Urban do...HERE IT IS!

THE MISSILE! (not pictured,The Missile, WTC, Pentagon, Proof, Leprauchans, Lord Lucan at the firing control panel, Michael Moore)​

 

[Jazzz]

Amazing. You haven't even seen the program yet but you can already declare it a 'hatchet job'!!

You yourself have already linked to an advance review of the documentary which made clear that it sets out to dismiss any 9-11 conspiracy theory!

Oh, and - as usual - you avoided answering my question, so here it is again:

Did the Sky documentary back up and produce proof any of your ludicrous claims about missile firing, pod wielding, remote control airplanes and the faked calls?

And how come Sky 'dared' to show the slo-mo footage while Ch4 didn't (or so you claim?). Channel 4 has something of an excellent reputation for investigative reporting, so what are you basing your claims on that they didn't have the nerve to show this clip?

Alas you have got yourself confused again. Unfortunately, the Sky documentary didn't highlight the 'pod', nor did it show the footage slowed down. Because it knocks the official story for six by itself, and it's the cold hard video evidence that we have all seen, yet as Sherlock Holmes might say, not observed.

I am very confident that the Ch4 docco won't show it either, for precisely the same reason - it's too hot! I hope I am wrong - if they do, I wouldn't care about anything else, it would be monumental.

 

[Jazzz]

DrJazzz-believe me, if any serious number of journoes really felt they had this scoop by the short and curlies - solid, knockdown HARD evidence, they would not 'censor' themselves. They'd trample each other to death in the race to publish, and blast it everywhere.
Y'see these bright visions would dance in front of their eyes...pulitzers...hack of the year...frontpage, 64-point caption, byline AND journoes mugshot....instant celeb status...six-fugure salaries...talkshows....book deals....they'd never need to work again!
any self-respecting hack would kill their grans for proof on this one.

I don't believe you, sorry. Neither does a disillusioned (although very successful) journalist friend of mine. Neither does Chomsky.

Journalists are rewarded by being part of the system and being very careful who they are awkward to. There are some good ones, like Pilger. But all are contrained.

 

[Rocket Romano]

Unfortunately, the Sky documentary didn't highlight the 'pod', nor did it show the footage slowed down. Because it knocks the official story for six by itself, and it's the cold hard video evidence that we have all seen, yet as Sherlock Holmes might say, not observed.

I am very confident that the Ch4 docco won't show it either, for precisely the same reason - it's too hot! I hope I am wrong - if they do, I wouldn't care about anything else, it would be monumental.

ROFL

You DON'T want this 'wonderful' documentary to show this 'missile' which would prove everything you've been bitterly whining about for the past god knows how long?!

I'm very confident the channel 4 docco won't show the missile either, since it doesn't actually exist, and we all know how TV network bosses just hate showing material which would bring in, literally RECORD millions of viewers, they just hate that!

You conspiracy nuts are exactly that, nuts!

I like the way you bring Sherlock Holmes into, a fictional character to back up any point you would like to make....how ironic

 

[editor]

I am very confident that the Ch4 docco won't show it either, for precisely the same reason - it's too hot!.

Really? So that's at least two large media corporations 'warned off' showing what would be a ratings-soaring, award-winning, conspiracy revealing piece of 'proof'.

Seeing as Ch4, in particular, has a fine record of investigative journalism, why do you think they got cold feet about showing this 'hot' piece of footage when it is already widely available elsewhere?

But can we now add a long list of media people - researchers, producers, journalists etc - from these two stations to your ever-growing list of people directly or indirectly involved in the greatest conspiracy ever know?

Just out of curiosity, why do you think none of the freelance people involved in this documentary troubled themselves to mention this amazing piece of blatant censorship to their friends, other media outlets etc?

Any idea?

 

[Jazzz]

Can you understand simple sentences RR? I said I DO want the Ch4 documentary to show the missile - or should I say, the slow-motion footage which is claimed to show a missile.

But they won't, trust me...

 

[editor]

I don't believe you, sorry. Neither does a disillusioned (although very successful) journalist friend of mine. Neither does Chomsky.

Journalists are rewarded by being part of the system and being very careful who they are awkward to. There are some good ones, like Pilger. But all are contrained.

Have Chomsky or Pilger written articles in support of your bonkers, pretend planes, faked passenger calls theory yet?

If not, why not?

 

[Rocket Romano]

You yourself have already linked to an advance review of the documentary which made clear that it sets out to dismiss any 9-11 conspiracy theory!



Alas you have got yourself confused again. Unfortunately, the Sky documentary didn't highlight the 'pod', nor did it show the footage slowed down. Because it knocks the official story for six by itself, and it's the cold hard video evidence that we have all seen, yet as Sherlock Holmes might say, not observed.

I am very confident that the Ch4 docco won't show it either, for precisely the same reason - it's too hot! I hope I am wrong - if they do, I wouldn't care about anything else, it would be monumental.

You been listening to these guys again?

 

[editor]

Can you understand simple sentences RR? I said I DO want the Ch4 documentary to show the missile - or should I say, the slow-motion footage which is claimed to show a missile.

Perhaps that'll be because the evidence-free notion of a remotely controlled, missile firing, pretend passenger aircraft that all of Manhattan failed to notice is just too fucking infantile to waste precious airtime on.

 

[Rocket Romano]

Perhaps that'll be because the evidence-free notion of a remotely controlled, missile firing, pretend passenger aircraft that all of Manhattan failed to notice is just too fucking infantile to waste precious airtime on.

I still reckon it was Thunderbird 2

 

[Streathamite]

I don't believe you, sorry. Neither does a disillusioned (although very successful) journalist friend of mine. Neither does Chomsky.

Journalists are rewarded by being part of the system and being very careful who they are awkward to. There are some good ones, like Pilger. But all are contrained.

so errm, EVERY journalist in the world is a tamed govt muppet? NO WAY!!! That's too bizarre to take seriously. if you really believe it - get help. seriously.
because all it would take is ONE journo, ONE editor-out of the total global press community-to get hard facts out. because once one splashed it, they'd all HAVE to follow. like lemmings. that's how press work. That's how newspapers shift copies, and retain reader loyalty.
I can only say that your (self-admittedly limited) negative experience has given youa very, very misleading experience of them, and you need to find out more about their world.
One final thing - you're forgetting one leetle other truth.
There are two activities that hacks are really really world class at - Drinking and Gossiping. and they tend to do so with each other, their world is ever incestuous. I drink with Guardian journoes near to my office. If their was owt in this - they'd piss-and-tell, as it were. The story would be on every pissed hack's lips from here to Sydney

 

[Jazzz]

Perhaps that'll be because the evidence-free notion of a remotely controlled, missile firing, pretend passenger aircraft that all of Manhattan failed to notice is just too fucking infantile to waste precious airtime on.

The many video records of flight 175 crashing into the South Tower must count as evidence. It's just about the hardest evidence we have of anything that happened on the day.

I suspect the documentary will be more than keen to mention the theories of fly-by-wire passenger-less drones. However, they won't dare show the slo-mo...

 

[Jazzz]

Red Jezza

Ellen Mariani is a 9-11 widow who is suing George Bush for her husband's death. That in itself is extremely newsworthy, no? Yet, despite sending out over 3500 press releases, not a single newspaper worldwide has mentioned her! Perhaps you could explain why not?

 

[editor]

I suspect the documentary will be more than keen to mention the theories of fly-by-wire passenger-less drones. However, they won't dare show the slo-mo...

So who's silencing them all, DrJ?

 

[Jazzz]

the Ch4 documentary is not setting out to promote a 9-11 conspiracy theory, so why would they show the slow-motion footage? You think they are going to be fair?

 

[Loki]

So who's silencing them all, DrJ?

I'd like to know how they're silencing Aljazeera and a couple of Indonesian news websites I checked.

 

[editor]

Ellen Mariani is a 9-11 widow who is suing George Bush for her husband's death. That in itself is extremely newsworthy, no? Yet, despite sending out over 3500 press releases, not a single newspaper worldwide has mentioned her! Perhaps you could explain why not?

I don't know why I fucking bother, I really don't:

N.H. widow waiting for answers from Sept. 11 attacks (Boston Globe).
Sept. 11 widow sues the President (Philadelphia Enquirer

Where do you get this shit from?
Why do you keep on posting up these fucking lies and filling these boards up with ill-informed horseshit, DrJ? Why don't you check first before making yourself look like such a clueless idiot?

I'm really running out of patience with your antics.

 

[g force]

Red Jezza

Ellen Mariani is a 9-11 widow who is suing George Bush for her husband's death. That in itself is extremely newsworthy, no? Yet, despite sending out over 3500 press releases, not a single newspaper worldwide has mentioned her! Perhaps you could explain why not?

Becuase it's not really news is it? It's not newsworthy. So an american is suing somone...big deal. Does she have a chance of winning. No. Not a very good story is it?

Is she suing the arhcitects for not producing a building tha could withstand these attacks. No, she isn't. Because she couldn't possibly win, so she's gone for the high profile catch

I feel sorry for her losing her husband in a tragic and violent manner but really that's not going to do anything is it. Lots of people lost loved ones, but they're not all trying to sue people for it.

edit: oh so he's made it up anyhow....even less newsworthy.

 

[Jazzz]

I do apologise, I wasn't aware of those two regional newpaper articles.

The Ellen Mariani story is dynamite and should be all over TV networks! She turned down around $1 million in compensation to retain the right to sue. Yet there has been an (almost) complete media blackout over her.

Widow's Bush Treason Suit Vanishes in Blink of Media Eye



"The decision 'not to do the story' appears to be multiplying all over the nation." -- Fred Powledge, ACLU


Red Jezza - if a 9-11 widow can't get a 9-11 conspiracy theory on the news, exactly who do you propose could? An ordinary journo?

 

[Streathamite]

Red Jezza

Ellen Mariani is a 9-11 widow who is suing George Bush for her husband's death. That in itself is extremely newsworthy, no? Yet, despite sending out over 3500 press releases, not a single newspaper worldwide has mentioned her! Perhaps you could explain why not?

<sigh>
1. in a culture and society as legalistic as the USA, there are a huge amounts of lawsuits going on at any one time - it's how business etc gets done.
2. the chances of that lawsuit - RICO or no - making the jump from file No. P/741369/RT etc (or whatever) to Dubya testifying under oath (or, more importantly, Mariani doing so) are virtually zero, even more so than most private citizen's case. There is also no US equivalent of the concept of the 'vexatious litigant' and it is harder for judges to simply chuck a case out on the spot, IIRC.
3. the demand for news space in the US press is always far greater than the space available, so there is a constant assessment, a hard call, of what is and isn't a story.
therefore, the newsworthiness of ONE lawsuit that is NOWHERE near conclusion, in a country swimming of them, and which seems to me to be unaccompanied by a rousing chorus of support from the survivors or the bereaved of the other 3000+ odd victims, can reasonably be deemed to be slight.
sorry - that ain't a story, or not enough of one until SHE does what you've not done - slapped down hard evidence.
in the US, anyone can sue anyone...
and print ain't the only media - it is, for instance on GovExec.com - a leading, reputable b2b site for state/federal govt organisations and personnel.
put in context; that's like getting on Parly Journal's website, or The House , or municipal Journal .
Interesting that she's suing, but nowhere near enough yet

 

[Streathamite]

Red Jezza - if a 9-11 widow can't get a 9-11 conspiracy theory on the news, exactly who do you propose could? An ordinary journo?

I would tend to argue that News media personnel would probably have a greater inkling of how to manipulate news media than a woman who'd never been near them, yes.
and this story is NOT dynamite - yet. it's a long way from that. If it ends up exploding, I'll put my hands up.
Mariani has basically cleared fence one in a long steeplechase
finally one other reason why not; only a handful of US papers are truly National in scope - NYT, Wash-Post, Chicago herald-trib,. LA Times etc. for all other papers (other than Mrs Mariani's hometown one) this ain't a story - the culture is that that's Elsewhere's Problem. you would not believe how bloody parochial the Yank press is.

 

[Loki]

<sigh>
1. in a culture and society as legalistic as the USA, there are a huge amounts of lawsuits going on at any one time - it's how business etc gets done.

My mate's Dad got sued by his neighbours because their (tiny) dog took a nip at their legs. When he explained he didn't have insurance they abandoned the lawsuit. Americans sue eachother all the time.

 

[Jazzz]

Nonsense, the Ellen Mariani story is quite big enough by itself, whatever the evidence. Unlike Shoedinger, who sued George Bush for rape, Ellen Mariani cannot be dismissed as a crank.

The points she has made are well backed up by evidence and there is plenty to suggest that Bush & Co. ignored intelligence warnings knowing an attack was coming.

No, I'm afraid the reason that major media has completely ignored Ellen Mariani is that they are censoring something that is just too hot.

 

[Loki]

No, I'm afraid the reason that major media has completely ignored Ellen Mariani is that they are censoring something that is just too hot.

Even Aljazeera and the Indonesian news agencies I checked out?

 

[editor]

I do apologise, I wasn't aware of those two regional newpaper articles.

This perfectly sums up why I've had enough of your antics here.

You keep on posting wild claims as fact without even bothering to do the most preliminary of research and it's fucking annoying and disruptive.

Why are you so incapable of checking your facts before you declare them to be the truth?

It took me less than a minute to find those two links, so what makes you think you can keep on posting up your lies and ill-researched bullshit here? You're just taking the piss.

FYI, those 'regional' papers enjoy a readership in the millions and are amongst the biggest sellers in the US