Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

WTC Attack - Just another one for the conspiracy theorists or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now we can argue all you want about remote controlled aircraft but it's my opinion that Dr Jazz is currently experiencing a pretty big dose of foot IN mouth syndrome thanks to his desperate clutching at straws. So let us just assume for arguments sake that in the pre-9/11 US there were no stringent passenger checks, pilots and passengers had been continually advised to comply with hijackers (remember most hijackers, especially islamic ones up to this point in time had only flown these planes around a bit, maybe landing them in a safe country, to make a point; no one had ever used one as a flying bomb), and that in most of the planes there is overwhelming evidence from passenger's phonecalls that some of the cabin crew were bleeding to death on the floor from cuts to the jugular performed with the razor sharp box cutters.

The hijackers take control of the plane and order all the passengers to the back claiming they'll kill as many as it takes. A threat that is to be taken seriously with an air stewardess drenched in her own blood at your feet.

They turn off the transponder and radio and then follow a flight plane they have practised many times before on the simulator at their flight school. The normally lax and previously totally uncalled for FAA are caught on the hop.

It's early in the morning, public flights have only been up and running for a couple of hours and decision making skills are still a bit rusty just after the first coffee of the day. No one thinks it is anything more than a systems fault on board the aircraft, admittedly a bad scenario but not the sort of nightmare scenario that would merit giving the air guard a ring. A few minutes later a second plane disappears. Is it their system failing? This is unprecedented? What's the fuck is going on?

A few minutes later there are initial reports of a light aircraft flying into the WTC. It takes a quite a few more minutes before people start piecing it all together to theorise that something that was previously outside of the realm of possiblity and experience is about to happen. About then the second plane hits the WTC. 2 more go missing soon after as the majority focus on NYC.

It is only about now, and far too late in the case of the other two planes, that the emergency systems in the skies grind into action as the nation is in a state of total shock.

Everything else that happened on that day is history. I've established a motive and a context that are pretty clear cut and very plausible. What makes it more plausible is the following.

Osama, overjoyed at his success, realises that they know he's most probably in Afghanistan and that most probably they'll come after him, so he cuts loose happy in the knowledge that a-q's unique cell system that is devoid of hierarchy will protect agents in the field and that even after he has closed down his training camps there will still be cells he can get money to who may have been 'sleeping' for several years and waiting to be activated by a bank draft.

Al-qaeda subsequently stay relatively quiet for a year and a half. Why? Because their normal channels of funding, the false businesses, the dodgy bank accounts, and the huge money transfers have all been seized by the US government. Funding stops and the terror stops.

But there are still rich Saudis and Kuwaiti extremeists who would like nothing more than to fund a mission by the mujhadin. Theyir bank accounts are seemingly limitless and their desire to be a 'good' muslim intense, they will try and get money through regardless. After being dispersed by the Afghan raids for some time, the a-q finance crew reunite (probably somewhere in S.E. Asia) and start to reconstruct the lines of finance that will reactivate long dormant cells.

They undergo a necessary change of strategy as well. The training camps having been demolished, they need to make use of other previously ignored islamic militants who are not necessarily arabic. Hence the Bali bombing where one a-q operative seems to have liased with the local Islamic extremeist group and given them funding for their initially small scale car bombing. At a stroke a-q has transformed a tightly organised and dedicated small scale statment by foreign (as in non-arab) fundamentalists into a far larger bombing that will inflict a serious blow to the most obvious representative of the crusader empire in that region (australia).

Bush and co lose sight of the prize as their well documented PNAC-driven obsession with Iraq takes over. Dick Clarke has testified recently that they were looking for any link they could from saddam to a-q to justify an invasion of Iraq. In the build up to war the majority of the big european powers wisely back out of the coalition (france, germany, italy, russia etc..). Only those countries left with bush sympathetic usually right wing governments remain (aznar=spain, blair=britain), as well as a few E.european stragglers looking for a big break to be the US's new best friend.

At about this point Turkey too backs out fearing internal islamic reprisals for aiding an invasion of a fellow islamic country. It is not enough to save them from bombs.

In the run up to war Bush, Blair, and Aznar (THE ONLY LEADERS TO COMMITT COMBAT TROOPS TO THE GROUND FOR THE ACTUAL INVASION AND COMBAT IN IRAQ) meet in the azores on 16 March 2003 to underline the deadline for Iraq to surrender WMD's as being the next day. They stand around doing photo ops and looking gormless. These are the pictures broadcast aroung the world of the core of the 'crusader alliance', the ones that must be punished at any cost to gain revenge for the insult of having the great satans' armies trundle over islamic lands; or at least that's how OBL sees it.

And now we can bring us up to date via the autumn Istanbul. A cunning target this one as the istanbul cell gets the green light to blow up the British embassy there ensuring the death of some 'wavering' turks and the death of officials of one of the great satans who dared to invade iraq.

As Iraq turns into a bloodbath, and given the immensly heightened security in Britain and America it is a relatively natural choice to go for Spain next. By attacking the newest member of the alliance A-Q can hope to isolate Britain and America as well as sending out a message to all would be allies of the US in the middle east. On top of all that it has an interesting historical context what with Al-Andalus (modern Spain) and Grenada being the home of one of the greatest expressions of Islamic power and culture ever: the last Umayyad caliphate from 750 AD to around 1100 AD. It is coherent with the al-qaeda anti-crusading discourse that worships the glories of the great caliphates.

And only just in the last few days we have what looks like another bombing attempt foiled in and around London. For me the evidence is overwhelming and the context indisputable so that any conclusion that 9/11 wasn't al-qaeda's work is pretty absurd.

I missed out a whole area of my argument that I previously posted midway through the fourth page of this thread and that MUST be considered if the above argument is to be considered whole. But then again even though I made it as concise and lucid as possible I'll be really surprised if anyone can be arsed to trudge through that.
 
fela fan said:
3. So what's the telephone number of these phones then? Someone called the plane phone to warn them that two planes had crashed into the WTC towers? Why did they call that particular plane?
Good grief. Are you really this stupid? People use those phones all the time, regardless of whether a plane is being hijacked or not. People don't have to ring the the planes up: passengers can make the calls themselves, so there's no need to know "the phone number of the plane".

So why are you having such immense trouble comprehending the stunningly obvious fact that whoever they called on the ground would have immediately told them about the greatest news story of the 21st Century taking place?

If I'm using 'emotive language; it's out of sheer exasperation. Unless you can produce a plausible answer to how wives, husbands and family members were supposedly completely fooled by a crack team of CIA Mike Yarwoods claiming to be their loved ones your theories remain the work of fantasy - just like DrJazzz's ridiculous 1994 'remote controlled planes'.
 
fela fan said:
How come the first plane to hit the WTC towers was being filmed by tv cameras?

In a city like NYC and especially on the bustling high rise island of manhattan, and considering that the WTC was a huge tourist attraction, and given that the footage of the first plane crashing comes from camcorders in the street, I do not think it is inconceiveable that there may have been not just one but numerous camcorders trained on the city's modern trademark.

fela fan said:
How come one of the hijacker’s passports was found in amongst all the rubble, totally unsinged. How did it fly out of someone’s bag, out of a plane window, avoid getting burnt – all on impact mind – and then managed to deposit itself nicely on the ground, while not getting itself buried by all the ash and rubble?

This I admit is initially surprising but when one considers the amount of variables at play here with 2 large commercial jetliners flying into 2 huge buildings, it is not inconceivable that some things will have been thrown clear of the fire by the explosion.

fela fan said:
How come how-to-fly manuals were found in one of the hijacker’s hire cars (itself found very quickly)? One would have thought that executing such precise flying manouevres using very skilled airmanship would have been done by a pilot not in need of a spot of last minute revision.

If my memory serves me correctly they were not how-to-fly manuals but were actual full-blown manuals for the aircraft they were about to hijack. My guess is that there were giving them one last scan to memorise what all the different controls do so as not to undermine their extensive training by flicking the wrong switch, a bit like swotting up at the last minute for a big exam while you're standing outside the exam room.

fela fan said:
How did the passengers on the plane where mobile calls were being made from learn of the fate of the WTC planes? How come hijackers allowed them to walk to the back of the plane to use the plane phones?

The hijackers did not know that they were making the calls. The in-plane phones on the back of the seats of AA are easy to conceal the use of from anyone standing towards the front or in the aisles. The hijackers ordered them to the back, but not to use the phones, merely to make sure they had total control of the cockpit and the surrounding area.

As for how did they now about the WTC impacts. Well if you're ringing your loved one secretly from a hijacked plane and she/he has just seen 15-20 minutes or so earlier two hijacked commercial planes slam into the WTC do you think that it might slip their mind to inform the person on the line in the hijacked plane?

fela fan said:
How come that on the morning of the attacks Bush was for the first time, and never since, in a school classroom, before 9am, reading children’s stories. What time do classes start in the US? And why was he doing such a thing when there was no election in sight. Kissing babies and the like is only done when votes are needed.

This is just simply wrong. You haven't done any research on this have you? Do you know how I know? It's because I just looked up 'bush school visit' on google and got reams of information about various school visits bush has done. It appears that this is a relatively frequently used way of Bush trying to get new policy messages across in a 'kind and caring' way. Here's quotes from the first 2 matches I got:

'President Bush fears Americans missed the news about the federal education reforms he signed into law earlier this year, so he'll visit a Southfield elementary school Monday to trumpet them.' (Detroit News 2002)

'After reading the Beacon article on presidential candidate George W. Bush's visit to South Doyle Middle School, I feel it is only right to let people know what happened, and to let others know the disappointment and harm he caused the students.' (A teacher writing to the editor of the daily beacon, october 2000)

fela fan said:
How come for the first time after a plane crashed, the black boxes weren’t found?.

This is a fallacy. You cannot conclusivley state that the black boxes weren't found seeing as they are still searching through the wreckage.

fela fan said:
How come the only superpower in the world, with the biggest funds available for intelligence and military, and who had such extenstive security and repsonse systems in place, managed to display such overwhelming incompetence?

This is what the 9/11 commission is about. It can mainly be put down to complacency and the fact that none of the american intelligence services had convincing enough recruits to go undercover and infiltrate al-qaeda, it generally speaking being too hard to glean information from on the outside.

fela fan said:
OBL stated his desire to have american troops out of Saudi. So why after he apparantly carried out the 911 attacks, did the USG cave into terrorism, and obligingly withdraw the troops??

This is a question of oil politics. Saudi Arabia is one of the strangest countries in the world. It has a gdp per capita of around 7000 dollars a year (the same as a poor e.european country), which is a reflection of the fact that the majority live in poverty while there is still a very small super rich minority. The country is ripe for rebellion and internal strife, something that would cut off oil supplies for a while and skyrocket the international oil price probably causing a very damaging recession in the US. Post 9/11 it just became too dangerous to have troops in the country considering the amount of hostility towards them from the oppressed locals. They were considered to be a liability that might just spark rebellion among the great unwashed masses of islamic extremeists, or at least that was the stereotyped thinking of the White House.
 
agh!! must remember not to talk to nutters!!agh!! must remember not to talk to nutters!!agh!! must remember not to talk to nutters!!
 
Diamond said:
OK fela fan I promised you a response so you've got one whether you can be arsed to read it or not. Here's about as comprehensive an argument as I can work out that includes 9/11, the african bombings before it, the istanbul and bali bombings after it, and the recent madrid bombings.

...

The Sudanese were pressured by Clinton's administration to get rid of OBL so they did. OBL had been preparing for this though and had already identified Afghanistan and the backward but well meaning, in his eyes, Taliban enclave as an ideal fortress from which to plan his next wave of strikes. He funded a whole new group of training camps to be built deep in the valleys that he had got to know so well when fighting the Soviets from Tora Bora.

These new recruits had plenty of time to train and receive instructions to assemble in cells, evaluate a list of targets within their designated area, briefly propose their plan, receive the money, and then wait to launch the most spectacular and lethal strike they could dream up.

Yeah, that's comprehensive, and i've not read the more to come bit yet.

Why the flippancy in your first sentence?! I've already told you i've liked reading your posts coz they help me understand and articulate and solidify better my view towards 911. Coz ultimately i remain flexible about what happened, even though i have big suspicions.

As for the next bit i've quoted you on, that is not my memory of what happened at all (and i don't google, i don't look for links to back up what i say; i simply have my suspicions, air them, and listen to others' ideas, that's all i'm on these threads for. Oh, and because if it was the americans, then that will shape the 21st century like nothing else in modern history - and in my book for the great benefit of mankind. So if you like, i WANT it to be the US elites behind it!).

No, i definitely read that the Sudanese had OBL, and they told the US of this and offered to hand him over. The US refused. Sudan got rid of him anyway. I'm sure my memory's correct over this, but i don't remember where i read this. When i read anything, i always apply a 'credibility/believability' rating, and due to this sticking in my memory, i must have given it quite a high rating.

Where does OBL get all his massive amounts of money to fund his reactionaries?

But anyway, i don't dismiss what you have said in this post. Credible, apart from the Sudan bit... bring on the rest of it...
 
fela fan said:
Yeah, that's comprehensive, and i've not read the more to come bit yet.

Why the flippancy in your first sentence?! I've already told you i've liked reading your posts coz they help me understand and articulate and solidify better my view towards 911. Coz ultimately i remain flexible about what happened, even though i have big suspicions.

As for the next bit i've quoted you on, that is not my memory of what happened at all (and i don't google, i don't look for links to back up what i say; i simply have my suspicions, air them, and listen to others' ideas, that's all i'm on these threads for. Oh, and because if it was the americans, then that will shape the 21st century like nothing else in modern history - and in my book for the great benefit of mankind. So if you like, i WANT it to be the US elites behind it!).

No, i definitely read that the Sudanese had OBL, and they told the US of this and offered to hand him over. The US refused. Sudan got rid of him anyway. I'm sure my memory's correct over this, but i don't remember where i read this. When i read anything, i always apply a 'credibility/believability' rating, and due to this sticking in my memory, i must have given it quite a high rating.

Where does OBL get all his massive amounts of money to fund his reactionaries?

But anyway, i don't dismiss what you have said in this post. Credible, apart from the Sudan bit... bring on the rest of it...

Yeah that rings bells for me as welll. I'm not entirely sure that the Sudanese had him in custody or whether they could have got him very quickly and very easily, but that's a moot point. There were numerous situations when Clinton received phone calls from the CIA saying that assassins had OBL in their sights and were waiting for authorisation, but every time Clinton dithered mainly because it would have been unconstitutional, I think, and also because that was the nature of Clinton's foreign policy; he wasn't really an appeaser but he definitely preferred sweeping problems under the carpet and hoping they'd go away than confronting them head on.
 
Diamond said:
I missed out a whole area of my argument that I previously posted midway through the fourth page of this thread and that MUST be considered if the above argument is to be considered whole. But then again even though I made it as concise and lucid as possible I'll be really surprised if anyone can be arsed to trudge through that.

It was certainly long mate, but i did trudge through it!

What to say in reply though? Perhaps too long to get hold of a satisfactory reply.

Save to say it's all very plausible the way you put it, except that bit about the hijackers getting all the passengers to the of the plane. Could they all fit into such a small space?

But it's not convincing enough to take me away from my suspicions that the US had more to gain from the attacks, and it doesn't answer any of the questions i posed not long before your two posts.

I remain deeply suspicious of the USG version, but i'm still open minded about it all. Good argument though, and it helps keep my mind open.

I give you a load of kudos for explaining your theories rather than just ripping into 'conspiracy theorists' with loads of pathetic emotive language.

But, so far, all of us are just being subjective aren't we?? COZ WE JUST DON'T KNOW.
 
editor said:
Good grief. Are you really this stupid? People use those phones all the time, regardless of whether a plane is being hijacked or not. People don't have to ring the the planes up: passengers can make the calls themselves, so there's no need to know "the phone number of the plane".

So why are you having such immense trouble comprehending the stunningly obvious fact that whoever they called on the ground would have immediately told them about the greatest news story of the 21st Century taking place?

If I'm using 'emotive language; it's out of sheer exasperation. Unless you can produce a plausible answer to how wives, husbands and family members were supposedly completely fooled by a crack team of CIA Mike Yarwoods claiming to be their loved ones your theories remain the work of fantasy - just like DrJazzz's ridiculous 1994 'remote controlled planes'.

Just come back from my dinner, taking each post as it comes.

If you want me to be stupid, then i am.

I have made many plane journeys (although not transatlantic ones) and have NEVER seen people making phone calls at the back of the plane. I only see folk queuing for the loo.

You get exasperated? Have you considered that those with opposite views to yours might get similarly exasperated? And that they don't resort to such emotive language which usually tells posters how 'stupid' they are for having their opinions? And how the 'stunningly obvious' just isn't obvious to them?

You keep sticking to your Mike Yarwood theme on this thread. Why not have a stab at answering some of my questions on the previous page? I've already told you i can't explain these phone calls.

It will get you or no-one anywhere by calling those who hold similar suspicions to myself stupid and 'conspiracy theorists'. It just avoids debate mate.
 
Diamond, thanks for tackling the answers to my questions.

And look man, I JUST DON'T FUCKING KNOW WHAT TO THINK!!

I know it's possible the way you paint it all.

But i also know i am deeply suspicious of US elites, and how they've gained so much from the attacks.

I don't know, and the only reason i care so much is that i want it to be the US elites, coz i know how deeply murderous they are, thanks to the ignorance/appeasement of the US electorate at large.

And if it came out in public that they organised it, seismic shifts in american foreign policy would have to occur.

I just want those fuckers to stop fucking up the world. Them becoming known for 911 would do just that.

I've spent 20 adult years raging on about the USGs and their abominations around the world, and i know if it comes out they did 911, then that will stop.

I am very close to not giving any more flying fucks about any of all this crap. One morning i will wake up and bow out. I feel it coming on soon...
 
fela fan said:
And that's exactly it, planes just do not crash into huge buildings in the middle of huge cities. It's not really accident stuff.

You might be shocked to find out it is not as uncommon as you think. The Empire State building alone has been hit several times. Once by a military bomber ... I think a B-17. Almost all were accidents of one kind or another. One was a suicide.

I'm not sure how to look this stuff up but I'm betting somebody on here can do it.

The Old Sarge
 
Diamond said:
Yes but if every time a plane's transponder fails (that's not radio contact remember, that's the beacon to the radar system) when it was flying over the US (where internal flights used to be like getting a bus pre-9/11) the authorities responded by shooting it down it would be carnage in the skies.

This is one of the deliberate distortions that the Cheney et. al. came out with soon after 9-11. You do not have to have authority to down the plane in order to scramble interceptors and 'escort' the distressed aircraft! The latter is the routine occurrence whenever something goes amiss. It allows the jets to make a physical presence, look inside the cockpit, and communicate by signals such as rocking wing tips. Any hijackers are obviously going to become more compliant when they have jets swarming around them that could shoot them down as a last resort. And if you are going to ultimately have to shoot them down you must first get the jets up there and it makes perfect sense to do that as early as possible.

A good example of this is Payne Stewart's Lear Jet - there was no reason to suspect it was hijacked - but after is missed a fix jets were scrambled and were around the plane in 18 minutes. It happened many other times before 9-11 (eg 127 times in the year 2000).

Consider the following quotes;

"Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button. They’ll call the plane, saying 'American 11, you’re deviating from course.' It’s considered a real emergency, like a police car screeching down a highway at 100 miles an hour. When golfer Payne Stewart’s incapacitated Learjet missed a turn at a fix, heading north instead of west to Texas, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched." [MSNBC, 9/12/01]

The commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force, Anatoli Kornukov, says the day after 9/11: "Generally it is impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday.... As soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up." [Pravda, 9/12/01]


more on interception

And as people have remarked on this thread, the possibility of aircraft flying into buildings was well known, and it begs the question why they tried to pretend that no-one could have possibly foreseen it prior to 9-11...
 
DrJazzz said:
And as people have remarked on this thread, the possibility of aircraft flying into buildings was well known, and it begs the question why they tried to pretend that no-one could have possibly foreseen it prior to 9-11...
Ah, the power of hindsight, eh?

Did you 'foresee' this unique, never-before-done, unexpected, first time ever attack happening then?

Just like the Spanish Inquisition, no one expected what happened on that day. Not even Joe Vialls.
 
God you can be such an arrogant poster. And so wrong, too, editor.

The possibility of jets being hijacked and used as suicide bomb was indeed well known prior to 9-11.
 
DrJazzz said:
God you can be such an arrogant poster. And so wrong, too, editor.

The possibility of jets being hijacked and used as suicide bomb was indeed well known prior to 9-11.
Yes. So?

And when it comes to being wrong, you hold the crown round these parts, fella!

You were wrong about the 1994 plane being flown "by remote control"
You were wrong about Robolander technology already being in existence
You were wrong about the significance of red headscarves on the hijackers
You were wrong about Huntely being proved "innocent"
You were wrong about the USG covering up the Soham murders
You were wrong about Huntley's defence team being "nobbled"

I could go on and on and on......
 
Diamond said:
1. You totally ignore the possiblity that the USG might have found it easier to kill a whole swathe of their troops stationed around the world. Do you have any idea what that would do to public opinion back in the US. They'd go fucking ballistic. Our boys being blown up by towelheads etc... the US is an incredibly militaristic country whose identity is interwoven with their military. It could have been so much easier than causing NYC billions of dollars worth of damage.

Let's face it Diamond, you're a dissembling hysteric. I've demolished your primary assertion that the same shift in American public opinion could have been "fulfilled" through attacking the civilian assets of an ally, but for some perfectly fathomable reason concerned with your inner need to present yourself as infallible you just can't bring yourself to accept the blindingly obvious. Now you claim that I've "totally ignore[d] the possiblity that the USG might have found it easier to kill a whole swathe of their troops stationed around the world"!!

Forgive me, but by drawing our attention to this recently refurbished secondary point, aren't you attempting to "totally ignore" the fact that your primary assertion has been completely demolished?


2. I've been reading PNAC's website for years and the suggestion that they published articles calling for a terrorist attack to steel the US public's resolve for the next period of imperial expansion is patently absurd.

Yes, that is patently absurd Diamond, but then I didn't suggest it... you did! It's just another cheap demonstration of your unprincipled duplicity if you don't mind me saying so. I mentioned the now infamous PNAC document, that is I mentioned only a single document. Interestingly, you have managed to somehow twist this statement into a "suggestion that they [PNAC] published articles calling for a terrorist attack"! Incredible pap Diamond.. a real cheesburger fabrication.

My actual words were: what happened [on 9/11] more or less fitted the requirement spelled out in the now infamous PNAC document.

And here is the relevant passage from that infamous document:

"Further, the process of transformations, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

In other words, in order for the tempo of "the process of transformations" to increase: then "some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor" would be required.

I think it's safe to say that the September 11 attacks mirror perfectly the requirement spelled out in the PNAC document. Indeed, one could almost be described as being the analogue of the other.


3. The Dotcom bubble burst a year and a half before 9/11. America's economy was just starting to recover and the Enron scandal had yet to explode the culture of book cooking and corporate greed among top US companies. In fact a careful reading of the scandal shows that 9/11 preceded Enron's collapse by a month, and it was to be at least a year until the true crisis was revealed. The US economy was healthy at the time and there were frequent predictions of a new bull run.

Healthy?

I think you must be hallucinating. The bursting of the stock market bubble wiped $10 trillion of the value of US equities in the year up to April 2001. The bubble was the rude child of a "deregulated" stock market within which a culture of corporate criminality was able to spread and fester unchecked. This culture went on to spawn the subsequent collapse of the giant energy trader Enron in December 2001, an event that was quickly followed by a string of other corporate bankruptcies. Those corporate fat cats at the top could see the writing on the wall and new what was coming.

From this it would not be unreasonable to characterize the entire period beginning from the stock market collapse and passing through up to the present as a period of "reactionary economic slump". What you describe as a possible consequence supposedly mitigating against a self-inflicted attack, was actually a fact of American life at the time of the attack.


4. I have read Dick Clarke's testimony and it doesn't go anywhere near corroborating your story. In fact it contradicts it to the extent that you have to put caveat after caveat into your justification that it is useful evidence for your argument:

I know, rather than quote my own words back at me, as if they constitute some kind of 'proof' that establishes your case, why don't you actually make an effort to prove your accusations in your own words?


I mean 'selectively assembling his material in a particular way', why don't you just say that he's not actually presenting information that supports your argument?

Because he is presenting information that does support my argument Mr Diamond sir... and not only in his testimony before the commission, but in his book and media appearances too. My argument has always been that a national security stand down had to be in force in order to facilitate the 9/11 attacks. Clarke now tells us that he "finds it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he’s done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11.

So, here we have the former Special Adviser to the President of the United States on Counter-Terrorism telling the whole world that his then boss the current President "ignored" the threat of terrorism for months! Incredible isn't it?


They had a strong, confessed, and well reported desire to break from the last administration in as many ways as possible, and this was one of them.

If that's true, then what force kept Clarke on in his post when Bush took over the White House, he was appointed by Clinton remember?

In any event, his position was not dismantled nor was he fired and replaced. Looking back we can now see that he certainly wasn't considered 'safe' enough to be brought "inside" by the dominant faction. Instead, he was uncoupled from Cabinet and kept out of the highest folds of the administration even though his position demanded his integration. Effectively, he was frozen out of the primary intelligence loops... CIA and FBI reports of AL-Q operatives entering the country in early 2001 never reached him. Nor was he informed in August 2001 of the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui an alleged Al Qaeda member who was detained after seeking pilot training from a Minnesota flight school. Isn't it a amazing! the White House head honcho on counter-terrorism was prevented from doing his job effectively by being starved of crucial intelligence reports upon which he could have developed a strategy capable of thwarting the attacks.


Futhermore he goes onto say that, having placed terrorism far lower on the agenda than Clinton, when they were caught on the hop by 9/11 Rumsfeld, Wolfie, Bush et al immediatly started looking for ways to use it as a justification for war on Iraq.

Clarke also reveals in his book that despite repeated requests to brief Cabinet officials of the dangers of an Al-Q terror attack unfolding on US soil, Rice kept him waiting in the corridors for months. When finally he did get to brief a meeting of Cabinet deputies in April 2001 the Pentagons Paul Wolfowitz dismissed bin Laden as “a little guy” and much less of a threat to America than the terrorism supposedly being sponsored by Saddam Hussein. This was 5 months before the attack not immediately after it.


If anything a non-paranoid, not reading between the lines assessment of Dick Clarke's under oath testimony, his subsequent unschackled interviews, and a scan of his book will damn your argument more strongly than anyone else can, precisely because it is a relatively accurate account of what actually went on in the white house during that historic period.

And just to finish off old Diamond—twister of words and fabricator of sentences—unleashes the inverted paranoia projection slander. This makes it look like he's not the one here who is actually paranoid, or at least that's the theory. But if he's not paranoid, why then does he go to the extraordinary trouble of twisting and fabricating the words of his opponents?

Is it:

A. He's a paranoid.
B. He's a fraud.
C. He's a charlatan.

Answers on a post card to:

Spud-Cheese Twister of the Week Competition
BBC World Service
Bush House
London
WC1

Note: For a more detailed understanding of the techniques and methods employed by boloney boilers like Diamond read this.
 
editor said:
Yes. So?

And when it comes to being wrong, you hold the crown round these parts, fella!
...

So you admit that your previous post was erroneous. Not in particularly decent fashion.

Out of several thousand posts you list somethings where I have admitted to being mistaken - I've done so with good grace wherever applicable unlike other posters. The first one however is an irrelevant quibble and I don't consider myself wrong in the slightest. The second I wasn't wrong either, as I never claimed that a finished 'Robolander' existed either now or on 2001. The last three on your list are all Huntley and only one of those is a point of fact. I don't think you could go on and on...
 
DrJazzz said:
The first one however is an irrelevant quibble and I don't consider myself wrong in the slightest.
Hey, if you want to float about in your 'alternative reality' bubble convinced that an 'auto pilot' is exactly the same as 'remote control' that's entirely up to you.

Really.

Just like no one's stopping you believing in invisible, untraceable experts posting on invisible, untraceable bulletin boards or believing in 'amazing' law-breaking, low-flying aircraft that remain invisible to everyone on Long Island in the rush hour apart from two invisible, untraceable 'eyewitnesses'.

And heck, if you want to believe that the CIA has a crack squadron of Mike Yarwoods on hand to fool stupid relatives with faked phone calls, that's your choice.

Just don't complain when people have trouble taking you seriously.
 
bigfish said:
Note: For a more detailed understanding of the techniques and methods employed by boloney boilers like Diamond read this.
While you're on that site you can read all about the "less-than-benevolent interference in human affairs by extraterrestrials" and learn that all wars are due to them pesky interferrin' aliens!

So we have to blame UFOs for the Iraq war!

Bonkers drivel for the terminally gullible.
 
DrJazzz said:
Out of several thousand posts you list somethings where I have admitted to being mistaken - I've done so with good grace wherever applicable unlike other posters.

I can't recall you backing down in your conspiracy threads. Did you apologise in the "Huntley is innocent!" thread?
 
At least diamond posted up his theories about what happened.

Unlike many who just point hysterical fingers saying 'wrong' over and over. Or 'nutter', or all those other epithets they like to use to slander the characters of truth-seekers.

While postulating nothing of their own ideas, save to say that they accept the USG version coz they just think the USG was simply 'incompetent' that day. Perhaps they are truth-avoiders.

But when it comes to bigfish's considered reply to diamond's synopsis, it seems to rebut every point. It is easily the most lucid of all accounts on these threads. It helps me (a non-reseracher due to general laziness) get back on board to my general instinctive beliefs that the USG had this whole thing organsised.

It is noticeable that those who shout 'conspiracy theorist' most usually resort to emotive language, using their piqued emotions to drive their posts on these 911 threads. Often they use quite slanderous (not in a legal/lawsuit sense) language to denigrate their quarry.

While those who question the official version (one of the most unbelievable chain of events i've ever heard), tend to use much more considered language, and argue their points with politeness.

Occasionally complete exasperation can prod somewhat more, er... descriptive language from the 'conspiracy theorists', but i for one can certainly understand why.
 
fela fan said:
It is noticeable that those who shout 'conspiracy theorist' most usually resort to emotive language, using their piqued emotions to drive their posts on these 911 threads. Often they use quite slanderous (not in a legal/lawsuit sense) language to denigrate their quarry.
Right. You mean like DrJ posting up a pack of deeply offensive anti-American lies declaring a double child murdering paedophile completely innocent of all crimes and the victim of an evil conspiracy and your current equally offensive suggestion that those people who called from the doomed 9/11 flight were such gibbering wrecks of hysteria that their voices would be easy to fake.

Or how about the suggestion that conspiracy fans knew better than Dr Kelly's own family? They're grieving over the loss of their loved one while clueless conspiracy fuckspuds are exploiting the tragic tale to cook up another flight of fact-free fancy.

If you can't see why such insulting offensive bullshit gains an angry reaction, then I suggest you think harder about the ill-informed clueless slabs of wild conjecture that are continually being posted up here.
 
The reason why TV cameras caught the first plane flying into the WTC. Was that a French film crew, two brothers, were filming a documentary about a probationary New York firefighter. The film crew were with the firefighter, who was based on Manhattan near the WTC, filming a suspect gas leak in the road when they heard the roar of jet plane engines, looked up & filmed the plane crashing into the WTC. This documentary film was shown on British TV exactly a year after 9/11. It was a very powerful piece of film making, showing the heroics of the NYFD. Most horrific was the sound of the bodies crashing to the ground as they jumped from the towers.
 
`Wrong` `Nutters` and may i add `naive` `simplistic` `obsessive` `deluded` and `infrared secret remote controlled gibbon satellite turtle-arse`.

adzp :cool:
CIA plant (This last bit wont be visible will it Secret Agent Editor?)
 
bigfish said:
1:
Let's face it Diamond, you're a dissembling hysteric.......

2:
Yes, that is patently absurd Diamond........

3:
Healthy? I think you must be hallucinating.....

4:
I know, rather than quote my own words back at me, as if they constitute some kind of 'proof' that establishes your case, why don't you actually make an effort to prove your accusations in your own words?

5:
Because he is presenting information........

6.
If that's true, then what force kept Clarke on in his post when Bush took over the White House, he was appointed by Clinton remember?

7.
Clarke also reveals.......

8:
And just to finish off old Diamond......

A. He's a paranoid.
B. He's a fraud.
C. He's a charlatan.

Answers on a post card to:

Spud-Cheese Twister of the Week Competition
BBC World Service
Bush House
London
WC1

Note: For a more detailed understanding of the techniques and methods employed by boloney boilers like Diamond read this.


Well even if your arguing style isn't particularly eyecatching you've certainly got a talent for insult.

I'll go through your points one by one and then kindly ask you to address the main bulk of my argument, not this useless counter-argument, that I laid out in three posts earlier in the thread.

1:
I suggest you dig out those reading glasses and survey the remark that you are referring to because it involved two CONCOMITANT possibilities united as one point, neither one acting as secondary or primary to the argument both being equal.

So although you've taken one of these possibilities, limited its scope to Italy for no apparent reason and then theorised that it is not possible, before trumpeting it as an irrefutable truth that condemns my argument to the bin; you have not addressed the other possiblity (an attack on the US army's boys abroad) nor the whole scope of the first and seem to satisfy your self-confessed desire to address all the issues by littering the rest of your counter-argument with character attacks.

2:
I admit that I have misrepresented you once and I apologise for that, just as I expect an apology from you for your reams of venomous insult.

But it was by mistake and, given your abrasive rhetoric, an easy one to make. Moving beyond this mistake that seems to have scandalised you so much, does the expression a 'cataclysmic and catastrophic event' not seem a little bit of a generalisation to you?

There is no analogy between 9/11, pearl harbour, and this passage except that they all are or all specify catastrophic and cataclysmic events that unite a nation. In fact it seems to me to be stating the obvious when one says that a cataclysmic and catastrophic event will unite people. Individuals seek shelter under the banners of groups when they feel threatened. For me that does not hold any water as a point in case for a conspiracy argument that necessitates compelling evidence.

3:
Well for starters you've got your economic history wrong. The slump had been caused by the burst of a bubble or boom that had in turn been caused by misplaced faith in the dot-com sector, hence the dot-com bubble. That's elementary.

It is very disingenous to suggest that the performance of the stock market post 9/11, when it was reacting to information that was not apparent or available pre-9/11, and considering the negative effect on stock market confidence that resonated thanks to 9/11, somehow demonstrates a period of sustained decline. You are isolating one event in a continuum and denying its effect throughout the continuum, something that is really rather delusional considering that it was the most significant event within the continuum.

4:
I refer you to about 3000 words articulated in 3 different posts on this thread already.

5:
Do you not think it is an enormous and delusional leap of faith to go from one official (Dick Clarke) saying 'He [the president] ignored it [terrorism]' to arguing that the president actually constructed this self-same terrorism as part of a far-reaching and mysterious plot?

6:
Bush made a mistake in not getting rid of Clarke earlier, he's acknowledged that. Is it inconceivable to make a mistake that at the time must have seemed irrelevant, but with the benefit of your enlightened hindsight turns about to be momentous?

7:
Again I just cannot make the enormous leap of faith that you seem happy to take when you judge that a US administration's attitude of ignorance to one issue indicates their complicity in it. That does not logically follow, unless you are a sociopath.

8:
What do I say to this heavy-handed attempt at humour?

What can one say other than sorry?

I'm really sorry that I got you this worked up on an electronic bulletin board without even trying or meaning to. Why are you so angry?

Can we not just agree to disagree?

p.s. If anyone apart from bigfish has been arsed to read this rather pathetic exchange of views then I do STRONGLY URGE you to cast a quick glance over the link that bigfish has posted, it contains very revealing information on aliens as editor has already pointed out.
 
Diamond said:
If anyone apart from bigfish has been arsed to read this rather pathetic exchange of views then I do STRONGLY URGE you to cast a quick glance over the link that bigfish has posted, it contains very revealing information on aliens as editor has already pointed out.
I'm afraid that's par for the course for conspiracy fans.

I can't recall the amount of 'damning' links I've been instructed to look up only to find some fruitloop's homepage stuffed full of barking UFO stories, anonymous, reference-free wild claims and bizarre twistings of the truth.

DrJ cites a website that claims that two large passenger aircraft flew over Long Island in an illegal and highly dangerous manoeuvre which saw the planes moving incredibly slowly and "amazingly" slow over the rush hour traffic, heading for Manhattan.

The article claims that only two people saw this "amazing vision" rumbling dangerously above a population of 1.5 million and those two people just happened to get in touch with a little known Professor who just happens to be a big time conspiracy fan (conveniently). And guess what? They made him swear to secrecy about their identities.

Improbable? Unlikely? You betcha!

Does DrJ believe this wildly unlikely, evidence-untroubled, eye-witness-free, media unreported tale? You betcha!
 
Loki said:
I can't recall you backing down in your conspiracy threads. Did you apologise in the "Huntley is innocent!" thread?
I don't recall a thread with that exact title, but I apologised for starting one particular thread which caused some chaos. That was all I had to apologise for. In another I immediately recognized that I was mistaken on a point of fact as soon as it was pointed out by Stobart Spotter. And when the details of Huntley's previous allegations came out I said I acknowledged that he may well have been guilty - there is a lot that still puzzles me about the case, though.

Quite frankly I thought everyone - except editor, of course, was pretty tired of shouting 'Huntley' every time I suggest all is not well with the world. I could go on about the number of times I have been ridiculed around here only for future events to prove me right - but that would just be taking part in a tedious slanging match. I'm more interested in a non-ego based discussion.
 
diamond said:
5:
Do you not think it is an enormous and delusional leap of faith to go from one official (Dick Clarke) saying 'He [the president] ignored it [terrorism]' to arguing that the president actually constructed this self-same terrorism as part of a far-reaching and mysterious plot?

Of course it would be.

But that is not what myself nor bigfish nor others have been doing and doing long before Dick Clarke said anything. And what he is doing is a sideshow, encouraged by the media (controlled by the people that control Bush) precisely because it is the 'wrong' dissent - not actually asking the question of does the official theory of 9-11 hold up in any form.
 
editor said:
Right. You mean like DrJ posting up a pack of deeply offensive anti-American lies declaring a double child murdering paedophile completely innocent of all crimes and the victim of an evil conspiracy and your current equally offensive suggestion that those people who called from the doomed 9/11 flight were such gibbering wrecks of hysteria that their voices would be easy to fake.

Or how about the suggestion that conspiracy fans knew better than Dr Kelly's own family? They're grieving over the loss of their loved one while clueless conspiracy fuckspuds are exploiting the tragic tale to cook up another flight of fact-free fancy.

If you can't see why such insulting offensive bullshit gains an angry reaction, then I suggest you think harder about the ill-informed clueless slabs of wild conjecture that are continually being posted up here.

Don't think this thread is about paedophiles and Dr Kelly, but maybe i got that wrong...

'offensive suggestion'

'were such gibbering wrecks of hysteria'

'clueless conspiracy fuckspuds'

'such insulting offensive bullshit'

'the ill-informed clueless slabs of wild conjecture'

Your obsession with DrJ knows no bounds it seems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom