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

[editor]

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

Err, it is about conspiracy theorists. That's why it mentions them in the title. Can't you see it?

Mind you, you must be feeling pretty foolish after seeing your pompous drivel about how conspiracy fans are more 'polite' being followed up by bigfish's rabid, vicious and deeply personal assault on Diamond, eh?

PS Why have you posted up a selection of out-of-context quotes from me?

 

[CaroleK]

Just been reading a book on 9/11 by the New York fire chief Rich Picciotto. In 'Last Man Down: The Fireman's Story' he spoke of reports of missiles being fired at the towers from other high-rise buildings in the area (p46). They'd also been informed, via radio, that there was a third plane coming. Small arms detonations were heard all over the site, 'snipers or some unseen terrorists' he said. Increasingly so as time went on. (166)

He also said that the firemen's eyes were greatly irritated by the peculiar smoke, that they were virtually blinded. They were accustomed to the different kinds of smoke from fires, but that, at the WTC that day, it was particularly irritating. Days later they could only liken it to tear-gas.

Worth checking out, surely.

(Hey felafan, your back must be hurting some, being at the pc all this time. You'll let me know if you want it massaged now, won't you? )

 

[butchersapron]

And just what was Picciottos opinion on these reports of snipers and missiles? Does he make the case that they actually occoured?

 

[editor]

He also said that the firemen's eyes were greatly irritated by the peculiar smoke, that they were virtually blinded. They were accustomed to the different kinds of smoke from fires, but that, at the WTC that day, it was particularly irritating. Days later they could only liken it to tear-gas.

Well, that and all the caustic fumes created by a huge building collapsing in flames after it had been hit by a fuel laden aircraft....

But do tell: what part would tear gas have played in the 'conspiracy'?

 

[editor]

It looks like his fellow survivors aren't too impressed with what Picciotto wrote, with one calling him a liar:

Thirteen people would eventually climb out. (Harris would be lifted.) More than 100 floors had fallen on top of them, and after a few hours, this group simply walked out.

They were a fortunate handful united by a singular experience. Then, eight months later, Picciotto’s book came out. (“We should write a book,” he’d told his friend Jonas a few days after they climbed out. “Write a book?” Jonas replied. “I can barely get out of bed.”) Picciotto’s Last Man Down became a best-seller.

It would also end his friendship with Jonas—“It’s a very bad book,” says Jonas—and whatever camaraderie he shared that day with the others from Ladder Six. “We don’t speak to him,” says Komorowski. “Liar,” Butler wrote in his copy of the book..

And there appears to be serious doubts about its accuracy too:

The book is an account of Picciotto’s day, and he did a lot that day. Yet in some instances, he seems to have gotten carried away.

He writes that he matched Josephine Harris with Jonas’s company, Ladder Six. “There was something about Josephine that seemed deserving of my extra special attention,” he writes.

But Harris doesn’t remember Chief Pitch. And Jonas and Butler know they came upon Harris alone in the stairwell.

Picciotto also writes that he was running the show in Stairwell B. But many of the firemen seem to have taken their orders from Jonas that day. “He writes about us like we’re lemmings, like Please, Rich Picciotto, save us,” says Jonas

And it seems he's got a bit of an ego problem too:

The book, plainspoken, conversational, is self-glorifying, which may be the source of the trouble. Firefighters live by codes. When, finally, the men trapped in Stairwell B raised rescuers on the radio, the response was, “Brother, we’re coming for you.”

By the code, firefighters are brothers. Picciotto’s book is a story of an individual, mainly, rather than of a group, which goes against the grain. “Other people tell you you’re a good firefighter,” explains one department official. “You don’t claim that yourself.”

Source: New York Metro

 

[editor]

I could go on about the number of times I have been ridiculed around here only for future events to prove me right

Like when, exactly?

 

[butchersapron]

Maybe he means the claim that Huntley/Carr would never go to trial?

 

[Smølfine]

Like when, exactly?

Hows about teh front page of the independent yesterday?

Proving the bush admin knew about when and how the 9/11 attacks were going to happen but did fuck all because it did not fit in with their plans presumably

 

[Diamond]

Hows about teh front page of the independent yesterday?

Proving the bush admin knew about when and how the 9/11 attacks were going to happen but did fuck all because it did not fit in with their plans presumably

Right.........

Aside from the fact that that refers to the 9/11 commission and is merely an accusation of ignorance towards ANY terrorist attack, not specifically 9/11 (in fact it was only vaguely specified as a threat to the air industry); lets just assume that the Independent is a reliable newspaper despite its worrying track record of 'tailoring' front page stories that then disappear from the agenda before they can be challenged. Where does that leave us? Well I for one can't help asking the following question:

So when did Jazz argue this line?

Because as far as I'm aware, and admittedly I've only been around for a couple of weeks, he said nothing of the sort.

In fact if I remember correctly there was an awful lot about planes flying into buildings via remote control, missing hijackers, and grand conspiracies that by implication were committed by neo-con elites, i.e. Bush and his cabinet.

That's a little different from saying that Bush ignored a general warning of a terrorist threat to or from the air.

And I can't help wondering that if I was a committed conspiracy nut, who immediatly doubted any major news story until I could find a website peddling a conspiracy on the subject; and if I broadcast these as loudly and as often as possible over a series of years, then I wonder if its possible that ONE detail from one story might emerge as described in the conspiracy line.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Is this the article?

'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes'
Whistleblower the White House wants to silence speaks to The Independent
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington 02 April 2004

"I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily."

She added: "There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used * but not specifically about how they would be used * and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities * with skyscrapers."


..."President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September," she said. There was, however, general information about the use of airplanes and that an attack was just months away.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=507514

 

[editor]

Hows about teh front page of the independent yesterday?

Proving the bush admin knew about when and how the 9/11 attacks were going to happen but did fuck all because it did not fit in with their plans presumably

I'd be delighted if you could produce some direct quotes from The Inedpenednt saying that the USG knew exactly "when and how the 9/11 attacks were going to happen" but they did "fuck all" about it.

Looking forward to it....

 

[Smølfine]

I'd be delighted if you could produce some direct quotes from The Inedpenednt saying that the USG knew exactly "when and how the 9/11 attacks were going to happen" but they did "fuck all" about it.

Looking forward to it....

I'd love to have access to the indy website but they charge now and I'm not paying for it but we will hear more details in the very near future.

...and happy birthday yer yankyhugging hippy

 

[CaroleK]

'But do tell: what part would tear gas have played in the 'conspiracy'?' - ed

As a smokescreen, of course! So that others can go in and do what the hell they want without being seen. Paratroopers use it all the time. You could never guarantee that the smoke and dust from a falling building would yield enough cover for your camouflage. Picciotto wasn't even making a point of it in his book, he was just something he thought in passing.

There are different types of tear gas.

'Pyrotechnic devices
also launch tear gas from afar, in combination with a heat source. The result is an explosion, releasing a cloud of tear gas particles mixed with smoke. Pyrotechnic tear gas has tactical advantages. First, the smoke cloud obscures the movement of agents as they approach a building or crowd.'


'And just what was Picciottos opinion on these reports of snipers and missiles? Does he make the case that they actually occoured? '- butchersapron

P46: 'We were also hearing reports of missiles being fired from other high-rise buildings in the area, possibly at these towers.'

He was trapped under the rubble and got his info from the guys on the radio.

P166: '... Flames dancing everywhere. The small arms detonations were kicking up a notch or two, and it sounded like this poor guy [another fireman] was being fired at, by snipers or some unseen terrorists, at close range. It must have seemed to these guys that they were crossing a minefield.'

Again, he wasn't making a case for anything, just noting the detonations going on around him.

' “He writes about us like we’re lemmings, like Please, Rich Picciotto, save us,” says Jonas '

Well I've just read the entire book, ed, and he never spoke of his fellow firemen with anything but the deepest respect. The book was written from his own experiences, his own standpoint in the incident. He was a Chief. With great responsibilities. I can accept a certain level of self-appreciation of himself. Hell, you'd NEED it to do the job that he does/did. I don't see the other firemen's problem.

 

[CaroleK]

'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?' - Diamond

Not at all. If Bush knew that the 'terrorism' was coming - because he had been instrumental in planning it - then obv he would ignore Clarke's warnings. Only the few at the top would be fully in the 'know'.


'There is no analogy between 9/11, pearl harbour ' - Diamond

Think again , my friend:

'But comprehensive research has not only shown Washington knew in advance of the attack, but deliberately withheld its foreknowledge from our commanders in Hawaii in the hope that the “surprise” attack would catapult the U.S. into World War II. Oliver Lyttleton, British Minister of Production, stated in 1944: “Japan was provoked into attacking America at Pearl Harbor. It is a travesty of history to say that America was forced into the war.”


'While no one can excuse Japan’s belligerence in those days, it is also true that our government provoked that country in various ways — freezing her assets in America; closing the Panama Canal to her shipping; progressively halting vital exports to Japan until we finally joined Britain in an all-out embargo; sending a hostile note to the Japanese ambassador implying military threats if Tokyo did not alter its Pacific policies; and on November 26th — just 11 days before the Japanese attack — delivering an ultimatum that demanded, as prerequisites to resumed trade, that Japan withdraw all troops from China and Indochina, and in effect abrogate her Tripartite Treaty with Germany and Italy. '

'On November 25th, the day before the ultimatum was sent to Japan’s ambassadors, Stimson wrote in his diary: “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot....” '

'Roosevelt typically stated: “I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”
But privately, the president planned the opposite. Roosevelt dispatched his closest advisor, Harry Hopkins, to meet British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in January 1941. Hopkins told Churchill: “The President is determined that we [the United States and England] shall win the war together. Make no mistake about it. He has sent me here to tell you that at all costs and by all means he will carry you through, no matter what happens to him — there is nothing he will not do so far as he has human power.” '

 

[butchersapron]

So he wasn't actually saying that these things happened at all then, whicj your post rather suggested - merely that they were reported (falsely? does he say?) as happening and an impessionistic account of what happened.

 

[CaroleK]

'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.'

... Ha Ha!!!

You have GOT to be f**king kidding me!

You know, I think you enjoy making these creative posts of yours - faaaaar more than you're letting on, ed. You could almost wonder what stake you're defending.

Certainly not the well-being of yourself - or the rest of us. Because if just ONE PER CENT of all this 'anonymous, reference-free wild claims and bizarre twistings of the truth' is true, then the people of the whole western world are well and truly IN THE F**KING SHIT! It would mean that any bunch of insecure, psychotic, power hungry DICKHEADS could - by simple psychological/financial methods - coerce/cajole/manipulate/deceive us into ... well ... whatever the f**k they want!

And yes, ed, I have a REEEEEAL f**k off problem with that.

But, hey, don't let me keep you from your fun.

ROFLMFAO!

(Its the full Moon coming up. I get evil at the full Moon. Perhaps I should have mentioned it ... )

 

[fela fan]

(Hey felafan, your back must be hurting some, being at the pc all this time. You'll let me know if you want it massaged now, won't you? )

... i live in thailand... But nice offer anyway!

Had a break, and'll be having increasingly longer ones. The storm before the calm if you like...

 

[editor]

I don't see the other firemen's problem.

Some of them have accused him of being a liar. Isn't that reason enough?

You'd be wise to take on board the comments of his (non-book flogging) colleagues.

PS I've still no idea what was going on behind this mysterious 'smokescreen' you speak of. And where was it? Perhaps might enlighten me to its purpose?

 

[editor]

'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.'

... Ha Ha!!!

You have GOT to be f**king kidding me!

My statement is demonstrably correct.

 

[editor]

Think again , my friend'

.. and from the very same site - lots of dodgy UFO stories!

And lots more bonkers stuff, including:

Villagers in Madhya Pradesh face mysterious enemy
Mysterious spheres found on Mars
Chinese Scientists to Head for Suspected ET Relics
Town Battles 'Demonic' Mystery Blazes
Teenage girl's x-ray vision baffles scientists
TV Crew Stumbles Upon Forest ‘Ghost’
U.K. Castle Cameras Catch Ghostly Visitor
Spooky Mystery at Bergen Museum
Malaysian Villagers Claim Sighting of UFO
UFO’s in Ancient Art
Nessie Makes Appearance in China
Columbia: An Act of God?
Review of “The Afterlife Experiments”

Oh, and lots of pretty pictures of crop circles. And links to even more bonkers UFO sources.

What a credible source you've found!

 

[bigfish]

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

Pardon me, but I've caught you red handed falsifying my words and attempting to portray me as some kind of paranoid. If you don't like the fact of me exposing your decrepit methodology then I suggest you stop using it and debate in a more open and honest manner.

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.

Well, that's as may be Diamond, but if one of these ""CONCOMITANT" possibilities united as one" is demolished, then where does that leave the other? If one wing falls of an airplane where does that leave the pilot?

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...

Listen to you pompously pontificating on what I've done and what I haven't done. When all is said and done the 9/11 attack DID NOT involve an assault on any overseas US military bases nor on any ally of the United States. The main thrust of your argument contends that a similar impact on American public opinion could have been rendered precisely by these means. However, you offer no concrete evidence in support of your contention saying only that you think this or think that. In otherwords, in place of evidence you offer only opinions.

I've challenged your subjective construct with a formula based on the few meagre scraps you placed on the table and have asserted that: a deadly terrorist attack on say Rome would present a direct and mortal threat not to average Americans, but to average Italians who quite naturally would be more shocked than their American counterparts. Conversely, therefore, maximum impact on American public opinion would be more efficiently rendered through a deadly terrorist attack unfolding directly on American soil.

In your hilarious response to this assertion you now accuse me of limiting the scope of it to Italy! But in actual fact the scope of my reply was "limited" by the terms of your original remarks which claim in part that: "they [the American ruling elite] could have fulfilled all the same motives by blowing up an ally's assets". As we can see, the operative word in this context is "ally". Italy as I understand matters is a long standing "ally" of the United States. Therefore, Italy falls within the scope of the "limited" term "ally"... originally set by you.

As a rule of thumb, if you want concrete answers, then you'd be best served by asking concrete questions. If you want to increase the "scope" of any possible response then you should employ less abstract terms and phrases and substitute more meaningful ones, desist from demanding that your opponents prove or disprove negative constructs woven out of thin air and instead present your own case on the basis of the available facts if you have any, or otherwise I'd suggest you avoid going out on a limb.

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...

Excuse me, but my "abrasive rhetoric" came after your deception not before it. You seem to have some kind of deep rooted congenital malaise that affects your ability to organize matters chronologically.

It seems pretty obvious from where I'm standing that behind all of your projections of mock infallibility your debating style consists by and large of a 'talent' for twisting and falsifying the meaning of your opponents words, thereby deliberately misrepresenting their views to suit your own ends.

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?

Moving beyond your deliberate attempt to misrepresent my views, it would seem that you've now turned your attention to misrepresenting the actual facts of the matter.

The expression a 'cataclysmic and catastrophic event' certainly does seem to be a bit of an abstract generalization... especially now that you've liberated it from its conclusion!

But, for example, when we reinstate the missing segment thus: "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor," then the sentence is immediately defined as a particular act of war that is both "catastrophic and catalyzing", similar to the one unleashed by the Japanese in 1941.

The old Pearl Harbor you might recall involved an apparent "sneak attack" from the air on US capital ships located in port on US territory, Roosevelt blissfully 'unaware' of any impending peril. The new Pearl Harbor as I'm sure you know involved an apparent "sneak attack" from the air on US capital buildings located on US territory, Bush blissfully 'unaware' of any impending peril.

Can you see the similarities now?

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.

Unbelievable tripe! "There is no analogy... except..."!!!

So there is an analogy then?

Oh yes, of course there is, there's a definite analogy between what happened on 9/11 and the requirement spelled out in the now infamous PNAC document. The 9/11 attacks mirror its requirement perfectly... and that's because the new Pearl Harbor was remarkably similar to the old Pearl Harbor in terms of its "catastrophic and calalyzing" impact on American public opinion... don't you think?

The fact of the matter is the American ruling elite long ago perfected a technique for realizing a massive shift in public opinion vital for the successful prosecution of a war. It involves stimulating an 'enemy' through a series of economic or military provocations into launching a "sneak attack" on US capital assets and then pretending that they had absolutely no idea an attack was coming. By standing down the national military defenses the attack is permitted to unfold unhindered, thereby ensuring the maximum loss of life in order to shock the civilian population out of their natural state of pacifism moving them to the right and in to the camp of the War Party.

 

[bigfish]

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.

Superficial, impressionistic drivel. We'll see in a moment who's got their economic history wrong.

It is very disingenous to suggest that the performance of the stock market post 9/11 [...] somehow demonstrates a period of sustained decline...

If it is "disingenuous to suggest" such a thing then it must be a product of you're very own disingenuousness and not mine Diamond because I never suggested any such thing... you did!

Here are my actual words:

The bursting of the stock market bubble wiped $10 trillion of the value of US equities in the year up to April 2001.

So, as you can see, that must be pre 9/11 and not post 9/11 as you are now attempting to imply.

I take the collapse of the NY stock market, which began with the bursting of the dotcom bubble and which soon spread to different corporate sectors, to be the starting point for a period that I think can be reasonably characterized up to the present as a period of "reactionary economic slump". Therefore, once again what you describe as a possible consequence supposedly mitigating against a self-inflicted attack, was actually a fact of American economic life at the time of the attacks and could be seen in a certain context as mitigating for them.

It would seem that I've caught you making yet another one of your "mistakes" that have the effect of misrepresenting my views in order to serve your own ends. Which in this particular instance involves projecting me as being... wait for it, disingenuous!!

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

You're having a fucking laugh aren't you? If you can't be arsed to read your own words and generalize them into an argument, then I can tell you right now that I wont be doing it for you. I'm not your secretary.

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?

No, I don't. I think that you're attempting to foist an enormous delusion on us here by down playing the significance of Clarke and the evidence he has provided so far.

Clarke was formerly the Special Advisor to the President of the United States on Counter-Terrorism for crying out loud and not just some faceless "official". His job was to track the activity and movements of Al-Q and that's precisely what he was doing, by all accounts with some success too, until the reports from intelligence operatives monitoring Al-Q's movements out in the field stopped arriving on his desk. Why, when they were getting through before, did they stop I wonder?

That such a top echelon insider has broken ranks to give his side of the story at this important juncture is of great political importance. It points to a growing power struggle now developing within the ruling elite and its military-intelligence nexus. Clarke's revelations have cast matters in a new and politically revealing light. They have to be taken very seriously indeed by anyone who wants to more clearly understand the direction in which the United States is moving us all in.

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?

It's not really possible for you to assert that a "mistake" must have seemed irrelevant without first backing it up with something more concrete than mere opinion. Because of this it's not possible either to dismiss by this crude method the so called "mistakes" that led to the failure to inform the Special Advisor to the President on Counter-Terrorism that two Al-Q operatives had been tracked entering the US from Malaysia by the CIA in April and further, that another Al-Q operative had been arrested by the FBI in Minnesota in August.

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.

Really?

But doesn't your own argument rest on an enormous leap of faith that you have already made in so far as you swallow the official fairy story whole? That is you blindly accept that 19 fanatical phantoms, some of them on CIA and FBI terrorist watch lists, somehow managed to board and then hijack 4 passenger aircraft without a single shred of evidence having been presented by the US authorities that categorically proves any of these men ever entered any of the airports on September 11 never mind that they actually boarded and then hijacked the aircraft.

Why have the US authorities limited the release of information on the airports aspect to that of a mere hire car containing a Koran and a 'How To Fly A Jumbo Jet For Beginners' manuel being 'discovered' at one of the airports, when they could have very easily broadcast actual pictures of the "evil" perpetrators cunningly tricking airport security as they bought first class tickets to get on to the flights.

In the absence of any images of this kind being provided then the very real possibility has to be considered that none exist; and that none exist because none of the Al-Q phantoms ever entered any of the airports. No hard evidence contradicting this proposition is available anywhere that I'm aware of. Therefore it is not even possible to assert that Al-Q actually carried out the attacks. How could they without entering the airports?

Given that you clearly demonstrate such a enormous leap of faith by blindly and uncritically adapting your own arguments to the official version, can we take it by your own measure that you're a certifiable sociopath yourself?

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?

Though I don't take to kindly to being labeled either "delusional", "disingenuous", or a "sociopath" I'm not angry Diamond you are. For my part, I'm rather enjoying the work out. You're angry because I'm dismantling your argument by revealing that it's really constructed out of nothing more than the quicksand of your own rather excitable imagination and an inexplicable belief in a phantasmagorical fairy story about 19 blokes armed to the teeth with the very latest Gillette Mach III fully retractable box-cutter technology turning over a fucking super-power!

Can we not just agree to disagree?

Sure we can, you can carry on dissembling on this very important subject and I'll carry on exposing it for the rubbish that it is.

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.

And finally out comes the old can of black "aliens" tar. Oh, I know, lets dollop a loud of black alien tar all over that link provided by bigfish, that should do the trick.

Actually, the article which originates from the rense site, just like it says on the bottom of the can, doesn't say anything about aliens. But hell that doesn't matter, it still appears on a site claiming that 'a budgerigar drove a double decker bus to Pluto' so that must mean everything in Holgrem's article is complete nonsense.

Gerald Holgrem's article 'Debunking Conspiracy Theorists' exposes the fuckspud approach to the subject of 9/11 taken by people like Diamond who instead of operating with facts operate with "paranoid fantasies" in there place.

 

[editor]

You're angry because I'm dismantling your argument by revealing that it's really constructed out of nothing more than the quicksand of your own rather excitable imagination and an inexplicable belief in a phantasmagorical fairy story about 19 blokes armed to the teeth with the very latest Gillette Mach III fully retractable box-cutter technology turning over a fucking super-power!

Talking of fairy stories, can you produce any solid evidence of any large passenger plane being successfully flown by near-invisible remote control units pre 9/11 and could you explain (because I've yet to hear a satisfactory answer) how all those phone calls to loved ones were supposedly faked?

And finally, how many people do you think would have been directly or indirectly involved in this amazing conspiracy that you seem so excited about?

I would have thought that once you add up the immense resources needed to pull off such a technical coup de grace, coupled with the back-up technical, military and secret service staff, we'd be talking thousands, if not tens of thousands of people.

And then there's be all those experts to be silenced because surely they'd smell a rat more effectively than all those unqualified, amateur web site authors - wouldn't they? So why isn't anyone speaking out?

How many people are currently keeping completely silent about the brutal, senseless murder of their fellow citizens and the destruction of a great chunkl of New York, bigfish?

I would have thought that many scientists, technical staff, ground crew, aeronautics engineers etc would find it very hard to contain their anger at seeing how their work was used and the lies being spoken.

So why the wall of silence? If I ever discovered that I was directly or indirectly involved in such a hideous crime, I'd make sure that my story leaked out...wouldn't you?

 

[editor]

The bursting of the stock market bubble wiped $10 trillion of the value of US equities in the year up to April 2001.

Ah, that's a nice dishonest spin you're trying to get away there with this 'up to April 2001' spin.

The actual stock market crash was a year before in April 2000 as this article proves (written in April 2000).

The dotcom bubble didn't burst in 2001 either - it was long dead by April 2001.

In fact, it happened in early 2000. I know because I was working in that sector in Wall Street at the time!

 

[fela fan]

So why the wall of silence? If I ever discovered that I was directly or indirectly involved in such a hideous crime, I'd make sure that my story leaked out...wouldn't you?

Unless you knew that by doing so you or your wife and/or kids would be bumped off. There have always been occasions where people wanted to expose info, but feared for their lives if they did so. Then it becomes a straight choice.

I think i know the answers to your questions in my mind, but i sure can't articulate them at the minute.

One thing though, if it was all organised by the US (which i believe if for just one reason that the stuff they've told us and not told us is really in the land of the fairies), no way would thousands be needed. Remember, a CIA double agent operative living in Pakistan or Afghanistan could easily be working with OBL, with the latter not knowing of the former's double agent status. Thus only one non-US elite could easily kick off the whole planning operation.

I'm not sure this is how it worked, but i'm just offering a sane example of how to minimise the number of americans that knew what was going on.

 

[fela fan]

Ah, that's a nice dishonest spin you're trying to get away there with this 'up to April 2001' spin.

The actual stock market crash was a year before in April 2000 as this article proves (written in April 2000).

The dotcom bubble didn't burst in 2001 either - it was long dead by April 2001.

In fact, it happened in early 2000. I know because I was working in that sector in Wall Street at the time!

Now wait a minute mate, this is my area of expertise!

Bigfish talked about the 'bursting' of (note the 'ing' he uses, thereby not emphasising one single point in time). Whereas you reply to him using 'burst'.

The result of that 'burst', was that in a following period of time, 10 trillion bucks were wiped out in a year. I'm sure you'll agree it wasn't 10 trillion in one day.

 

[fela fan]

The 'burst' took place in a day. Bigfish didn't talk about the 'burst', he talked about the result of the 'burst'.

[To clarify a bit better.]

 

[bigfish]

Ah, that's a nice dishonest spin you're trying to get away there with this 'up to April 2001' spin.

The actual stock market crash was a year before in April 2000 as this article proves (written in April 2000).

The dotcom bubble didn't burst in 2001 either - it was long dead by April 2001.

In fact, it happened in early 2000. I know because I was working in that sector in Wall Street at the time!

I'm not spinning anything. I'm fully aware that the dotcom bubble burst in April 2000. I'm presenting the totalized figure for the fall in equity values for the finacial year that followed it up to April 2001 in order to show that a reactionary economic slump was actually in place and deepening at the time of the attacks. That the recession was moving in a negative direction anyway is born out by the collapse in different sectors of the economy of several giant corporations beginning with the fall of Enron in December 2001. To the best of my knowledge no one is blaming these corporate belly-ups on the September attacks, but rather on reactionary and fraudulent accounting practices cynically employed to artificially ramp up stock values.

 

[Diamond]

You're having a fucking laugh aren't you? If you can't be arsed to read your own words and generalize them into an argument, then I can tell you right now that I wont be doing it for you. I'm not your secretary.

What the...?

You have just returned my counter-argument with a series of points that are merely rehashed versions of what you have already said, only this time with some even more vicious and extended insults. The arrogance that this sort of response requires is staggering, the disengenousness that it necessitates is not just worrying but astounding.

Needless to say I'm not going to bother with replying to you on these specific issues because I'm certain that we've said everything that we can say to each other about them. You can try and twist that into a moral victory if you like, but the truth is that I've got a lot of work to do this week and can't afford to spend the time of day replying to you on these specifics.

If you really do want to debate the bigger picture any further, as opposed to using this thread as a forum for venting your innner rage and frustrations, I suggest that you read post no.86 then posts number 150 & 151.

They ARE summaries of my argument, or as close as I can get. They ARE concise, and they ARE responses to polite requests for summarisations by fela fan.

Personally I couldn't really give a shit about this little exchange anymore.

You see, one's appetite for debate dissipates pretty quickly when chatting with someone like you.

I mean where do you think insults like 'congenital malaise' will get you?

It's pretty pathetic that you have to resort to buttressing your argument with pap like that. Don't you think?

 

[editor]

You have just returned my counter-argument with a series of points that are merely rehashed versions of what you have already said, only this time with some even more vicious and extended insults.

His abusive nature and personal attacks have been duly noted