WTC attacks - the alternative thread

[Jo/Joe]

there is no actual evidence for remote controls or anything else to support your conspiracy theory is there? all we here is the opinion of this boffin or that professor, but nothing that other people can actually analyse.

 

[editor]

And i'd still like to know how you manage to read the entire world's press each day, coz that's the only way you can make the claim that none of them, not a single one, are investigating the causes of 911.

Er, I have never made a claim that "not a single one of the world's press are investigating the causes of 911". You've made that up. Please don't do that.

What I have repeatedly and quite clearly stated is that - as far as I can see - the Professor's fascinating one-page analysis has been roundly ignored by all known media for the past year, despite its incredible, explosive, epoch-changing claims.

Why is that do you think?

 

[fela fan]

So you think that your very occasional flick through a handful of tabloids and the odd surf online qualifies you to declare the entire British press as a "fucking disgrace"?

Perhaps you might like to share with us your superior news sources?

You have changed my own words right in front of me.

I said 'most of the british press' in post #353. How do you arrive at 'entire' instead of 'most'. Not the same meaning at all.

Furthermore, i said i looked at the headlines of the tabloids, which is not akin to flicking through them, occasional or not.

I will add that i went back to live in London for a year and a half in 2000. Amongst the papers that i would read so that i could see what they were like (and analyse their contents) was the Standard (often), The Mail, Mirror, Express, and Telegraph (occasionally), and most days either the Indie or the Guardian.

I couldn't bring myself to even touch the Sun or Star.

Hope that completes your knowledge of my knowledge of the british press, most of which is fucking disgusting.

 

[fela fan]

Er, I have never made a claim that "not a single one of the world's press are investigating the causes of 911". You've made that up. Please don't do that.

What I have repeatedly and quite clearly stated is that - as far as I can see - the Professor's fascinating one-page analysis has been roundly ignored by all known media for the past year, despite its incredible, explosive, epoch-changing claims.

Why is that do you think?

Here are two of your claims about what the world's press are saying or not saying:

#324: “Right. So the entire Western media are completely ignoring what would be the story of the century because they're not as 'well informed' as the, err, hard-hitting Spanish media.”

#343: “but have you any thoughts on why the entire world's press have completely ignored the professor's revelations?”

'entire', 'completely', each two times.

That is as emphatic a language as is possible. Each word means 100%.

So i made nothing up at all.

I see you now introduce language of probability to replace the earlier language of certainty:

'as far as I can see' and 'roundly' ignored.

As for making things up, please refer to my post just above this one. That is making up things, altering my use of words to alter my intended meaning to the forum. But no problems for me, so what you want, what i write is what i write.

 

[goldenecitrone]

'You should feel somewhat short-changed. That is if you're after unbiased news that hasn't been subjected to all manner of methods of censorship.'

Amazingly enough I don't actually believe everything I read in the newspapers and I'm quite aware that different newspapers have different allegiances and slant their articles to favour those they wish to favour and denigrate those they wish to tarnish. Also most journalists are rarely experts in the fields they cover and many inaccuracies go unnoticed. Despite this I'm still not convinced that this monumental story of Government lies, murder, kidnapping and destruction is being deliberately withheld by the dark forces of newspaper editorship in this country and around the rest of the world. Show me one unbiased or otherwise Arab news Agency that is giving this story any credence whatsoever and I'll reconsider my opinions.

 

[editor]

fela: unless you can produce some examples of this story being covered elsewhere, then it's fair to assume that it is being ignored by the world's main media.

I've tried all manner of search combinations and draw a blank every time.

So why has this incredible, amazing tale of dastardly conspiracies, deceptions and mass murders not made it into any known news source?

Care to hazard a guess?

 

[fela fan]

fela: unless you can produce some examples of this story being covered elsewhere, then it's fair to assume that it is being ignored by the world's main media.

I've tried all manner of search combinations and draw a blank every time.

So why has this incredible, amazing tale of dastardly conspiracies, deceptions and mass murders not made it into any known news source?

Care to hazard a guess?

Well i tell you what mate, a bit of courtesy goes a long way, and you've never addressed me with such civility!! For the first time in my dodgy memory i feel we have met on the middle of the seesaw.

I don't normally do a lot of googling, but i will do in an attempt to come up with some examples. It is a fair assumption, agreed. But since i start a brand new job tomorrow, then we have 'Super Sunday' - three premiership games one after the other, i'll probably not get anything till the new week.

 

[fela fan]

'You should feel somewhat short-changed. That is if you're after unbiased news that hasn't been subjected to all manner of methods of censorship.'

Amazingly enough I don't actually believe everything I read in the newspapers and I'm quite aware that different newspapers have different allegiances and slant their articles to favour those they wish to favour and denigrate those they wish to tarnish. Also most journalists are rarely experts in the fields they cover and many inaccuracies go unnoticed. Despite this I'm still not convinced that this monumental story of Government lies, murder, kidnapping and destruction is being deliberately withheld by the dark forces of newspaper editorship in this country and around the rest of the world. Show me one unbiased or otherwise Arab news Agency that is giving this story any credence whatsoever and I'll reconsider my opinions.

I'm sure you don't golden. And i know you're not convinced about all these bits and pieces that folk are saying about not matching up with the USG version.

But that doesn't make us go away! Look, let's just imagine for one moment that certain editors/owners of our newspapers have come across information from their american counterparts (well actually often they're one and the same) that strongly lead them to suspect USG involvement.

How free do you think the editors would be to run such stories?

Bearing in mind that if they did, that the end result would be prison for bush and many of his peers, and blair.

What i'm trying to get at is beyond our old spats here on urban. What i'm saying is that if the US and UK press printed such info that they got, then effectively the leadership of the two biggest countries on the foreign stage would be shafted and jailed. Maybe even lynched.

Does that make it any clearer why our newspapers aren't pursuing the 911 attacks?

Coz you can be sure, the questions some of us ask on these urban threads must be being asked by journos. And yet we get not a peep from them...

 

[Jazzz]

fela: unless you can produce some examples of this story being covered elsewhere, then it's fair to assume that it is being ignored by the world's main media.

I've tried all manner of search combinations and draw a blank every time.

So why has this incredible, amazing tale of dastardly conspiracies, deceptions and mass murders not made it into any known news source?

Care to hazard a guess?

I believe German and Canadian national television have both aired documentaries suggesting that 9-11 was a covert operation organised within the US.

It's a shame that we haven't. YET.

 

[WouldBe]

unlike the cylindrical objects identified in the analysis, which clearly states that "[T]he detected objects have varying luminosity around them because they are in relief (this is the only possible explanation)."

I may be wrong here but if you are trying to identify 'bumps' from changes in luminosity then you would have to have the object all the same colour otherwise a change in colour would confuse the analysis.

Could the colour scheme of a United airlines be responsible for this?

The silver stripes on the underside of United airlines 767 are in exactly the right position for the 'tubes' in the analysis.

 

[Lock&Light]

Coz you can be sure, the questions some of us ask on these urban threads must be being asked by journos. And yet we get not a peep from them...

I know you are already quite convinced, and therefore as impervious as a pope to all alternative theories. However, has it occurred to you that the journos (those, that is, worthy of the name) might be far from convinced, and, when asking the "questions some ask on these threads", come up with the same sort of answers as, for example, Mike and Dr. Christmas?

 

[editor]

Could the colour scheme of a United airlines be responsible for this?

The silver stripes on the underside of United airlines 767 are in exactly the right position for the 'tubes' in the analysis.

You may well have a point.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for someone to provide some background information into this 'University School' in Barcelona and offer some details about the revelation-revealing Professors qualifications and relevant experience in this field.

 

[editor]

I believe German and Canadian national television have both aired documentaries suggesting that 9-11 was a covert operation organised within the US..

Any chance of troubling those vague, muddy claims with something approaching a verifiable fact?

For all I know, it could have been two programs about conspiracy nutters and their bonkers beliefs.

 

[bigfish]

I did say that.

Yes, that's quite right, you said exactly what I quoted you as saying. Therefore, your accusation that I somehow twisted your words to suit my own ends is utterly and completely false.

But I also said "the entire world's press" adding, "Western, middle Eastern, Eastern, Third World, African..." too

Pardon me, but the words you falsely accuse me of twisting are to be found in your post nr 324, which was the particular post I was responding to. There is no escaping that fact.

The phrase "the entire world's press" does not appear in that post. It comes from your later post nr 343, which appeared on the board literally seconds before I replied to post 324. The additional words "Western, middle Eastern, Eastern, Third World, African..." I've never seen before until now.

So, as we can clearly see, you are selectively quoting from at least three of your own posts in order to accuse me of, wait for it... "selective quoting".

By selective quoting one comment and ignoring my clearly defined, overall statement written in bold, you are demonstrably guilty of dishonest editing. Shame on you.

As I have just demonstrated above, the only person guilty of "selective quoting" round here is you. Now, by a convoluted mechanism of inverse logic and projection, you claim that I am "demonstrably guilty of "dishonest editing"!

When I quoted your words I did so through the simple expedient of applying the quote function to your post nr 324. I then responded to each of your particular points in detail. Now you can call that "selective quoting" and "dishonest editing" as much as you want, but lets face it, who in their right mind is going to believe you?

Everyone can see that you are accusing me of the very crime you yourself have committed.

(please don't do it again)

Do what again, tell the truth?

 

[Jazzz]

Any chance of troubling those vague, muddy claims with something approaching a verifiable fact?

For all I know, it could have been two programs about conspiracy nutters and their bonkers beliefs.

Well I've linked to the German one before, so you might have picked up on that.

9/11 File Unsolved: September 11, 2001 Lies and Truth

 

[editor]

Well I've linked to the German one before, so you might have picked up on that.

9/11 File Unsolved: September 11, 2001 Lies and Truth

I know you're not one who likes to indulge in too much research before completely accepting something you found on the internet, but could you be so kind as to give some background to this film maker and tell me which German network aired this piece and at what date and time?

For all I know, it could be the work of some ill-researched, book-flogging, conspiracy-obsessed video dabbler, aired on some obscure community channel at 4am.

And then you might like to offer an opinion why his 'revelations' appear to have been roundly ignored by the media ever since.

Oh, and I note that there's no mention about the calls from the planes or how they could have been 'faked'. This seems rather a serious omission for a documentary. Why do you think it was ignored?

 

[Jazzz]

I know you're not one who likes to indulge in too much research before completely accepting something you found on the internet, but could you be so kind as to give some background to this film maker and tell me which German network aired this piece and at what date and time?

For all I know, it could be the work of some ill-researched, book-flogging, conspiracy-obsessed video dabbler, aired on some obscure community channel at 4am.

And then you might like to offer an opinion why his 'revelations' appear to have been roundly ignored by the media ever since.

Oh, and I note that there's no mention about the calls from the planes or how they could have been 'faked'. This seems rather a serious omission for a documentary. Why do you think it was ignored?

God you are tiresome.

"Germany's PBS Broadcasts 9-11 Investigation - When Will the US Media Investigate?
"A German TV documentary: 'Aktenzeichen 11.9. ungeloest' (File 9/11 unsolved) will be broadcast on Friday, June 20th, 2003, 23.00 h MEST in the WDR (Westdeutsche Rundfunk).

another link

You were loudly claiming that no such documentary existed in the media. I've just helped you out by showing you one, and if you are a decent debater and not simply the internet equivalent of the pub loudmouth, you will have the good grace to concede the point. What your criticisms of it may be are another matter.

 

[editor]

Ah. German PBS. Is that a credible major media source then?

And who's the author of this widely-ignored piece?

And why do you think his fascinating revelations seem to have travelled no further than a few dodgy conspiracy sites since?

 

[sparticus]

And none of them are supporting your bonkers remote-control/holographic-planes-WTC-imploded-from-within nonsense - so why try and associate their decent demands for a full investigation with your 'found on the internet' fantasies?

In reference to a group of 9/11 moms (dr jazz's link) who are seeking an official explanation for the lamantable, no criminally inept non-response of Bush and the entire air defense system until it was too late based on the timeline of events on the day .

As my posts on the 15th and two on 16th explain (page 8) there is considerable evidence (the prior warning from internal and external security services to the USG and the timeline of events in relation to the inexplicable air defense failures) that support two statements that underpin any conspiracy: they knew and they let it happen on purpose LIHOP.

The conspiracy does not require faked phone calls, holographic planes or any of the other side issues that this thread keeps being steered back to largely by those who wish to divert attention and discussion away from the glaring anolomies that undermine the official story of 9/11.

So how about it dear editor and everyone else who wishes to speak in support of the official story? Given that the Bush junta has still failed to satisfy 'their decent demand', perhaps you would like to provide some evidence to support the official story (which is what this thread is supposed to be about) and an explanation to challenge the evidence (which given that you claim to speak with such authority you will no doubt be aware of) that supports the claim that

THEY KNEW and they LIHOP

I will take any more spurious references to fake mobile phone calls as another pitiful diversion tactic.

Later

Ian

 

[bigfish]

I may be wrong here but if you are trying to identify 'bumps' from changes in luminosity then you would have to have the object all the same colour otherwise a change in colour would confuse the analysis.

Why do you keep refering to the "cylindrical objects" as "bumps"?

Once again, you seem to be portraying Professor Carrasco implicitly as some kind of bumbling 'Manuel' character from Faulty Towers who lacks your own penetrating insight and wisdom... which is sad, really sad.

As Professor Carrasco's report clearly states:

OBJECTIVES OF THE ANALYSIS

To verify the possible presence of objects on the underside of the fuselage of the second plane involved in the attack in New York on 11 September.

PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS

The images obtained in the news report on the attack show certain changes in luminance on the underside of the fuselage. Because all commercial airliners have a cylindrical fuselage, in principle, these variations in luminance make no sense.

In order to try to explain what can be seen with the naked eye, the images were digitally processed, without altering the information, to account for the changes in luminance.

Could the colour scheme of a United airlines be responsible for this?

The silver stripes on the underside of United airlines 767 are in exactly the right position for the 'tubes' in the analysis.

You're flogging a dead horse WB. The forensic analysis demonstrates quite conclusively that your proposition can only be a false one, for the analysis reveals varying luminosity being reflected around what Professor Carrasco describes in his report as "cylindrical objects".

He therefore concludes that this phenomenon "cannot be due to shadows caused by the angle of incidence of the sun on the plane, because they always appear to be the same shape and size, though with varying luminosity..." From this he determines that "[T]he detected objects have varying luminosity around them because they are in relief (this is the only possible explanation).

Paint, as I'm sure everyone understands it nature, sits smooth and flat on any surface to which it is applied. Because of this, it cannot then appear in relief as the "cylindrical objects" do. Therefore, we can completely rule out your notion that flight 175's livery might have been responsible for the results obtained from the forensic analysis.

Quite frankly WB I'm surprised that a man with as much experience as you claim to have can't work these things out for himself.

Seriously, why do you bother?

 

[editor]

Once again, you seem to be portraying Professor Carrasco implicitly as some kind of bumbling 'Manuel' character from Faulty Towers who lacks your own penetrating insight and wisdom... which is sad, really sad.

I don't know any thing about the fella, and a search on the web hasn't produced any pertinent info on the fella either.

But seeing as you clearly hold such immense store in Professor Carrasco's one page, non-peer reviewed, media-ignored, expert-unsupported, paper-unpublished micro 'analysis', could you please provide some background information about his expertise and relevant qualifications and tell me more about the 'University of Barcelona', please?

 

[WouldBe]

Why do you keep refering to the "cylindrical objects" as "bumps"?

Because that's how they are described on the website that shows Prof C's analysis. They even have a page called 'odd bumps'.

If you bothered to look at that page you would see the author has taken his crayons out to highlight the BUMP under the wing in red and the marks under the fuselage in yellow / green.

As you appear to have the memory retention of a goldfish I will repeat for your benefit that I am qualified in avionics, I have never at any point claimed to be an expert in luminosity analysis.

It just strikes me as very odd that the position of the so called 'cylindrical objects' are in the same place as the silver 'go faster' stripes on the under side of a United 767. This is bound to affect the luminosity as silver is a hell of a lot more reflective than the dark blue of the rest of the aircraft. Any fool could tell you that but as I have already stated maybe prof C wasn't aware of the colour scheme that United use.

 

[Flavour]

2. As explained by the USG, a passport was found at the scene of the crime that belonged to one of the hijackers. It jumped out of a bag, out of the plane window at moment of impact, and remained unburnt, being found amongsts tonnes of ash.

i dont give a shit what happened on 9/11 frankly, whether fundamentalists or the american secret service executed the destruction of the world trade centre means nothing to me, the facts are that buildings that used to be there arent anymore and people died.

but point 2 is absolute fucking crap. planes dont have windows that can be opened. i hope you are being sarcastic. if it jumped out of a bag at the point of impact, that is believable, but it would have been scorched. and then crushed by hundreds of thousands of tons of steel. that is the most ridiculous evidence of islamic involvement ever.

 

[fela fan]

but point 2 is absolute fucking crap. planes dont have windows that can be opened. i hope you are being sarcastic. if it jumped out of a bag at the point of impact, that is believable, but it would have been scorched. and then crushed by hundreds of thousands of tons of steel. that is the most ridiculous evidence of islamic involvement ever.

Mate, of course i was being sarcastic! Since when did inanimate objects learn the ability to engage in actions?!

What is noticeable is that proponents of believing the USG keep very quiet on this item i have presented as evidence that the USG are liars.

I have before referred to it as the magical flying passport. Coz magical it most certainly is, considering what it went through prior to its discovery...

What was most amazing is that some poster tried to say it was all possible!!! Now there's a conspiracy for you.

 

[fela fan]

And now (for the fourth or fifth time) i make yet another timely request to return this thread to its theme and objectives: namely for proponents of the USG version to explain to us why they believe this version due to bumbling incompetence.

Where is their evidence, or theories, or ideas backing up their belief that the USG engaged in such immense incompetence, it boggles the mind.

Where is the info? Where is it? Why are you all ignoring the aims of this thread? Why are you stewarding the debate back to the usual parameters of these 911 threads?

Have you nothing to say in defence of the USG conspiracy???

 

[Dr. Christmas]

Seriously, why do you bother?

Look, there's no need to subside into a boiling rage every time someone disagrees with one of yr pet theories.

Your insult-laden rant on post no. 342 is absolutely out of order.

The 'bumps' look like wing roots to me. I was quite surprused when WB pointed them out.

If yr going to claim that the 767s in question had unusual 'cylindrical bumps' on them, then it's useful to compare the profile of an ordinary 767 with the ones you claim were 'modified'.

I asked wouldbe because he knows more about aeronautical engineering than anyone else on these boards, from what I've seen.

Not my fault if his answers make your theory look crap.

And I didn't trawl the web to find out about yr Catalan professor but editor's questions seem to me to be pertinent ones. Maybe once you've finished having a tantrum you might answer them.

 

[editor]

I've asked this abut five times and no one seems capable or answering it, so I'll ask again.

But seeing as some people hold such immense store in Professor Carrasco's one page, non-peer reviewed, media-ignored, expert-unsupported, paper-unpublished micro 'analysis', could someone produce some background information about his expertise and relevant qualifications and tell me more about the 'University School of Barcelona', please?

I'm beginning to suspect that those currently parading his 'findings' with such enthusiasm haven't even bothered to conduct the most preliminary of research into his qualifications, credibility and background.

After all, I'm asking a very pertinent and reasonable question. Why can't anyone anaswer it?

 

[WouldBe]

I took the origional photo (submitted to Prof C) and the photo i found on the web and ran them through photoimpact7. The photo I found was flipped to make it easier to compare and both photos had the 'emboss' filter run on them.

Why do the 'cylindrical tubes' appear to be recessed into the fuselage rather than sticking out?

We know for a fact that on the second photo this recessed affect is due to a flat silver stripe so what does that say about the recesses on the underside of flight 175?

I'd hate to think that someone with a BTEC in 'potato juggling' had out smarted a professor.

 

[Jazzz]

I've asked this abut five times and no one seems capable or answering it, so I'll ask again.

Why not, having well made your point to all and sundry, just STFU instead?

If no-one wants to talk to you, it's probably from past experience where whenever someone is decent enough to communicate with you you will move the goalposts, ask twice as many questions as you did before, refuse to acknowledge any points where you are proved mistaken, and all in the spirit of the omniscient pub loudmouth.

You now admit that you are flooding the thread repeatedly with the same post.

 

[Dr. Christmas]

You now admit that you are flooding the thread repeatedly with the same post.

Well seeing as all the 'it wasn;t incompetence-it was a conspiracy' proponents seem to have editor on ignore, maybe I can aske the questions instead (and I promise not to repeat them if someone provides a reasonable answer).

1. Who is Professor Carrasco?

2. What are his qualifications the the fields of aeronautics and photographic image analysis?

3. How many peer-reviewed publications on these subjects does he have?

4. Isn't it weird how such an epoch defining (if true) conspiracy hasn't been carried by anyone other than one conservative Spanish paper?

5. Isn't it weird how the only 'Carrasco' based at barcelona according to Google is an expert in feminist Economics- err, not exactly the academic discipline required to intervene in this field of analysis? (There are no other references to the author of this miraculous report anywhere)

After all, I'd hate to think you lot had been had by yet another bogus academic posting on one webpage and one only....