WTC attacks - the alternative thread

[butchersapron]

You think the Hitler Diaries were genuine BF? - a conservative paper with an acknowledged expert pronouncing them kosher (which seems to be more than this link has atm) - you think this alone makes it genuine? Is this right?

 

[editor]

I used to think having an editor in open debate on a discussion board was not a good thing, but I've changed my mind.

Really. And why's that then? Perhaps you might tell me how you'd do it better, and pass on your experience in this area.

Even better, perhaps you could point me in the direction of some similar, better-run, non-profit, advert-free political bulletin boards where I can see for myself how terrible it is to have an editor daring to offer an opinion.

But let's see how having an editor posting here has actually affected your experience:

Q. How many of your posts have been altered, amended, deleted or changed in any way?
A. None. Zero.

Q. Have any of the admin team ever stopped you starting a thread on any topic you like?
A. No. Never.

Q. Have you ever been threatened with a ban for starting a thread?
A. No. Never.

Q. Has the editor ever threatened you with a ban because he disagreed with your opinions?
A. No. Never.

Q. Does the editor want this site to become a beacon for 9/11 conspiracies, attracting every bonkers plane-switchin', missile-spewin', phone-call-fakin', holographic plane flyin' conspiracy enthusiast on the Internet?
A. Not on your fucking life.

 

[sparticus]

Whoa, you should be more considered in your posts IMO

Editor

I'll take that as a no atleast for now.

My post was not intended to be threatening although when your worldview and on-line identity would be so fundamentally challenged I can understand why you would choose to fight back to what you see as a threat rather than to actually take the post as it was intended. A genuine offer to examine the evidence that is in the public domain, that is sourced from mainstream media sources and set out well in the book I cite. This leads me to ask what exactly do you consider to be evidence with regard to understanding 9/11 and what are you frightened of?

My post offered no opinion as to HOW you edit the site. I was commenting on the concept (which is quite unusual on the discussion forums I have read and written on) of having an editor and your role as editor of taking active part in the discussions online in contrast for example to Jon Snow/Channel 4. And I said that on reflection I like the idea. I think it is good that the users of the forum can actively engage in debate with the people responsible for the moderation and management of the U75. It was in no way criticising you for your editting/management of the moderation policies and action of the site. I have absolutely no problem about your role and that is what I was saying.

I was actually offering you an opportunity and asking without intention of being threatening what your vision for U75 is and what direction/purpose do you want to take it? If it has no purpose that can be articulated I personally am not interested to financially support U75. If it has a purpose I would like to hear it, but if you don't wish to discuss this, no problem. Like I say this is not about U75 but the truth of 911. If the truth of 911 confirms THEY KNEW AND THEY LIHOP, then I was trying describe the opportunity that you, as key person at U75 and we, as the U75 community at large, has to contribute to a global transformation that is coming whether you (at this time) are consciously aware of it or not and whether you like it or not.

Like I say I first and foremost would like to discuss the 9/11 evidence with you or others starting with whether THEY KNEW AND LIHOP.

Easy now

One Love

Ian

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I'm loath to post in this thread, but I have to say that I wasn't that impressed by the posted analysis of the pictures; speaking as someone who has actually studied this stuff, it just looked like the use of some rather unsophisticated edge-detection algorithms to me, which of course rely on colour gradients and various assumptions - impossible to avoid, given that the source is a 2D image. These same algorithms are used by Photoshop and other programs for their "emboss" filters as WouldBe points out.

Now, there would be ways of doing it better - say, doing a stereoscopic analysis based on different frames of the video (though I don't know if this is possible given the poor quality of the image). But I'm sorry, there's no way you could take what was presented on that page (a few images and a conclusion) as evidence.

It reads like the abstract to a paper. It makes no arguments by itself. No way could I take that as evidence without reading the whole thing, assuming there is more. The most respected image processing specialist in the world would be roundly insulted for trying to claim what was presented there was any sort of proof.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I was commenting on the concept (which is quite unusual on the discussion forums I have read and written on) of having an editor and your role as editor of taking active part in the discussions online in contrast for example to Jon Snow/Channel 4. And I said that on reflection I like the idea. I think it is good that the users of the forum can actively engage in debate with the people responsible for the moderation and management of the U75.

This is a facet of non-commercial boards... people volunteer to moderate because they are interested in the ideas concerned. It would be cruel, frankly, to expect them not to post. (If it came to a choice between me posting and me being a mod, I'd pick posting every time.) Commercial boards can afford to hire people just to keep order who don't care about the issues.

The difference in the resulting character of the environment is an interesting one. Perhaps something for Community, or the Web forum.

 

[sparticus]

I forgot to add that I like the site otherwise I wouldn't be 'wasting my time' visiting it. It's no small achievement and in achieving that I have nothing but admiration. If I didn't think it would make a difference I wouldn't be posting here.

If I find these posts have no affect on the quality and impact of the website in raising awareness of the evidence that contradicts the official story of 9/11, awareness of the political and economic corruption that pervades of national and global system and awareness of the coming global transformation that is coming and which in part will be driven by the truth of 9/11, then I will leave and choose other ways to raise this awareness.

Easy now

Ian

 

[editor]

My post was not intended to be threatening although when your worldview and on-line identity would be so fundamentally challenged I can understand why you would choose to fight back to what you see as a threat rather than to actually take the post as it was intended.

Trust me. You and your ideas don't represent any 'challenge' to me at all.

I was actually offering you an opportunity and asking without intention of being threatening what your vision for U75 is and what direction/purpose do you want to take it?

If you'd done your research, you'd know that there is no 'vision' for these boards: they have evolved organically and will continue to do so.

New forums only appear after they've been requested, debated and decided by a majority of interested posters (so, there's no 9/11 forum here because there's only a microscopic minority of people interested - and they generate disproportionate amounts of work for the mods).

If it has no purpose that can be articulated I personally am not interested to financially support U75

Personally, I couldn't give a fuck whether you are 'interested in financially supporting u75' or not.

Everyone else who has kindly donated has made no such conditions and if you think that I'm going to start knocking out mission statements or changing the boards in exchange for financial incentives you're living in cloud cuckoo land, pal.

People are paying up because they like the way the boards are now, they appreciate the hard work that goes into running them and they would like to see them continue that way. And I'm very grateful for their contributions.

But if you don't like the way things are run or can't bear financially contributing to a site because they haven't got a 25 point Power Point presentation outlining its projected growth and interests, well, no one's making you pay - or stay.

Incidentally, do you intend to repeat your baffling 'THEY KNEW AND THEY LIHOP' mantra in every post from now on because it's already getting very tedious.

 

[sparticus]

You really haven't been following what I'm saying, have you? Or is this a cunning ploy to avoid talking about the evidence? Or is that you are unaware of the evidence set out in Ahmed's book and that any serious researcher would be aware of?

If you are interested in what THEY KNEW and what THEY LIHOP (they let it happen on purpose) mean and how I would like to debate the evidence for this with you, I explain this fully earlier on page 8 and 9. You are familiar with the evidence I assume that supports these 2 essential ingredients of any conspiracy and hence the responsibility for anyone speaking in support of the official story (which let us remind ourselves is the purpose of this thread) to undermine. Like i say if you can show that these 2 facts are not true I will renounce all and every conspiracy theory and work with you to rid your site of this nonsense.

The problem is you can't, can you?

And so to bed. I'm a busy boy and I won't post for a few days. You might (although I doubt it) wish to do the same and then come back to me with a decent answer that the questions I ask in this and earlier posts

I will take any more spurious posts addressed to me that avoids these 2 facts as acceptance that with regard to 9/11, you know naff all

Ian

 

[editor]

If you are interested in what THEY KNEW and what THEY LIHOP (they let it happen on purpose) mean and how I would like to debate the evidence for this with you....

The problem is you can't, can you?

The problem is that you can't prove that they did, can you?

Despite the endless bluster and endless repeating of your tedious 'THEY LIHOP ' mantra, it's clear that you're not interested in any kind of debate - your mind is already tightly closed on the matter, despite your complete absence of solid proof.

 

[sparticus]

Absolutely not true, either in my mind being closed on this or anything else or in my lack of desire to debate the evidence. Show me the evidence that contradicts the evidence I refered to and I will change my mind and work with you to rid your site of this nonsense.

You can offer counter arguments or evidence that disproves or challenges what I'm saying but you can not deny this evidence exists. So can you provide evidence that challenges the evidence I refer to, which is taken from mainstream sources and that proves the 2 facts I stand by (they knew and they LIHOP) as set out in Ahmed's book

Since you are clearly not familiar with the evidence I talk of and since this can only demonstrate an incredible lack of research on your part, I can only continue to assume you know naff all about 9/11, and so I will help you by setting out the juiciest bits of this evidence.

But this will take time and like I say I'm busy. In order to keep what is potentially an interesting scenario going I will try to get back to you later this week and then we can get down to the evidence, which should be interesting. In the mean time you might want to start by reading Chapter 4 which is on the weblink I provided or buy a copy of the book, since I will be quoting from it extensively

Ian

 

[zarathustra]

an incredible lack of research on your part

Yet you'd claim this whole conspiracy theory thing isn't a self-aggrandizement game. You've set yourself up as a de facto authority on a 'truth' which the majority of the population are too brainwashed to have reached themselves. It's intellectual masturbation of the most vacous and amusing kind.

 

[bigfish]

Intersting, when you google 'university school of Barcelona' nothinig mentioning a 'university school of Barcelona' comes up.

If you search using the Spanish terms derived from the Ombudsmans report I posted up for you all to read then you get a whopping 72,000 returns In Bloom. I don't suppose searching in Spanish ever crossed your mind did it? And people take the piss out Manuel for being thick!

http://www.google.com/search?q=Universitat+Politècnica+de+Catalunya&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Results 1 - 10 of about 72,400 for Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. (0.25 seconds)*

If you add Amparo+Sacristán to the search you get 14 returns. Now all you need is a translator... good luck!

http://www.google.com/search?q=Univ...+Catalunya+Amparo+Sacristán&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Results 1 - 10 of about 14 for Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya+Amparo Sacristán. (0.20 seconds)*

 

[bigfish]

For some reason those links don't work, but if you take the search terms and use google you should get what I got.

 

[fela fan]

Still waiting for the evidence of the spectacular depth of incompetence by the USG and how everything simultaneously just didn't happen.

Every single thing designed to react to emergencies, on that day, failed to react. Nothing. Nothing happened.

Although in the seach for the black box, they instead found one of the hijacker's passports, unsinged, whole, and lying on the ground in a mound of ash.

 

[pbman]

Every single thing designed to react to emergencies, on that day, failed to react. Nothing. Nothing happened.

.

Your dreaming, bush went to a military base, with a jet escort acording to the plan, and you guys on the left attacked him for it.

 

[editor]

If you search using the Spanish terms derived from the Ombudsmans report I posted up for you all to read then you get a whopping 72,000 returns In Bloom.

Thing is, you've already been rumbled, haven't you?

You clearly hadn't bothered to check your source before triumphantly posting up his nano-'analysis' and you still don't know what the Professor is actually qualified in, do you?

 

[editor]

Since you are clearly not familiar with the evidence I talk of and since this can only demonstrate an incredible lack of research on your part, I can only continue to assume you know naff all about 9/11, and so I will help you by setting out the juiciest bits of this evidence.

Boy, you are one pompous, arrogant dreamer.

But who am I to discourage you from buying those exciting conspiracy books, repeating your 'LIHOP' mantra like a crazed parrot and deluding yourself that you know the 'truth' while the rest of us stupid people wallow in ignorance.

 

[fela fan]

Your dreaming, bush went to a military base, with a jet escort acording to the plan, and you guys on the left attacked him for it.

Tell me mate what your theory is on that passport that was 'found', and all it survived prior to its retrieval.

Either your government, leaders of the biggest nation in the word and the only superpower, were mind-bogglingly incompetent on that day, or they were involved in the organising.

Which is to be?

And stop dribbling about the 'left'. Makes you look like an obsessed madman. Are there any colours in your world, or just black and white?

 

[fela fan]

The problem is that you can't prove that they did, can you?

Despite the endless bluster and endless repeating of your tedious 'THEY LIHOP ' mantra, it's clear that you're not interested in any kind of debate - your mind is already tightly closed on the matter, despite your complete absence of solid proof.

But mate, you can't prove the USG didn't do it, or rather that Al Q did it. And that is what this thread was for, for you and the others of a similar mind to what happened on that day, to put forward your ideas for why you can accept such incredible incompetence by the world's only superpower, and the one with way way the biggest military and fire power.

So, i'm still waiting for solid proof that the USG weren't involved, and that it was who they said it was that did the attacks.

Any chance of some proof? Because like i've said in recent times, i cannot know for sure what happened, so my mind is still open to persuasion.

 

[fela fan]

In a nutshell, i guess i'm asking for posters to tell the forum why they believe Al Q did it, rather than telling us why the USG couldn't have done it.

It's all about dismissing what didn't happen. Instead, tell us what did happen and anything that backs it up.

 

[Jazzz]

Why look what we have here, a video showing the bottom of the second plane as it crashes into the WTC.

And not a magical cylinder to be seen!

Yes there is, and thanks for finding the same thing from another source. The appendage is very clear especially when you freeze it just before impact (around 57secs). And I dare say when you slow it down you can also make out the missile that it fires (the exact same video is available slowed down on www.letsroll9-11.org except that it has been temporarily removed. However there is plenty of other slowed down footage still available showing the exact same thing).

 

[WouldBe]

Your reluctance to subject your own findings to the scrutiny of those whose analysis you seek to challenge with your own cod-science-red pen approach, is duly noted.

Try doing a google search for "Sobel edge detection" + software.

Edinburgh's Herriot Watt university and UMIST website's give the same explanation of how edges are detected by a change in colour / brightness.

2 visual inspection systems manufacturers also give the same info.

So I make that 5 highly respectable sources, according to who, a sobel edge detector would be fooled by the livery of an UA767.

I cannot see the point in contacting the ombudsman. I do not speak spanish. He may not speak english. If a reply did come back in castillian then babelfish cannot translate it as it only appears to work with catalonian.
( Maybe that's the other way round. When you run any pages about prof C through babelfish it only manages to translate every other word!!!)

Now, how about turning your attention to demolishing the argument being presented by Sparticus?

Oh you really do need to keep up.

For the hard of understanding, for the third time, at the moment I beleive they LIHOP. Why? Because I don't believe anyone, let alone an entire government can be that incredibly stupid to have missed specific warnings from foreign governments and the warnings from their own software to detect insider trading and not taken it seriously.

 

[Jazzz]

For the hard of understanding, for the third time, at the moment I beleive they LIHOP. Why? Because I don't believe anyone, let alone an entire government can be that incredibly stupid to have missed specific warnings from foreign governments and the warnings from their own software to detect insider trading and not taken it seriously.

<applause>

 

[WouldBe]

<applause>

Of course, if the USG are that incredibly stupid, theres not much hope of them putting together such a complex plan as would be required in a MIHOP scenario

 

[editor]

So, i'm still waiting for solid proof that the USG weren't involved

And I'm still waiting for solid proof that the USG were involved.

Have you got any?

 

[editor]

Yes there is, and thanks for finding the same thing from another source. The appendage is very clear especially when you freeze it just before impact (around 57secs). And I dare say when you slow it down you can also make out the missile that it fires (the exact same video is available slowed down on www.letsroll9-11.org except that it has been temporarily removed. However there is plenty of other slowed down footage still available showing the exact same thing).

Haven't you ever pondered why it is that all those billions who have seen that footage and all those people who witnessed the event first hand somehow all managed to failed to spot this amazing, missile-hurling, pretend passenger plane in action?

How about all the insurance companies, structural engineers, crash investigators etc? Why have they failed to pick up on this amazing sight?

And if it was a remote control, missile blasting, pretend passenger plane where the chuffing heck did the original passengers, crew and planes disappear to?

And how about all the baggage handlers, check in staff, refuelling staff, stewards, ground staff, flight controllers etc etc etc. Did they all work on an imaginary plane?

 

[happie chappie]

But mate, you can't prove the USG didn't do it, or rather that Al Q did it. And that is what this thread was for, for you and the others of a similar mind to what happened on that day, to put forward your ideas for why you can accept such incredible incompetence by the world's only superpower, and the one with way way the biggest military and fire power.

So, i'm still waiting for solid proof that the USG weren't involved, and that it was who they said it was that did the attacks.

Any chance of some proof? Because like i've said in recent times, i cannot know for sure what happened, so my mind is still open to persuasion.

First of all, its very difficult to prove a negative - ie the USG didn't do it. We are not debating whether the US had any prior warning of 911 (they may, or may not, have). The tenor of those supporting the alternative view seems to be that the USG played an active/leading part in 911.

There seem to be lots of technologically possible explanations advanced by contributors to this thread and others who support an alternative version of events. Just because they are "possible", it doesn't add up to hard evidence that this is what actually happened. Sure, its "possible" to fire a missile into a building moments before crashing a plane into it - but why bother? It's also possible to set off demolition charges moments before crashing a plane into the twin towers, as another of the conspiracy sites alleges. Again, why bother?

And why should the USG embark on one (if not the) biggest conspiracy ever, involving hundreds, if not thousands, of people? To justify its attack of Afghanistan? Crashing planes into buildings killing thousands of people seems a bit over the top to justify an invasion of a country few US citizens could point to on the map with any confidence. And why is the US still hunting down elements of AQ in Afghanistan if OBL and/or his followers had nothing at all to do with it?

Perhaps it was to justify the invasion of Iraq? Surely, the most obvious conspiracy would be to plant WMDs somewhere in Iraq. Far easier to arrange, involving far less loss of life for US citizens, and probably far less risky than a US govt inspired conspiracy of gargantuan proportions to crash planes into its own buildings.

Happie Chappie

 

[editor]

And why should the USG embark on one (if not the) biggest conspiracy ever, involving hundreds, if not thousands, of people? To justify its attack of Afghanistan? Crashing planes into buildings killing thousands of people seems a bit over the top to justify an invasion of a country few US citizens could point to on the map with any confidence. And why is the US still hunting down elements of AQ in Afghanistan if OBL and/or his followers had nothing at all to do with it?

Perhaps it was to justify the invasion of Iraq? Surely, the most obvious conspiracy would be to plant WMDs somewhere in Iraq. Far easier to arrange, involving far less loss of life for US citizens, and probably far less risky than a US govt inspired conspiracy of gargantuan proportions to crash planes into its own buildings.

Indeed.

I believe that the USG has contrived, schemed and lied to capitalise on tragedy of 9/11 after the event, but I can't think of any credible reason why on earth they'd feel the need to mass slaughter their own citizens, destroy their cities and embark on a conspiracy so dangerous that uncovering it could bring down the unity of the United States itself.

It would have been a lot easier to airlift a pile of WMDs into Iraq, nudged some arms inspectors their way and - bingo! - instant United Nations mandate!

 

[fela fan]

Indeed.

I believe that the USG has contrived, schemed and lied to capitalise on tragedy of 9/11 after the event, but I can't think of any credible reason why on earth they'd feel the need to mass slaughter their own citizens, destroy their cities and embark on a conspiracy so dangerous that uncovering it could bring down the unity of the United States itself.

Well, that goes a long way to explaining your reasons for your position.

But do remember for a minute, that we are talking about people who are prepared (coz they do it) to mass slaughter other citizens, destroy other cities. In the process of doing this to achieve their own geo-political ends, they are also prepared to allow US citizens in the guise of having a certain job (soldier) to be mass-slaughtered too.

Is it really such a leap of imagination for them to go from foreign citizens and US soldiers (citizens really, but just with a job title) onto american citizens who do other jobs?

But either way, you seem to be proposing (correct me if i'm wrong) that your disbelief the USG could do such a thing is stronger in influencing your thoughts on what happened than the evidence of the complete and total incompetence that this government must have indulged in.

That is no evidence at all sir! It is just showing us the limits of what you yourself can believe in. But we have the evidence of what didn't happen. And that is either down to history's biggest chain of incompetences ever, or down to someone making sure all emergency procedures didn't work. And to ignore the insider trading going on prior to the attacks. And to ignore the intelligence, quite specific, coming in from various nations, eg Pakistan, Sudan, Germany earlier on that year.

How can you equate such gross and massive incompetence across a whole spectrum of areas, being done by the world's only superpower?

 

[happie chappie]

Well, that goes a long way to explaining your reasons for your position.

But do remember for a minute, that we are talking about people who are prepared (coz they do it) to mass slaughter other citizens, destroy other cities. In the process of doing this to achieve their own geo-political ends, they are also prepared to allow US citizens in the guise of having a certain job (soldier) to be mass-slaughtered too.

Is it really such a leap of imagination for them to go from foreign citizens and US soldiers (citizens really, but just with a job title) onto american citizens who do other jobs?

But either way, you seem to be proposing (correct me if i'm wrong) that your disbelief the USG could do such a thing is stronger in influencing your thoughts on what happened than the evidence of the complete and total incompetence that this government must have indulged in.

That is no evidence at all sir! It is just showing us the limits of what you yourself can believe in. But we have the evidence of what didn't happen. And that is either down to history's biggest chain of incompetences ever, or down to someone making sure all emergency procedures didn't work. And to ignore the insider trading going on prior to the attacks. And to ignore the intelligence, quite specific, coming in from various nations, eg Pakistan, Sudan, Germany earlier on that year.

How can you equate such gross and massive incompetence across a whole spectrum of areas, being done by the world's only superpower?

But the central question still remains - why?

For a conspiracy, the conspirators have to have an aim. This comes before the method. Put simply - "We want to achieve x, and we are going to do y to achieve it".

Those who believe that the USG were actively responsible for 9/11 (rather than guilty of any sins of omission) still haven't explained what the purpose of the conspiracy is. Without this, everything else is pure conjecture.

Happie Chappie