Arcadia Discussion Zone

Forums dedicated to history's mysteries, Rennes-le-Château and beyond…

Read the Arcadia Forum House Rules

It is currently 16 Jan 2018 9:12 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 477 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 20  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Inside Job
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2008 12:40 pm 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 11349
Location: France
http://www.communitycurrency.org/robin.html

Sorry this is not relevent to the forum, but we need to keep talking about 9/11.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Inside Job
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2008 4:32 pm 
Offline
Grand Master

Joined: 27 Sep 2007 10:08 pm
Posts: 546
Location: London
Sheila wrote:
Sorry this is not relevent to the forum, but we need to keep talking about 9/11.


Why?

I've read your link, not very convincing. Here is a wealth of info for you to consider:

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/911pent ... ncesummary

www.911myths.com

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... 4341498508

9/11 is like RLC in that if the facts are boring the conspiracy nutters just make stuff up.

_________________
The Truth is in here:

http://www.criticalenquiry.org/oakisland/index.shtml

http://priory-of-sion.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Wake up!
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2008 6:41 pm 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 11349
Location: France
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#eve


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2008 6:45 pm 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 11349
Location: France
Gary North's REALITY CHECK
Number 82 October 12, 2001

Original Link: http://www.eionews.addr.com/psyops/news ... puzzle.htm

Maybe you like puzzles. I hope so. I don't like
them. I regard them as a challenge, not a game. I avoid
them because, when I cannot find a solution, my mind won't
stop working on them. Then I get very frustrated. So, I
avoid magic shows, crossword puzzles, and similar brain-
twisters.

Yet I am also a historian with a Ph.D. Historians are
trained to solve puzzles with insufficient pieces.
Historians never have all of the evidence that they would
like in order to come up with a coherent explanation of
what happened. They always want another piece in the
puzzle before they go into print. (Of course, once they go
into print, they will tend to reject any newly discovered
piece that messes up their version of the completed
puzzle.) At some point, they are supposed to come to a
conclusion. They are supposed to make a judgment about
what happened.

I am presently stuck. So, I am sending out this
report. Maybe there is someone my list who can get me
unstuck.

Years ago, I saw a movie, "My Cousin Vinnie." Vinnie
was studying to be a lawyer. He wasn't a good classroom
student, but he had a unique ability. He could figure out
how things fit together. Show him a magic trick, and he
could tell you how the magician did it. Tell him a story
with a missing link, and he could identify where the
missing link was, and maybe what it was. He could solve
puzzles.

I am trying to locate Vinnie.

This puzzle is no game. The United States has gone to
war on the basis of one solution to this puzzle. We have
not yet been told what this solution is.

The puzzle begins with the crash of four airliners.
We must work our way backward from this.

To do this, I decided to begin with official
information that was published 16 days after the attack.
To work my way backwards, I first leaped forward.

ALLEGED HIJACKERS

On September 27, the Associated Press released a story
about the hijackers. The version that I read, published in
the ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, referred to these men as
alleged hijackers. I shall do the same.

I located this article by using www.daypop.com.
Daypop is the most complete archive of recent news stories
on the Web. Daypop allows you to search for stories that
are up to four weeks old.

I searched for "passenger list" and "hijackers."
Daypop produced three pages of links -- not that many.
Almost all of these links were to the same AP story, which
was published by numerous on-line news sources. Here is
the version I used.

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/terror ... rlist.html

The headline reads: "FBI releases updated list of
alleged hijackers." Above the headline is a link that
says, "Click here to see 19 suspected hijackers." I
clicked it. A large box popped up. It took a while for
the photos to appear. There are 19 photos, along with
names. The names appear to be Middle Eastern -- Arabs.
Most of the men look like Arabs, although a few might pass
as Mexicans. Only one of them looked vaguely like a
European.

They are divided into four lists, according to which
flight they are said to have boarded. There were five men
on American Airlines Flight 77, five on AA Flight 11, five
on United Airlines Flight 175, and four on UA Flight 93 --
the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania.

Let's return to the AP story itself. We read the
following:

As Attorney General John Ashcroft launched a
"national neighborhood watch" with the release of
the photos, FBI Director Robert Mueller
acknowledged that questions remained about
whether an accompanying list contained the true
names of the 19.

"What we are currently doing is determining
whether, when these individuals came to the
United States, these were their real names or
they changed their names for use with false
identification in the United States," Mueller
said.

The FBI director said there was evidence that one
or more of the hijackers had had contacts with
al-Qaida, the network associated with Osama bin
Laden, the exiled Saudi millionaire who is the
Bush administration's top suspect in the attacks.

This story indicates that, as of September 27, the FBI
was not certain whether these suspects had used their real
names. The remainder of the story listed each of their
names, along with possible aliases. The aliases all look
like Arab names.

I have discovered no additional information released
to the general public regarding these suspects.

I now backtrack to the morning of September 11. The
issue that I am trying to deal with is airline security.
To draw rational conclusions about how the alleged
hijackers accomplished their acts of terrorism, we must
begin with airline security.

The United States has now gone to war because of a
breakdown somewhere in airline security procedures. Yet
nobody in government is blaming the specific airlines.
They are blaming the procedures. This is why I want you
mentally to go through the procedures with me. I have hit
a brick wall. I am asking you to help me knock it down. I
will show you how I went through the procedures mentally.
See if you can figure out which step I missed.

Step One is check-in.

STEP ONE: CHECK-IN

On September 11, airline check-in counters were the
only places in the United States that required travellers
to present a photo ID in order to travel. A photo ID meant
(and still means) a card issued by some branch of civil
government. Years ago, the United States government took
the first step toward a national ID card when it mandated
the requirement that all passengers present a photo ID card
before being allowed to get on a commercial airplane.

This means that the tightest security that the typical
American ever confronts is airport security. This is the
model for all other security systems governing the general
public.

Let's go through the check-in routine together.
Pretend that it's September 11, and you are a check-in
agent at either a United Airlines counter or an American
Airlines counter. It is your job to ask the standard
questions. "Did you pack your own luggage? Have you had
it in your possession at all times?" Then you ask for a
photo ID. The name on the ID must match the name on the
ticket. The photo must match the person presenting the
card.

I began with American Airlines, Flight 11. This was
the plane that crashed into the north tower of the World
Trade Center. I began with the list of passengers. This
was not difficult. The passenger lists for all four planes
are posted on CNN's Website.

Click on the link. This is a long link for the
formatting of my newsletter. If it is broken on your
screen, you will have to paste it into your Web browser's
address box. This will take two steps.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade. ... ctims.html

The CNN page says that there were 92 people on board.
I suggest that you print out the list. Part of my exercise
was to count the names of the passengers. Besides, you
never know when a Web page will disappear.

Do you have the print-out in front of you? Count the
names. I get 86 names, including the crew. But the CNN
page says 92 people were on board.

None of the 86 names is an Arab name. This is very,
very strange. First, how did the CNN list-compiler know
that there were 92 people on board? Five of them are not
listed. Second, how did anyone get on board who was not on
the list of ticketed passengers?

To get onto the flight legally, each passenger had to
have a ticket with his or her name on it. Each passenger
had to present a photo ID to the check-in agent. The
check-in agent was supposed to look at the picture and the
person, and then make a judgment. Was it the same person?
If the mandated procedure was followed, the check-in agent
decided that the ticket's name, the photo ID's name, the
photo, and the ID-holder's face all matched. If there was
any doubt, the check-in agent was supposed to ask for some
other form of identification. If there was none, the
person was not allowed to board the plane.

We are told by the United States government that five
Arabs somehow got through this initial screening procedure.
How did they do this? This is puzzle number one regarding
Flight 11. Puzzle number two has to do with the incomplete
passenger list.
Airlines keep a list of passengers on board. This is
for insurance purposes, should there be a crash. It is
also for the purpose of notifying relatives after a crash.
It is also for the purpose of in-cabin screening. "Has
everyone paid who is on the plane?" And, finally, is there
a hijacker on board?

On American Airlines Flight 11, there were no Arab
names on the passenger list. So, how does the government
know who the hijackers were?

Why does CNN's Web page list 92 dead, when there are
only 86 name listed? Who was the non-Arab?

I have seen nothing about government accusations
against American Airlines for substandard check-in security
procedures. In fact, I have seen nothing about the
discrepancy between the published names and the published
numbers regarding how many people were on board.

Let's go to American Airlines Flight 77. This plane
crashed into the Pentagon.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade. ... ctims.html

We are told that 64 people were on board. I count 56,
including 6 crew members. There is no explanation offered
for the absence of 8 names. There is no Arab name on this
list.

Something is definitely wrong here.

What about United Airlines? Did the company's
employees follow the same check-in procedure? Presumably,
they did. I checked Flight 175, which crashed into the
south tower.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade. ... ctims.html

There were 56 people on board, according to CNN's
summation. I printed out the list. I counted the names.
Once again, they don't add up. The summation says there
were 2 pilots, 7 flight attendants, and 56 passengers. I
counted the names. The total is 56 -- the number
attributed to the passengers. Nine names are missing.
None of the listed names is Arab.

This leaves United Flight 93, which crashed in
Pennsylvania. It had 45 people on board, according to the
summation.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade. ... ctims.html

Again, there is a discrepancy. Only 33 names appear
on the list. A dozen names are missing. Among the missing
names are the four Arabs who allegedly hijacked the plane.

So, the published names in no instance match the total
listed for the number of people on board. CNN really
should offer an explanation for this discrepancy.

In no case does an Arab name appear on a list, let
alone one of the alleged hijackers.

How did CNN fail to count the names accurately? Did
the airlines not provide the full list of each flight's
names? Perhaps so.

This raises the next question. How did the airlines
know how many people were on each of these flights? The
airlines must have had a list for each flight. What
possible reason could they have had for not releasing the
full lists? Finally, why are there no Arabs listed on any
of these lists, let alone the specific Arabs identified by
the Attorney General and the head of the FBI in an
Associated Press story?

I do not understand how 19 Arabs could have evaded the
check-in procedures. I also do not understand why every
passenger's name is not on the published lists.

I have seen no other source of the passenger lists.
(Another search word: "manifests.") It has now been over a
month since the attack. Where is a complete list? I don't
know. Where is a complete list of all four flights that
has the alleged hijackers' names on it? I don't know.

Finally, where is some enterprising reporter who is
trying to get answers? I don't know.

What about Step Two?

STEP TWO: ON-BOARD SEATING

There were multiple terrorists in the cabin of each
plane when the plane left the ground. They did not get
there through the ticket-screening system. Or did they?
If they did, then how?

I assume here -- again, maybe I am wrong -- that they
got there through another entrance. Maybe they were part
of the food service team.

These were all cross-country flights. The planes were
loaded with lots of fuel, which is why they were selected:
flying bombs. On cross-country flights, passengers still
are given meals, not just pretzels and soft drinks. The
number of meals is supposed to match the number of people
on board, or at least come close.

Flight attendants have a list of passengers and their
assigned seats. This is to enable them to identify
passengers who have requested special meals, such as kosher
meals. It is also to enable them to identify people who
have not bought a ticket. Flight attendants are supposed
to know who has been assigned to which seat.

It is September 11. Here is the situation: there are
an extra five men on three flights, and four extra men on
Flight 93.

You have already seen the photos of these men. If I
had been a flight attendant, and I saw five extra men who
looked like they did -- young, Arabic, and without tickets
-- I would have asked them to explain why they were on
board. I would not have assumed that they belonged there.
Are we to assume that on four separate flights, none
of the flight attendants noticed that something was wrong?
Are we to believe that they failed to notice that five or
four extra passengers were on board who were not on the
passenger list? Furthermore, these men looked as though
they were of one ethnic group. They all had Arabic
accents, I presume.

Why did the flight attendants ignore all this? There
is no indication from the government that these men took
over all four planes while the planes were still on the
ground. Even if they had, the pilots would not have taken
off if there were hijackers on board. They would have
waited to hear the demands, and the demand to "take off
now" would have been refused by at least one flight crew --
and I believe all four.

We need a theory of the co-ordinated hijacking that
rests on a plausible cause-and-effect sequence that does
not assume the complete failure of both the check-in
procedures and the on-board seating procedures on four
separate flights on two separate airlines. If the
explanation does rely on a theory of check-in procedural
breakdown, where is the evidence?

I have heard no such theory from the government. I
have heard no such theory from the news media. In fact, I
have heard neither the government nor the mainstream media
even mention these perplexing problems. Perhaps you have.
If so, I would like to see the Web link or a reference to
the newspaper or other source where these matters have been
discussed.

I don't mean this or that discussion forum devoted to
conspiracy theories. I mean the mainstream press. It is
very peculiar that the mainstream media and the government
have not offered a detailed theory of how the hijackers
evaded both the check-in procedures and the pre-takeoff
seating procedures.

Perhaps some airline industry publication has dealt
with this. If so, I would like to see the document.

I would also like to see passenger lists that include
every passenger's name. I want to see 19 Arab names on
these complete lists.

If these updated lists are ever released, I want to
see that they match the original lists that were not
released immediately. I want to know that any new names
have not been added retroactively. I want evidence -- from
travel agencies' records and credit card records -- that
everyone on each plane's updated passenger list actually
bought a ticket.

Is this to much to ask? So far, apparently it is.

CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen. Well, not all
of them. We have gone to war based on one of them. But I
don't see how anyone can make an accurate judgment about
who was behind the attacks until he has a plausible
explanation of how the hijackers got onto the planes and
were not removed.

I am not interested in any theory about who did it
until I have a plausible explanation for how he did it.

The key to discovering who planned this attack is
inescapably tied to the procedures used by his agents to do
it.

I don't see how they did it, yet I know that three
planes crashed into highly visible targets. A fourth plane
had veered off course, and it seems plausible that it was
part of a co-ordinated attack. This has yet to be proven,
but it seems plausible.

We keep hearing about plastic knives and box cutters.
But we hear nothing about how these 19 men took plastic
knives and box cutters onto four planes, and no one noticed
that anything was amiss until the planes were in the air.

So, you tell me. How did 19 Arabs get onto these
planes and then remain inconspicuous until the planes were
aloft?

CONCLUSION

I have no conclusion. I told you this at the
beginning. I am stuck.

I am looking for Vinnie. Maybe you're Vinnie. After
you have drawn your own conclusion, and it seems
reasonable, let me know.

But before you do, please run your theory by someone
whose judgment you trust. See if that person thinks your
theory is plausible. See if he or she can pick holes in
it. Don't make me your first guinea pig. I want to be at
least second. Third would be even better.

We need to get the division of intellectual labor
working here. As the Bible says, "Two are better than one;
because they have a good reward for their labour. For if
they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him
that is alone when he falleth; for he hath not another to
help him up" (Ecclesiastes 4:9-10).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 31 Mar 2008 8:15 pm 
Offline
Grand Master

Joined: 04 Aug 2007 7:08 pm
Posts: 1234
Location: scandinavia
" "


Last edited by jakeabf on 02 Nov 2008 2:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Apr 2008 3:56 pm 
Offline
Grand Master

Joined: 27 Sep 2007 10:08 pm
Posts: 546
Location: London
Sheila wrote:
Gary North's REALITY CHECK

So, you tell me. How did 19 Arabs get onto these planes and then remain inconspicuous until the planes were aloft?

CONCLUSION
I have no conclusion. I told you this at the beginning. I am stuck.


Is that guy stupid or very stupid? :lol: Why on earth did you bother to repeat that worthless rubbish? You obviously didn't want to read my links, don't want to let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy? :roll:

_________________
The Truth is in here:

http://www.criticalenquiry.org/oakisland/index.shtml

http://priory-of-sion.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Apr 2008 3:59 pm 
Offline
Grand Master

Joined: 27 Sep 2007 10:08 pm
Posts: 546
Location: London
jakeabf wrote:
Sheila, I have no idea why you think 9-11 has any significance other than to be a puzzle piece of when AntiChrist is gonna show up and take over. The immediate aftermath was to create the conditions for Armageddon.

...

Do I need to add more?


:shock: No.

_________________
The Truth is in here:

http://www.criticalenquiry.org/oakisland/index.shtml

http://priory-of-sion.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 02 Apr 2008 12:56 pm 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 11349
Location: France
Ted Olson's Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials


by David Ray Griffin


Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story that began: "Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN." According to this story, Olson reported that his wife had "called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77," saying that "all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters."

Ted Olson's report was very important. It provided the only evidence that American 77, which was said to have struck the Pentagon, had still been aloft after it had disappeared from FAA radar around 9:00 AM (there had been reports, after this disappearance, that an airliner had crashed on the Ohio-Kentucky border). Also, Barbara Olson had been a very well-known commentator on CNN. The report that she died in a plane that had been hijacked by Arab Muslims was an important factor in getting the nation's support for the Bush administration's "war on terror." Ted Olson's report was important in still another way, being the sole source of the widely accepted idea that the hijackers had box cutters.

However, although Ted Olson's report of phone calls from his wife has been a central pillar of the official account of 9/11, this report has been completely undermined.

Olson's Self-Contradictions

Olson began this process of undermining by means of self-contradictions. He first told CNN, as we have seen, that his wife had "called him twice on a cell phone." But he contradicted this claim on September 14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached him by calling the Department of Justice collect. Therefore, she must have been using the "airplane phone," he surmised, because "she somehow didn't have access to her credit cards." However, this version of Olson's story, besides contradicting his first version, was even self-contradictory, because a credit card is needed to activate a passenger-seat phone.

Later that same day, moreover, Olson told Larry King Live that the second call from his wife suddenly went dead because "the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don't work that well." After that return to his first version, he finally settled on the second version, saying that his wife had called collect and hence must have used "the phone in the passengers' seats" because she did not have her purse.

By finally settling on this story, Olson avoided a technological pitfall. Given the cell phone system employed in 2001, high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were impossible, or at least virtually so (Olson's statement that "the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don't work that well" was a considerable understatement). The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004.


However, Olson's second story, besides being self-contradictory, was contradicted by American Airlines.

American Airlines Contradicts Olson's Second Version

A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA's website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: "That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack."

In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI.

Olson's Story Contradicted by the FBI


The most serious official contradiction of Ted Olson's story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an "unconnected call," which (of course) lasted "0 seconds." According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone.

Back on 9/11, the FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of that interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that his wife had called him twice from Flight 77. And yet the FBI's report on calls from Flight 77, presented in 2006, indicated that no such calls occurred.

This was an amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized claim of the DOJ's former solicitor general that he had received two calls from his wife on 9/11.

Olson's Story Also Rejected by Pentagon Historians

Ted Olson's story has also been quietly rejected by the historians who wrote Pentagon 9/11, a treatment of the Pentagon attack put out by the Department of Defense.

According to Olson, his wife had said that "all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers." This is an inherently implausible scenario. We are supposed to believe that 60-some people, including the two pilots, were held at bay by three or four men (one or two of the hijackers would have been in the cockpit) with knives and box cutters.

This scenario becomes even more absurd when we realize that the alleged hijackers were all small, unathletic men (the 9/11 Commission pointed out that even "[t]he so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing, as the majority of them were between 5'5" and 5'7" in height and slender in build" ), and that the pilot, Charles "Chic" Burlingame, was a weightlifter and a boxer, who was described as "really tough" by one of his erstwhile opponents. Also, the idea that Burlingame would have turned over the plane to hijackers was rejected by his brother, who said: "I don't know what happened in that cockpit, but I'm sure that they would have had to incapacitate him or kill him because he would have done anything to prevent the kind of tragedy that befell that airplane."

The Pentagon historians, in any case, did not accept the Olson story, according to which Burlingame and his co-pilot did give up their plane and were in the back with the passengers and other crew members. They instead wrote that "the attackers either incapacitated or murdered the two pilots."

Conclusion

This rejection of Ted Olson's story by American Airlines, the Pentagon, and especially the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson's claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife. In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well?

The fact that Ted Olson's report has been contradicted by other defenders of the official story about 9/11 provides grounds for demanding a new investigation of 9/11. This internal contradiction is, moreover, only one of 25 such contradictions discussed in my most recent book, 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 02 Apr 2008 7:23 pm 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 11349
Location: France
Roger, thank you for your reply, I was only trying to keep alive the discussion on 9/11.
I had no idea you had personal involvement with the tragedy, I'm so sorry to have re-opened memories for you.

I will say no more.

Respect, S.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 02 Apr 2008 8:26 pm 
Offline
Grand Master

Joined: 04 Aug 2007 7:08 pm
Posts: 1234
Location: scandinavia
" "


Last edited by jakeabf on 02 Nov 2008 2:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Apr 2008 7:36 am 
Offline
Acolyte

Joined: 26 Jan 2007 2:58 pm
Posts: 190
Roger wrote:
To begin, despite the attempts at providing "scientific" explanations for the sudden collapse of the towers 1 & 2, as well (albeit a bit different case) tower 7, none of the so-called explanations are devoid of flaws putting their credibility in grave doubt. No one has yet come up with a scientifically convincing explanation.


It's a few years since I looked into some of this conspiracy lark (or bullshit, if I were to be less kind).

Explain, in some detail please, the disappearance of the one of the mechanical penthouses on the roof of WTC7 shortly before that building collapsed. How often do you see that kind of thing in a controlled demolition?

After you have explained that, please do also explain why the seismometers installed by Columbia University failed to detect the telltale vibrations of exploding RDX (or whatever explosive that is alleged to have been used)? Or is CU in on the conspiracy too? Well, they must be, surely?

I have downloaded *dozens* of videos (I still have them) of building demolitions of large buildings conducted across the world. Not one of those buildings collapsed in the very vertical, symmetrical manner in which WTC7 collapsed. Curious(?). In every case, prior to the collapse of a building, the thunderous explosions of the detonating explosives can be clearly heard. But - strangely - not in the case of WTC7. Please explain why this is so. In no available footage of the collapse of WTC7 can you hear any explosions prior to the collapse (although dubious "evidence" for such explosions has subsequently emerged on some nutcase pro-conspiracy websites).

Oh, and the building demolition expert Brent Blanchard is in on the conspiracy too, right?

And how quickly do you think a building the size of WTC7 could have been
rigged-up for demolition without anybody noticing?

And why is there no evidence of the signature post-detonation product of RDX? All covered up, right?

Despite your very direct association with WTC1 (and please, I don't mean to sound insensitive), until I read your take on the 9/11 tragedy, I personally held you in rather high esteem.

Ever heard of Occam's Razor?


Regards,

David.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Apr 2008 10:29 am 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm
Posts: 7753
http://www.loosechange911.com/blog/

Loose change final cut - A must see documentary

The best bit for me is where we get the well known filmed clip of George Bush describing (to an amused audience) how he was in Sarasota, Florida and saw the first plane hit and said that the pilot should have his licence revoked.

You can always rely on that idiot putting his foot firmly into his mouth, because this, from the President of the United States during 911, is a proveable and demonstrable bare faced lie. He couldn't possibly have seen the first plane hit (it was never on TV until the Nordei brothers film was shown the following day and he was in Florida) and second plane hit was on TV but that had the North Tower already on fire next to it.

The man is an idiot.

Not to mention the BBC reporting the collapse of building 7 twenty five minutes before it did collapse. The ignorant reporter describing on live TV from New York how the building had collapsed whilst the building can still be seen behind her. Building 7, one of only three high steel lattice buildings in History to collapse due to fire. The first two were WTC towers one and two.

Ooops!!!! Explain that one Gundagin?

_________________
Image
CROMLECK DE RENNES is here.
It's the SUN


Last edited by roscoe on 20 Apr 2008 11:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 20 Apr 2008 10:55 am 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 11349
Location: France
http://www.clayandiron.com/news.jhtml?m ... ws.id=1450

PROOF OKC BOMBING FBI ATF Govt OP April 19th 1995 April 19, 2008


PROOF OF OKC APRIL 19TH 1995 WAS AN FBI / ATF BOMBING SPECIAL OPERATION

Dr Bill Deagle MD

April 18th 2008

May 1st 2008 is a special day for Jesse C. Trentadue. This is the day he finds out if a Federal Judge permits an already mandated Video Deposition to take place of Terry Lynn Nichols.

In Feb 2007, Jesse C. Trentadue Attorney, spent one and one-half days with Terry Lynn Nichols, obtaining his deposition. In it, he stated that there were many other parties involved and that the operations were overseen by FBI. Jesse won a Federal injunction allowing a video deposition of Terry Lynn, but the US Dept of Prisons and FBI had filed motions to quash his video deposition of Terry. May 1st 2008 is May Day for the Old World Disorder, as this Video evidence will demand finally a Grand Jury, that will make complicit two and possibly three Presidencies, FBI, ATF, and US State's Attorney in Colorado, Arapahoe County Sherriff, and many more.

"On March 20, 2008, Plaintiff receive from the FBI's Philadelphia Office documents relate to information provided by informants to the FBI regarding: Tim McVeigh, Elohim City, the Aryan Republican Army or 'ARA', OKBOMB, BOMBROB, Richard Lee Guthrie and the Mid-West Bank Robbers, one of whom was Mark Thomas." ..." Donna Marazoff is or was the girlfriend of Mark Thomas and the mother of two of his children. The Court will recall that Thomas was a member of the Mid-West Bank Robbery Gang, a member of the Aryan Republican Army."

"With this background, the Marazoff 302 is very significant. In this 302, the FBI documents that Marazoff reported that prior to February of 1995, she and Thomas had been discussing the federal government's involvement in Waco and Ruby Ridge. According to Marazoff, Thomas became "very irritated" during that conversation and said: "We are going to get them. We are going to hit one of their buildings during the middle of the day. It's going to be a federal building. We will get sympathy if we bomb the building"[T]he people who will lose their loved ones, will realize how bad it feels." (Marazoff 302) (emphasis added).

"Interestingly, Thomas and the other Elohim City, ARA and Mid-West Bank Robbers crowd do not seem to have been subjects of interest to the FBI when it came to the bombing of the Murrah Building, and one has to wonder. Why? The answer to that question may likewise be the basis for the FBI Defendants' suspicious of Plaintiff's reason for advising the Court about this recent release of additional informant documents. This Saturday will be the 13th anniversary of the Bombing. That attack was the biggest act of domestic terrorism in the 20th Century and resulted in the deaths of 168 people, including 19 toddlers as well as hundreds of injured victims. Perhaps this approaching anniversary is why FBI Defendants' are so suspicious and wary of the motive behind Plaintiff's filing of the Notice of Release. But, if Plaintiff wante to present FBI Defendants in a bad light, he would have included the Marazoff 302 and similar FBI documents in his Notice of Release of additional informant documents. Dated this 17th day of April, 2008. -- Jesse C. Trentadue; Pro Se Plaintiff "

As Exit Medical Examiner at CCOM, St. Francis Hospital, I personally examined all five Special Ops Bomb Forensics Military Officers. One of the officers spent several hours provided extreme details of the scene, cause of the demolition and operational control of the site by Wakenhut Security. He wanted further testing from positive radiation exposure, and told me how the entire operation was run by FBI and ATF and how all their bags were weighed and scanned for radiation traces of removed debris particles and chunks. They were warned, "Don't remove any material from the site or we will track and kill you." When it became evident that he told me this information, he was court-martialed and I was summarily fired and threatened.

Your stomach wretches when you read the attached Marazoff 302 documents, the depos of Terry Lynn Nichols, death row Oklahoma cohabitant David Paul Hammer, Kevin Lagan, etc. and the news of additional bombs removed from the US Federal Murrah Building by local news. It is evident that a comprehensive criminal cover-up was and had been continued by FBI and the Dept of Prisons trying to block the video deposition of Terry Lynn Nichols. Terry's deposition is quite damning, and lined up with my affidavit attached and these other documents. We need a Grand Jury to obtain suppressed videotapes around the building and safe harbor for other whistleblowers to come forward for a new OKC Murrah Demolition investigation.

As we remember the Battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19th, 2008, Patriot's Day, remember it also memorialized the dates of OKC, Ruby Ridge and Waco in our souls. Only with a Grand Jury and indictments will we be free of future OKCs, 911s, and the nukes activated in multiple US Cities or release of pandemic death. OKC Murrah revelations are the 'can-opener' of 911 WTC Demolition. National crimes were committed with advanced explosives, micro-nukes, and thermate. A 'real 911 WTC Full Grand Jury Investigation' must follow swiftly and in parallel with the OKC revelations presented here on the 13th Anniversay of the OKC Murrah Demolition. It was the self-inflicted wound of OKC and 911 that propelled the USA into two and now a possible third unjustified and illegal war, blown the US Dollar and economy, and brought the world to the brink of WWIII.

Let us take a deep breath of hope, and invigorated with courage step forwarded into a tomorrow. A day when the 'terror state' is dismantled, national IDs and North American Union are bad memories and adventurous wars promulgated on self inflicted terror will never more happen in this great United States of America.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Apr 2008 10:56 am 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2007 1:57 pm
Posts: 11349
Location: France
Thank you Roscoe.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Apr 2008 11:08 am 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm
Posts: 7753
Sheila wrote:
Thank you Roscoe.


Did you know that Muhammad Atta was in Sarasota, Florida on September 10th George Bush was there at the Booker School the day after as we now know.

September 10th now there's an interesting day.

Donald Rumsfeld announced on TV that 3 trillion dollars had gone missing from the Pentagon budget.

The accounting records for the pentagon budget had been moved recently to the Navy annex part of the Pentagon and also under investigation to Building 7 WTC where all government accounting frauds are investigated. The Navy Annex part was destroyed when Flight 77 hit the pentagon.

Now ain't that a coincidence boys and girls.

_________________
Image
CROMLECK DE RENNES is here.
It's the SUN


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: KOOKS CORNER
PostPosted: 20 Apr 2008 11:25 am 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm
Posts: 7753
The incredible CONSPIRACY THEORY of the Boxcutter Conspiracy Theorists (Here after known as the BCTs)

Yes it's true the Fruit Loops actually believe that 19 hijackers took over planes with boxcutters.

Kennedy assasination investigation Budget - $23million

Flight 903 investigation budget - $45million

Pearl Harbor investigation budget - $17million

911 attack (worst crime in world history) investigation budget $3million

_________________
Image
CROMLECK DE RENNES is here.
It's the SUN


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Apr 2008 4:11 pm 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm
Posts: 7753
Days before investigation carried out.

Pearl Harbor - 9 days

Kennedy Assassination - 7 days

Challenger Disaster - 7 days

911 investigation - 411 days

Budget for investigation.
Challenger disaster - $75million

Columbia distaster - $50million

Clinton's indiscretions - $40million


911 investigation. (Worst crime in Modern history) - $3million

Nothing suspicious about that ay? :wink:

_________________
Image
CROMLECK DE RENNES is here.
It's the SUN


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Apr 2008 7:53 pm 
Offline
Acolyte

Joined: 26 Jan 2007 2:58 pm
Posts: 190
Roger wrote:
There is a rather gaping flaw in your reasoning, David, and I can excuse it on the basis of a rationally-based refusal to consider the overwhelming majority of "conspiracy theories" out there due to their inherently outlandish nature.


I simply could not reconcile the claims of most 9/11 conspiracy theorists that the collapse of WTC7 was a controlled demolition, with the counter-evidence that is available. Some ten to twelve seconds before WTC7 collapsed, one of the mechanical penthouses on the roof of the building can be seen to be quite gently 'sinking' into the building. Pro-conspiracy websites don't like to show this bit of video footage. Might this be because it in some way harms their case? Then, as I mentioned, there's the problem of zero evidence for the sound of exploding RDX prior to the collapse - nothing on Columbia University's seismograph until the actual collapse itself (that indeed was registered). None of this though presents a difficulty for the conspiracy believers. No evidence of a demolition crew seen preparing the building for demolition (which, by all accounts, would have taken up to a week). And then there's the entirely atypical way in which the building collapsed, which was nothing like the way a building collapses in a controlled demolition (judging by the dozens of videos I have seen of such demolitions).


Roger wrote:
Don't confuse me with any conspiracy theorist. I have no conspiracy theory whatsoever. I merely state that the "explanations" we have been given for the collapse of the towers are pure unadulterated bullshit.


You personally may not be a conspiracy theorist, but it is quite obvious to me that you have bought into/accepted/believed/subscribed-to some of the claims of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists -- not all of whom are scrupulously honest individuals who are simply on a quest for the Truth. The 9/11 Conspiracy fraternity has its fair share of liars, fakers, distorters, ignoramuses and wilfully deceitful scumbags (I won't mention names as I could never afford the lawsuit). I think you'll find that many 9/11 conspiracy theorists are also avid proponents of the various Moon Landings Hoax conspiracies, the Princess Diana Was Murdered conspiracies, July 7th London Bombings Was An Inside Job conspiracies, JFK, Roswell, Illuminati and in some cases, even Holocaust denial. And dozens more fashionable conspiracy theories.


Roger wrote:
Additionally, I state that there are inconsistencies in recorded statements given at the time, and that everyone in a position to do so refuses to elucidate these inconsistencies. Period.


Or perhaps many of them have, but not to your personal satisfaction.


Roger wrote:
If demanding answers makes me a "conspiracy theorist" in your eyes, then so be it. But the contrary is true. I believe it's the vacuum of straightforward answers that provides a veritable petri dish for all manner of bizarre "conspiracy theories" and that taking a Psmith Journalist attitude, dismissing any questions as "nonsense", as opposed to answering the questions, is counter-productive.


I don't know for sure (it's some years since I looked into this - and not deeply at that), but perhaps many of the allegedly unanswered (or unsatisfactorily answered) questions have actually been convincingly answered on various 9/11 anti-conspiracy websites, and in official reports (which, naturally, are going to be viewed as inherently suspect by those that have subsribed to (some of) the claims of the conspiracy theorists).

Perhaps cognitive dissonance is at play here?


Roger wrote:
By the way, did you know that demolition experts have examined the shape and velocity of the debris clouds during the collapse and found them consistent with high velocity explosive reactions? It doesn't mean anything in and of itself, experts are paid to testify and you can get an "expert" to cover any position you wish.


Since large chunks of debris are undeniably seen peeling off or falling *away* as the towers collapse, and landing quite some distance from the base, they must initially have experienced a component of force in the direction perpendicular to the tower. The problem, Roger, is that it can't have been a detonating explosive that supplied that component of force. Why? Because, for a start, you cannot actually hear any such explosions. Curious, huh? The puffs of smoke and dust seen just below the collapse line as it falls are due to the compressed air forcing out the dust and smoke. That makes sense to me, or is that not convincing to you? Then there's the problem of zero evidence that any such rigging-up ever took place. None whatsoever. The perpendicular component of force might (and most probably was) have been due to other large, heavy chunks of debris falling from above and pushing sections of wall outward. It seems intuitive to me, but perhaps I'm just being glib. What does seem counterintuitive to me (as a physics grad, at any rate!) is that all the debris should land in one perfectly neat, rectangular heap on the ground.

And I agree with your assertion that you can get an "expert" to cover any position you like -- Creationists know all about that, don't they.




Roger wrote:
I've seen convincing "debunking" of every single theory of explanation of the collapse, on very rational and factual scientific grounds. Again, it really isn't convincing either way. It would be nice if all questions would be respectfully considered, and some honest attempt was made to answer them.


That rather begs a question, doesn't it.


Roger wrote:
It also would've been nice if most of the crucial evidence hadn't been immediately sold for scrap before scientific examination.




Roger wrote:
I'll tell you what I believe. I believe I don't know what actually happened (apart from the obvious, planes flying into the buildings, and building security telling us to "stay put" until someone fetched you to take you down to ground level, radios not working due to scurrilous political side-deals on procurement, etc.). I also believe we won't know for another generation or two, but eventually all "secrets" and/or "mistakes" will out.


More question-begging.

Permit me to tell you what I believe: No quality or quantity of evidence will ever - EVER - persuade the conspiracy theorists (or most of those that subscribe to the conspiracy theories) that 9/11 was not an "inside job". Jamais. Nunca. Nie. We're dealing with a pathologically sceptical mindset here, and a hardcore of - at best - intellectually dishonest ignoramuses who'll not be persuaded by any amount of evidence, and at worst, liars and fakers disseminating bullshit to be lapped-up by gullible conspiracy-loving folk the world over.

You do have at least one thing going for you though, Roger: you haven't subscribed to David Shayler's ridiculous idea that it weren't airplanes that ploughed into those buildings, but rather missiles encased within a holographic projection. Seriously! Nor, it seems, are you denying that there were people on those planes (yes - that's right, some conspiracy nuts believe that those planes were empty drones).

I once read that arguing with a 9/11 conspiracist is rather like arguing with a Creationist. I think the point was "don't waste your energy".


Regards,

David.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Apr 2008 8:22 pm 
Offline
Acolyte

Joined: 26 Jan 2007 2:58 pm
Posts: 190
Roger wrote:
Why are you even visiting this website, since your depiction of "9-11 conspiracists" could very well fit the vast majority of RLC "researchers"?


I had noticed very early on that most of the RLC "researchers" I had personally met tend to be conspiracy-minded, and in a few cases outright paranoid -- as well as firm believers in assorted New Age nonsense, and quack medicine (especially homoeopathy). Interesting!

Roger wrote:
Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass about your opinion of me, but I do find that you're astonishingly willing to accept seriously flawed answers, and quite intolerant of anyone who isn't quite as gullible. I'll just file you into the irascible Psmith Journalist category and think no more about it.


Do as you please.


Regards,

David.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 20 Apr 2008 10:23 pm 
Offline
Grand Master

Joined: 04 Aug 2007 7:08 pm
Posts: 1234
Location: scandinavia
" "


Last edited by jakeabf on 02 Nov 2008 2:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 21 Apr 2008 12:17 am 
Offline
Acolyte

Joined: 26 Jan 2007 2:58 pm
Posts: 190
Jake wrote:
Tell me Dave, where were you standing in, on, near the WTC complex when it got hit?


Just how is that relevant, Jake? Does it have any bearing on the truth value of any statement that I may make with regards to the impact and subsequent collapse of those buildings? Does me not being there at the time it all happened make my opinions invalid or less valid, my statements untrue, or my assertions false or suspect by default? If a proponent of one or more of the assorted 9/11 conspiracy theories (some of which are really quite nutty) actually witnessed at first-hand the collapse of both towers, would the fact that he was there at the time automatically place beyond question any opinion he subsequently expresses regarding the inevitable and multitudinous 9/11 conspiracy theories? Are his opinions necessarily factually correct simply by dint of him being a first-hand witness? Of course not. He could well be ignorant and thoroughly self-deluded. He might also be a pathological liar. The particular 9/11 conspiracy theory (one of dozens) that he's bought into might actually be close to the 'Truth', but his geographical location at the time it happened has no bearing on the veracity of the conspiracy theory.


Jake wrote:
Tell me Dave how streamlets of asbestos laden dust are seen all along the sides of the bldg away from the crash site on much lower floors, This is consistent with explosions going on one those floors, but no aviation fuel flames accompany those streamlets, how odd, no?


Jake, why didn't we hear these explosions? Or rather, lest you try the "Oh but you weren't actually there" line, how come there's no evidence of such explosion sounds caught on the available video footage? And let's not forget Columbia University's seismograph. I would have thought that explosions powerful enough to cut steel girders would be clearly audible? I must be mistaken, obviously. And as for those plumes of alleged asbestos (or dust and smoke -- has it been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the dust isn't just non-asbestos dust and smoke?), yes I've seen them. You've heard of air pressure, right? You've got a shedload of debris hurtling down, please don't tell me that that's not going to compress the air beneath it. That air's gotta go somewhere.


Jake wrote:
Folk came dashing out of the building covered by asbestos laden dust and not soot within seconds after the upper floors were hit, so Dave, where did all of that dust come from on all of those lower floors and no smoke or soot debris in sight.


So there are several hundred, verified, reliable eye-witness reports from WTC workers that escaped from the building which mention the horrifically loud steel-cutting explosions that were not picked-up on any of the available video footage? But you, obviously, have all such evidence at hand ready to present to me. Let's see it. And while you're at it, present your compelling evidence (which you doubtlessly have in your possession) for the existence of the covert demolition team that rigged up the building for demolition. You think that could have really been achieved without anybody noticing? Do you realise how many people would have to be in on this conspiracy theory in order to pull it off? Get real.


Jake wrote:
Tell me Dave, which direction did you run to get out of lower Manhattan,?since everybody else was steered by the police to hoof it over to Brooklyn? How come streets of lower manhattan were screened off in a matters of minutes, which must be something of a Guinness record for area screen-off?


Did what you have just described actually happen?


Jake wrote:
Tell me Dave, since you know it all, why folk who live on the opposite side of lower Manhattan were prevented from going home, in areas not al all affected by the WTC hit.


I never claimed "to know it all" (you're doing a Roscoe on me now), and in fact, I even declared my own relative ignorance on this matter.


Jake wrote:
Tell me Dave, who were the 1st major organized companies, chomping at the bit to come roaring into an area sealed off from its inhabitants? Does the name of any of those steel removing companies come to mind, ya owe it to yerself to find out when they were requested, who requested their input, and who owns those steel hauling companies.


I'll look into it when I have time.


Jake wrote:
For a guy like you Dave who shoots off his mouth about such nitty-gritty factors which were seen on TV and then sez, show me proof, like yeah, how do you explain things to someone who is deaf, dumb and blind.


Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

Do you know what an extraordinary claim is?

Do you not realise that the claims of the conspiracy theorists are extraordinary, and that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? The burden of proof is all on you and your ilk, buddy.

I've got an idea: get yourself signed up to the discussion forum at www.randi.org and put your points to them evil sceptics. I predict with about 99.9% certainty that you'll get torn to shreds (so to speak). It'd be an exercise in humiliation. You will not do this because you'll be required to provide verifiable evidence to back up your assertions, and the slightest hole in your logic will be mercilessly exploited (those damned Logicians!) -- don't even think about appealing to emotion or demagoguery. You will lose. Prove me wrong! There's people there far more knowledgable on this matter than I. I mean, be fair, if I were to take you on in a serious debate, I would have to expend a great deal of time and energy doing research (far more than you), only to find, I suspect, that you're just an intellectually dishonest timewaster (just like our friend Roscoe).


Jake wrote:
Dave, you come across like a disinfo cheer leader, instead of a fact finder. But 1st Dave, tell me what it felt like to get yer 1st lungfull of asbestos laden dust ont the WTC plaza when it got hit, it would help establish yer bonafides


Being rather emotive there, methinks.


Regards,

David.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Apr 2008 4:48 am 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm
Posts: 7753
David_Williams wrote:
July 7th London Bombings Was An Inside Job conspiracies,


Have some FACTS. I presume you are familar with that concept.

The 07:40 and 07:46 train from Luton to Kings Cross was cancelled on 7th July 2005. Source Thameslink Trains - The train operator.

Therefore the only train the bombers could have caught in order for them to get to the detonation points in London in time was the 07:24 (left 07:25). This gave the bombers, carrying backpacks in rush hour on platforms packed with commuters, a full three minutes in order to queue and buy their tickets and go across the bridge to catch the train. We know this because of the time on the CCTV camera at Luton.

(PS They would have no knowledge that the 07:40 and 07:46 train had been cancelled and therefore they would have no reason to rush)

The only train after the 07:25 train they could have caught left at 07:56 (a demonstrable fact) and arrived at Kings Cross at 08:42 (data from the train operators) The three trains that blew up left Kings Cross at

08:35, 08:42 & 08:48 respectively. The last one could not have made it's detonation point even if this ONE bomber had managed to get on it.

All of these FACTS are demonstrable and proveable.

OK?

Now here's another FACT.

The US Federal Reserve pumped up the International stocks to their maximum allowed levels two days before the London Bombs.

Image

See this sequence of E-mails by stock brokers made before the bombings

Quote:
From: dcb Jul 5 2005 3:20PM
Title: liquidity pump today


Anyone know why the Fed needed 20 billion in repos today, with none expiring? It's not like rates are even at the target; they are well below around 3.18. So why the burst or money?
Usually, such a pump would be the direct result of "something bad" like a terrible employment report.

And the delayed the announcement too, probably to see just how much they needed to add in after the conference call with the other players.

Any thoughts?

dcb


There was an unnatural run on the British Pound two days before the bombs.

Then we have this story, made by a Reuters reporter, of how the bombers were shot by police in the docklands area at 10:30 This was reported once on National TV News then quickly dropped.

On May 16th 2005 a mock terrorist attack was shown on the BBC Panorama programme the scenario was a terrorist attack in London involving three underground trains and a road vehicle. There were exercises being carried with that very scenario actually in London on the day of the bombing. Statistically (using an insurance model) there are less grains of sand on the entire planet than the odds of that happening by chance. Basically the four patsies thought they were taking part in this exercise, they even made mock TV confessions to add realism.

Now watch this


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Apr 2008 10:49 am 
Offline
Grand Master

Joined: 27 Sep 2007 10:08 pm
Posts: 546
Location: London
DavidWilliams wrote:
I had noticed very early on that most of the RLC "researchers" I had personally met tend to be conspiracy-minded, and in a few cases outright paranoid -- as well as firm believers in assorted New Age nonsense, and quack medicine (especially homoeopathy). Interesting!


Quite so. Raving loonies, the lot of them.

I posted links to a couple of useful websites near the start of this thread but they didn't look and still post lies and garbage and pretend that it is "fact". They don't want to know the truth, they want to live in their dark fantasy worlds.

_________________
The Truth is in here:

http://www.criticalenquiry.org/oakisland/index.shtml

http://priory-of-sion.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Apr 2008 4:11 pm 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 02 Dec 2006 3:44 pm
Posts: 7753
Robert N wrote:
DavidWilliams wrote:
I had noticed very early on that most of the RLC "researchers" I had personally met tend to be conspiracy-minded, and in a few cases outright paranoid -- as well as firm believers in assorted New Age nonsense, and quack medicine (especially homoeopathy). Interesting!


Quite so. Raving loonies, the lot of them.

I posted links to a couple of useful websites near the start of this thread but they didn't look and still post lies and garbage and pretend that it is "fact". They don't want to know the truth, they want to live in their dark fantasy worlds.


The BCTs (Boxcutter Conspiracy Theorists) are restless I see.

Got any evidence there were Terrorists on those planes Sonny?

Please no more stupid wild THEORIES, give me evidence?

_________________
Image
CROMLECK DE RENNES is here.
It's the SUN


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Apr 2008 8:30 pm 
Offline
Acolyte

Joined: 26 Jan 2007 2:58 pm
Posts: 190
Roger wrote:
And if you think there are no such legitimate questions, I'd gladly run for office in your district and make a mint.


I'm sure there are legitimate questions. It's just that many (most?) people who ask them (and who have bought-into/believed/accepted one or other of the 9/11 conspiracy theories) have really decided in advance what kind of answers they're looking for, and if those answers turn out to be not concordant with their own preconceived ideas (which they'll invariably claim not to have had) and their own worldview and particular set of prejudices, there's no way in hell are they going to accept those answers even if they are factually correct. Cognitive dissonance. Pathological scepticism.


Roger wrote:
"The Lone Gunman", a spin-off of the very weird but exceedingly popular "X-Files" series. That episode was all about a shadowy group of politicians and "intelligence community" types running a plot to crash an airliner into the WTC. Millions saw it. No one ever mentions it. This is not particularly relevant, except to illustrate a point. A point the "systematic debunkers" will not comprehend anyway.


Just watched the pertinent part of that episode courtesy of wonderful YouTube. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Roger wrote:
I'm - at this point - concentrating only on something quite parochial to me, that I know more about than the average person, and that I can wrap my tiny mind around. That's "why did tower 1, tower 2, and tower 7 collapse"? Acknowledging there can be completely different reasons for each, particularly tower 7, since it was built and engineered completely differently and contained an enormous diesel fuel tank about midway up.


There are major problems with the "controlled demolition" hypothesis/hypotheses. I say "major problems", but they are not problems in the eyes of the believers. The fact that characteristic - dare I say "unmistakable" - explosion sounds of a building demolition cannot be heard on any of the available video footage poses no problem at all for the believers.

Roger wrote:
As I've pointed out, there is a large, as yet unclaimed, reward on offer for anyone coming forth with a scientifically iron-clad theory for the collapse(s).


Forgive me, but who are you to judge whether or not a theory is scientifically "iron-clad" (or sound, as I'd prefer to say)?

What's your background? Physics? Structural engineering?

What qualifies you to challenge the findings of NIST or FEMA? Have you read their reports? Ahhh but wait! If you are - as you say you're not - a conspiracy nut, then since NIST and FEMA are "in on it", you can nonchalantly dismiss/disregard/overlook what qualified credentialed experts have reported on the matter. But you're not a conspiracy nut, are you, Roger.

Roger wrote:
So... rather than branding me (and any other dissatisfied consumer of official pablum) as a tin-foil hat type, concentrate on making your case, "logically and scientifically" - since you pride yourselves on your scintillating intellects, and go collect your large financial reward. I'll applaud you louder than most.


Those who claim that those planes were empty drones are tin-foil hat types. Those who claim that those planes were really missiles enclosed within a holographic projection are tin-foil hat types. Those who hang on to - and believe - every word Alex Jones and his ilk fart-out are tin-foil hat types.


Regards,

David.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 477 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 20  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group