Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,447 posts in this topic

Hi Psyche :)

Computers, who would have them hey?? lol Luckily it was only a post and not something more important..

I do not doubt OBL is a liar and I wouldn't trust him, but then again I wouldn't trust Bush to comb my hair either, even though I haven't got much...lol I can't comment on Anthony Mundine seeing as I don't lknow that much about him, I know he's suppose to be a pretty good boxer but I know nothing about his conversion to Islam. And of course, there are people who do not think that OBL is a terrorist because he is fighting for their causes, they will likely see the opposite and regard Bush as a terrorist and OBL as a freedom fighter. Personally, I think they are both terrorists. They both have the blood of innocent people on their hands.

Gidday Stundie

That's one thing we have in common! Although sometimes I am not sure if it is going, or just sliding down LOL.

I do not regard Bush as a terrorist. I dot not agree with many of his ideals, particularly gun ownership, but I am not sure he was left with much of a choice after 911 to take the action taken. I do not think he would be regarded as evil if he had just pulled troops from Afghanistan in 1990. The middle East thought he was OK when the US fought alongside Mujahideen, but when they were victorious, The US forgot to go home. That to me seems really blown out of proportion. Many took such deep offence to US forces in the Holy land, and how that was contravening the Koran with regards to Holy Ground. I do not think the Middle East have a sound argument in the respect personally.

Such are the benefits if Religion I guess.

I would have to disagree with you as I think you will find that Saudi Arabia banished OBL back in the 90's for his involvement with terrorism and Saudi's are no fans of any of the pupils of Sayyid Qutb. I also think these countries shouldn't have to apologise for the misguided brothers of Islam no more or less than the US for it's misguided service men who commit attrocites such as Haditha.

That is OK, we cannot agree all the time or things would be boring.

I feel the US is responsible for atrocities like Haditha, and should be held accountable to provide evidence of justice, proof of action that is approved by the victim, and heavy compensation. I think these processes have to be transparent in a democratic situation or things will keep getting swept under the rug. I can even understand shooting at a car that refuses to stop, these animals use Children as bombs, it is not wonder that many soldiers have such an itchy trigger finger, but this style of Wild West violence must stop some place. Education would be a much better option if that is possible. With the current regime opposed to many Western influence, it is hard to see education being considered acceptable.

I've never heard of Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali?? So I can't comment on him or this 8 year olds speech.

LINK Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali

Most popular here for his comments concerning rape and female assault. He says the women are like uncovered meat, and would draw cats. He see's rape as a natural act for a man, ands something a woman should be responsible for suppressing. He was the Imam of Australia and The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils appointed him Mufti of Australia in 1988.

And if this is what we hear from the children, it is hard to see this situation moving forward for another generation. Islam seem to want things this way, Shari'ah or nothing. Not all that different from apartheid.

LINK Video captures 8-year-old 'Jihad girl' urging Islamic uprising

Ruqaya was one of nine speakers in a considerable line-up, which included a controversial keynote from Taji Mustafa, described by the Opposition as a "hate preacher".

I find this horrendously irresponsible. This is Australia. My only hope is that the parents of this child are investigated by authorities.

I'm in favour of freedoms and while I am no fan of stoning or even the US death penalty, I think if the people of that country think it is right to stone a family member for speaking to someone of the opposite sex, then it is their right to do so, even if they are foolish enough to believe it's gods law. While I do not condone such tragic behaviour, I do not believe that making the world conform to mine or the west view is good practice.

Just imagine for a second you downgraded Islam to a cult status (not that I think the UN could do that!) do you think they would take it lying down? There would be war on a grand scale and I'm not in the habit of creating a genocide just because people hold different views to me, even if I think they are barbaric and downright disgusting.

Foolish enough. They are the words that I feel are the reason for such a radical notion. I do not feel such barbarism has a place in todays society, I also feel the same way about hippies who refuse to immunise their kids. Just because something is tradition does not mean it should go on costing lives. And too many lives are lost like this. Not only that, but it surely is a waste of life. How many fathers have killed teen daughters for this very action? I have read quite a few over the years, and to make a father sink so low as to murder his child is not living. I cannot agree that stoning is acceptable under ay circumstance whatsoever.

Well I was not speaking so much of Islam, but Shari'ah. And yes, we would see one heck of an uprising, but my hope is there would only be one, not endless years of terrorism for some ridiculous religious notion and countless innocents unjustly trialled and murdered for archaic ideals.. That is letting the human species down as a whole IMHO. As such, I feel we have a right to speak out, it wont change anything I understand that, but people might start to become aware enough to start acting some time in the future.

You appear to know more about him than I do but at least we agree the FBI dropped the ball.

I am not sure about the FBI as a whole, ONeill was FBI, and he was very much on the ball. Just some self important cow who felt she was at the top of the world let the team down, and because she is so high up the ladder, the team are taking the hit.

His wife was Christine Oneill, his Mistress, Valerie James. An interview with her at this link.

I think the only reason he understood the value in a western life style was that he was a puppet dictator who was installed against the wishes of the people who already had a democratically elected government. I thought SAVAK was closed down and most of its members were hunted down. know that Iran doesn't have a great human rights record and I'm not a fan of them either, but after watching a documentary about Iran and their relationship with the west, I think it's fair to say they are a little paranoid, but have every right to be.

However I think this is a conversation for another thread on another day.

Now called SAVAMA as far as I know.

Do you not feel though, that a Western influence would eventually lead to outlining such practises as unacceptable though? Had the region undertaken the direction the Shah had pushed it in, we might well be fighting to remove a Spanish Inquisition style of secret police force, but it took Russia a while to tone down the KGB too, it seems likely that Westen ways would evolve this secret police out of the picture.

But you are right, I digress this would be an interesting conversation I think.

I think that the representative from the UK families thinks that he was Meghari was innocent and I seem to think there were others too. I know that those in the US were determined to keep him in jail because the courts had already found him guilty. In Scotland, they have compassionate grounds, so that if someone has been diagnosed with a terminal illness and have been given a short time to live, providing they are not a danger, the Scottish legal system allows for that person to be released. Some people are not a fan of it while others think it's very humane. However, I thnk this is another discussion for another day.

Thanks for the compliments.

Again, I would have to agree, it could almost be regarded a philosophical question really. All in all, I just feel aven one in one million is too much a chance for Bin Laden.

Sky might well be a pretty bang bloke, he might even be in the company of fine people and I'm sure he might be a top bloke when you shove a beer in his hand. However on this forum, I do not see anything that would suggest that but I do not know him to make a judgement.

I might appear to be hard on Skyeagle and this might change in the future, as you say who knows, but as it stands, i have very little respect for his debating style and until I see an improvement in his debating style and some honesty, then he will get the respect he deserves, which is little to none.

Fair enough, I wont have any more to say, my only intention was just to lessen what seemed to be a heated argument. I think you both have good input, especially you Stundie, I must say this discussion has been a very pleasant surprise.

Well I hope so. I think the thing with most 9/11 conspiracists, is that most if not all of them believed in the official story, but came to question it when they examined or researched the subject. However, I'm sure there are those who still believed the official story, even if they don't agree with all the facts and data after they had researched it. There are extreme ends of the polar opposites, but chances are, the truth will lie somewhere in the middle.

I would agree, I do not think the CT'ers are on the right track in trying to absolve the killers of what they needed to do for their religion, but as we can see, the FBI for one could have been much better. They have professionals on staff, but do not take their advice. And as I have mentioned, I have little faith in the CIA, it seems a bit of a joke to me to be frank. But I think where some people tried to cover their behinds over the blatant stuff ups that might have avoided this as much more than it really is. I think someone dropped the ball, tried to cover their mistake, mistakes always have a hole in them, it was discovered and now it has become this bottomless pit of conspiracy.

Well I wouldn't say Icke got lucky or guessed this about him, I think it's hard/nigh on impossible to guess something like that about someone and then it turns out to be correct without having some kind of knowledge about it. Even though Saville was a weird looking fella and eccentric and there were plenty of rumours, I think most people would have said you were nuts if like Icke, you claimed that Saville was a pedophile/necrophile. Not that I'm a fan of Icke either. Again, it's another subject for another day

I'll continue this in another post, possibly later on.

Cheers

Stundie :)

Sorry, I did not mean so much lucky as in just taking a stab in the dark, but in that he was harassing the royals at the time for being reptiles, and this is where he happened upon the information. I think even Icke's natural instinct to protect another human being kicked in, proving is may not be rotten to the core, just on the surface ! :D But yeah, not much more to say, other than I agree with everything on this, and it is only a shame he was not caught out decades ago, and that nobody came forward. I hate seeing evil have a win.

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problems with, and do not doubt your qualifications Psyche. No sir, not at all.

What I have questions about is your ability to think in an analytical fashion, your tendency to accept without question a story that simply cannot be true.

I do not believe that is the case, I can agree with Stundie that the FBI could have handled the case better, and that evidence to connect Al Qaeda and therefore OBL to the slaughter might well be much easier to produce had they given O Neill the benefit of the doubt.

We can agree to disagree on anything you would like, but please do not hold up as true and acccurate a story already proved many times to be false and contrived. It is 11 years after the fact, and much more has been learned in that time, even though you might be completely unaware of it down there in Oz.

I am yet to see anything substantiated with regards to the controlled demolition claims. As I say, this is my bread and butter, and from what I see the "truthers" have more alcohol under their belts from spending all their time in ground zero lounge ranting away with nonsense than they do facts. I am unaware of the Fox race, I do not have Fox TV in my house, my wife forbids it truth be told, although she enjoys cable when on Holiday, at home she is convinced Pay TV is only porn channels. But this is what I am looking for the debates that claim the towers destruction are not the result of terrorist actions.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually that puts you in the minority under the question, 'Was Al Qaeda behind the 9/11 attacks?'

The split is 46% in your favor and 54% in disagreement.

No it doesn't it means some people do not give a rodents rectum.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi psyche. I’m going to take a few bits we’ve been around the block with which are perhaps now unproductive (descending off-topic or into pointless argument) and drop them into this post. The following is to tie up some loose ends and I’ll probably not respond on these points again. Please see the post after this one for hopefully more productive discussion which I will respond to.

Fair enough, I appreciate clarifying and consolidating.

I am not ‘doing’ anything with Al Jazeera. Usama’s personal release network? You don’t seem to have a clue about Al Jazeera. I... it’s just... what are you talking about? You seem to be under the false impression that Al Jazeera is held to the bin Laden or ‘Al Qaeda’ network. Never mind, please just read up on Al Jazeera: -

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Al_Jazeera

Look, it’s very simple...

  1. Bin Laden/‘Al Qaeda’ released a videotape to Al Jazeera.
  2. The videotape contained English subtitles inserted by bin Laden/‘Al Qaeda’.
  3. The subtitles are the message that bin Laden/‘Al Qaeda’ wanted to convey.
  4. Al Jazeera reported the complete subtitles under the headline, “Full transcript of bin Ladin’s speech”.
  5. Fox News reported only excerpts of the subtitles intersected with opinion under the headline, “Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11” (despite that no such claim is found in the transcript).

Then you go on some nonsensical/unfounded attack against Al Jazeera and myself. Perhaps it would be better to congratulate Al Jazeera for factual reporting in this case, accept that Fox News got it wrong and draw a line under it.

I think you are doing what you accuse Skyeagle of, and I think that it is ludicrous to suggest the a news source who is sympathetic to the fundamentalists and has to suffer the wrath of insane religious die hards if they step out of line is not coerced to report the news in a fashion not all that different to the Chinese system. Just because you say it is impartial, and they claim the same does not make it so, Al Jazeera has two faces.

Abderrahim Foukara, the Arabic channel's Washington bureau chief, told the Council on Foreign Relations,

The way the truth may be defined in the Arab world, and associate it with Al Jazeera, is not the way Americans, for example, would define the truth and associate it with, say, CNN or MSNBC or Fox. … Al Jazeera Arabic, because it is so connected to a turbulent part of the world, the tone is different … it's much feistier … The broad majority of Arabs identify with the channel, not only in terms of political coverage, but the nuances, the reading between the lines.

In truth, the bulk of AJA's content has all the nuance of a right hook to the jaw. The non-Arabic speaker is immediately struck by the station's frenetic tone and imagery, and a viewer with even a moderate command of the language is likely to be all the more taken aback.

Over the past decade, however, Al Jazeera's sectarian impulse has been moving ever closer to garden-variety Sunni Islamism, a shift dramatic enough to catch the attention even of the liberal bulwark The Nation. In 2007, the weekly's Kristen Gillespie wrote that 9/11 "brought a new anti-imperialist and, many argue, a pro-Sunni Islamist bent to the network ... The field reports are overwhelmingly negative with violent footage played over and over, highlighting Arab defeat and humiliation. And there's a clear underlying message: that the way out of this spiral is political Islam."

"t doesn't take much viewing of the channel to discern a dual message," Gillespie wrote. "Sunni religious figures are almost always treated deferentially as voices of authority on almost any issue, and Arab governments as useless stooges of the United States and Israel."

In the words of Alberto Fernandez, then-director for press and public diplomacy in the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, "We see the unconditional support of Islamic movements, no matter where they are: Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan. … How things are covered, the prominence of things, what words are used—sometimes you do see that very clear Islamist subtext."

LINK

Yes, that’s it!

The whole problem comes when people like skyeagle spam media headlines and editorial as ‘evidence’.

Because they are quoting the headline. Al Jazeera says the same thing!

May 23 2006: Bin Laden says he masterminded the September 11 attacks and that Zacarias Moussaoui, who was convicted for the attacks, had no part in them, in a recorded message posted on the internet.

LINK - AL Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera...2955828212.html

And not as a headline, and not claiming it is context, but an actual claim.

I mean, since you still say that I, “dismiss the forum at the wave of a hand”, that you have not taken onboard where I said, “It was mostly tongue in cheek, I actually read every page and there were some interesting points.”

No, I did miss that, and if that is the case, I apologise. It was not intentional.

Actually, you quoted editorial from the report (not the headline) and ended by asking, “As a news article I agree verification is required, so perhaps proving what elements are incorrect might be a good start I think, do you agree?” I also later addressed bin Laden’s comment regarding Lebanon and Palestine. I addressed what you asked and more, and it’s here for all to see. You seemed quite content with my responses at the time, until you got caught out and went on your backtrack rant, “I was never here to discuss media reports...” here. Anyway, never mind, like I said, it’s free for all to see.

Yes, elements, being the key word, and with that you kept producing newspapers. Lets just post it huh?

Now that seems a good place to start. Do you feel this is not at all the case, and that Bin Laden did not feel the US had interfered? Because it seems to be a pretty common theme from what I hear. I do not care what the article says, but I would like to break it down to little pieces for accuracy. Is that an accurate stament? Did Lebanon and Palestine have a friendly relationship with the US before 911, or is this at least true? Lets determine the level of exaggeration in this article, and see if it is deserving of your mockery. As a news article I agree verification is required, so perhaps proving what elements are incorrect might be a good start I think, do you agree?

This is not the case: -

“Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so...”

That is a lie, fed to millions.

So why did you revert straight back to the headline, when I asked you if the claim in the headline was true? That being:

Did Lebanon and Palestine have a friendly relationship with the US before 911, or is this at least true? Lets determine the level of exaggeration in this article

I can understand that across seas much is lost in language, so perhaps that is the stumbling block. If you care to start again, I was looking at the facts within the article, not the article itself, to determine a starting point with regards to the claim in the article. However, as I have linked above, they could have got such information for this headline from Al Jazeera.

It is fine to present what’s written in a newspaper until such reports contradict proven fact. Especially when that is pointed out and, ok not you, but skyeagle continues to spam the same report.

But it is not. The article compensates for the headline. The Headline is opinion, the articles explains it that opinion quite clearly. Spamming the same report is showing you that is what the majority think, despite claims to the contrary. I think Sky has as much right to demand that you acknowledge that this is by far the majority opinion, and what Bin Ladens history, not to mention his reason for living indicates is surely the truth, as was known by John O Neill.

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a couple of things psyche...

I think you are doing what you accuse Skyeagle of, and I think that it is ludicrous to suggest the a news source who is sympathetic to the fundamentalists and has to suffer the wrath of insane religious die hards if they step out of line is not coerced to report the news in a fashion not all that different to the Chinese system. Just because you say it is impartial, and they claim the same does not make it so, Al Jazeera has two faces.

The red text appears to be an unfounded view only as result of your prejudice. Al Jazeera has upset all of the Palestinian authorities, Egypt and China on occasion. The worst wrath Al Jazeera has suffered came from U.S. bombing and killing of its journalists, in violation of international humanitarian law.

And you are still missing the point...

It is not a general battle of ‘which media is better’. We were discussing one particular bin Laden videotape from 2004. In this specific case, Al Jazeera, the initial media source of the videotape, simply reported the full transcript. In this specific case, that is a better source than Fox News who reported only excerpts and misleadingly presented editorial opinion as though it were fact.

In all of your responses you ignore the above finding, which is fairly straightforward, and go on some general attack against Al Jazeera which, as I say, misses the point in this specific case – even if Al Jazeera were headed by the devil himself, it would still be correct/the most accurate source when it comes to the 2004 bin Laden videotape.

Because they are quoting the headline.

And, as headlines by your own admission, “often take a leap” (demonstrably so, in case of Fox News reporting on the 2004 bin Laden videotape), then the view of anyone who spams those headlines must also, ‘often be a leap’ (demonstrably so, in case of Fox News reporting on the 2004 bin Laden videotape).

The following is new so I’ll address it: -

Al Jazeera says the same thing!

May 23 2006: Bin Laden says he masterminded the September 11 attacks and that Zacarias Moussaoui, who was convicted for the attacks, had no part in them, in a recorded message posted on the internet.

LINK - AL Jazeera. http://www.aljazeera...2955828212.html

And not as a headline, and not claiming it is context, but an actual claim.

Ah, now this is a completely different tape that you have moved onto. To begin, media reported the 2001 videotape as a bin Laden’s first ‘confession’ (it was nothing of the sort), then the 2004 videotape became bin Laden’s first ‘confession’ (again, it was not), then the 2006 audio recording became bin Laden’s first ‘confession’...

And I can agree to this one – the 2006 audio tape does finally appear to contain a legitimate confession from bin Laden (which is no doubt why Al Jazeera reported just that). The pertinent statement, in context of bin Laden defending Zacarias Moussaoui, is this: “I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers...”

There are however reasons to reject this alleged ‘confession’: -

  • The audio tape was never verified and earlier recordings were found to be fraudulent.
  • The tape superbly justified the U.S. government prosecution failure to convict Moussaoui...
  • Whilst having no benefit to Moussaoui or bin Laden whatsoever.
  • The ‘confession’ contradicts that of KSM: “I was responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z”. It is likewise a KSM counter-confession that was used by the Omar Sheikh defence to get him off charges of killing Daniel Pearl – if it works for Omar Sheikh (a British/Pakistani agent), then why not bin Laden also?
  • The tape was released at a time when bin Laden was under control/house-arrest in Pakistan.

In all, the above is reasonable cause for concern that the tape was coerced/edited/fabricated to implicate bin Laden and serve the U.S. government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not believe that is the case, I can agree with Stundie that the FBI could have handled the case better, and that evidence to connect Al Qaeda and therefore OBL to the slaughter might well be much easier to produce had they given O Neill the benefit of the doubt.

I am yet to see anything substantiated with regards to the controlled demolition claims. As I say, this is my bread and butter, and from what I see the "truthers" have more alcohol under their belts from spending all their time in ground zero lounge ranting away with nonsense than they do facts. I am unaware of the Fox race, I do not have Fox TV in my house, my wife forbids it truth be told, although she enjoys cable when on Holiday, at home she is convinced Pay TV is only porn channels. But this is what I am looking for the debates that claim the towers destruction are not the result of terrorist actions.

While your bread & butter might be CD claims, mine is the aviation side. Simply put, no Boeing at Shanksville, and no Boeing at the Pentagon. Everybody except the feds at Shanksville reported no Boeing, and pictures and videos confirm it. 11 years later we discover that Flight 93 was still communicating within the ACARS system, and was somewhere in Illinois 30 minutes after the fictitious crash at Shanksville. Impossible flying at the Pentagon, no evidence of Boeing there, and the Flight Data Recorder provided by NTSB was bogus.

As for CD at WTC, the chemical byproducts of the thermite reaction were identified years ago. Molten steel for a month afterward CANNOT be the result of jetfuel fires and gravity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer, “Don’t Know” certainly is disagreement with the answer, “Al Qaeda”. If you say, “Don’t Know” to the question, “Who was behind the 9/11 attacks?” then you do not conclude that Al Qaeda were behind the 9/11 attacks. What the survey indicates is that only an estimated 46% of the world population, a minority, conclude that Al Qaeda were behind the 9/11 attacks. The other 54% either disagree or are undecided, either of which demand that further investigation is required.

The problem is with the word 'disagree'. Here's an example of the problem:

Q: Who is the team with the most wins in the National Hockey League?

LG: I don't know, I don't follow hockey.

Q: LG disagrees that Chicago has the most wins in the NHL.

All I can say is that is not how we use the word 'disagree' 'round these parts.

And you seem to want to have it both ways. You note correctly that polls are fairly meaningless as far as what is true because of all kinds of factors, including people's disinterest and stupidity, but then want to use what the polls show to justify a further investigation. Should we go back and 'demand' that scientists re-review all of our evidential support for evolution just because so many people disagree with it also, using the same logic?

I don’t think we should simply disregard the large number of people whose opinions are undecided about 9/11.

That depends. There are a large number of people, and I don't think 25% is at all a high number, who simply haven't looked at the evidence and arguments either way; I do think those people should largely be disregarded in this context. I'm sure there are some that have looked at the issue and are indeed 'undecided', but I don't know how to tease that number out of this 25%.

And even if we do, I think 61% of those remaining is terribly low agreement with the official story on such an important event.

I don't; see 'evolution' above. People believe all sorts of things without good reason and evidence, people are mistaken, people are apathetic, people are stupid, etc.

For two, as I hold all of those entities (plus ‘Al Qaeda’) responsible, it is not possible to fit my answer.

Yes you can, it's called 'Other'.

I just wouldn’t try holding one of these polls up as beneficial to the official story in any way.

Agreed, as long as we wouldn't hold it up as beneficial to any non-official story in any way either.

Though, whilst perception might not be truth... it is personal reality.

Agreed, although personal reality has no bearing on the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply put, no Boeing at Shanksville, and no Boeing at the Pentagon. Everybody except the feds at Shanksville reported no Boeing, and pictures and videos confirm it. 11 years later we discover that Flight 93 was still communicating within the ACARS system, and was somewhere in Illinois 30 minutes after the fictitious crash at Shanksville. Impossible flying at the Pentagon, no evidence of Boeing there, and the Flight Data Recorder provided by NTSB was bogus.

Uh... trying to help you out here BR...

There is considerable photographic evidence of airliner debris at the Pentagon, not to mention a pile of corroborating evidence (numerous eyewitnesses, video footage, radar data, etc) confirming an airliner impact. If you entertain that an airliner crashed but claim lack of evidence that it was specifically a Boeing... then you are still on shaky ground... given that the aircraft dimensions and some parts match those of a Boeing. It is safest of all to simply maintain there is no evidence the aircraft was specifically Flight 77 – this is impossible for OCTs to prove given the admitted lack of investigation audit trail and identifying serial numbers.

I accept the evidence is not so clear in the case of Flight 93, though as the saying goes, ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’. Caspian Airlines Flight 7908, similar to Flight 93, resulted in a crater and lack of apparent debris. Does this mean the former airliner did not crash?

Flight 7908: -

0013729e45180bc91ea431.jpg

Flight 93: -

Flight93Crater2-full.jpg

Is there such a difference?

Also like Flight 77, there is eyewitness evidence and radar data of Flight 93 at the crash site.

Further, your understanding of ACARS is inaccurate. Attempted uplinks after the crash times and non-communication of the aircraft were based on the flight plan, not physical location of the aircraft. The evidence is available online and the process is clearly set out in the ACARS manual which has been discussed on this forum. There is nothing in this ACARS claim at all – the system performed exactly as it was supposed to and indicates an airliner crash.

The flying at the Pentagon was not ‘impossible’ though somewhat ‘improbable’ for a poor, nutcase, first time pilot – the manoeuvre reminiscent of a guided approach according to known systems and ATC first impressions.

I won’t argue against the fact that the FDR of either flight is possibly bogus – not only is there notable lacking evidence of the authenticity usually found in crash reports, but there is precedent for an FDR switch after a crash in the case of Air France 296, showing that it is certainly possible.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is safest of all to simply maintain there is no evidence the aircraft was specifically Flight 77 – this is impossible for OCTs to prove given the admitted lack of investigation audit trail and identifying serial numbers.

Hmmm, you don't consider the fact that American Airlines is missing a plane, the one they designated Flight 77 on 9/11, to be 'evidence'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is with the word 'disagree'. Here's an example of the problem:

Q: Who is the team with the most wins in the National Hockey League?

LG: I don't know, I don't follow hockey.

Q: LG disagrees that Chicago has the most wins in the NHL.

All I can say is that is not how we use the word 'disagree' 'round these parts.

Yes, I see your point. But you would still not be in the group that concludes Chicago has the most wins in the NHL. You were right when you pointed out it all depends how we ‘wordsmith’ it. I’ll call a truce at that, otherwise we could go round in circles for the rest of time.

Yes you can, it's called 'Other'.

And lump me in with those 41% of Americans who believed Saddam Hussein was directly involved?

No thank you :lol:

Agreed, as long as we wouldn't hold it up as beneficial to any non-official story in any way either.

Sure. If you look where I talk about these polls it is usually, if not always, in response to some OCT who has raised it in attempt to support their case or who claims there is a lack of support for alternative theories. I seek only to redress the balance, no more than that.

Agreed, although personal reality has no bearing on the truth.

Agreed, though I have come to the conclusion that personal reality is more important than the truth – that is why false flag and propaganda are so effective.

Hmmm, you don't consider the fact that American Airlines is missing a plane, the one they designated Flight 77 on 9/11, to be 'evidence'?

It is evidence that American Airlines are missing the airliner designated Flight 77 on 9/11.

It is not evidence that specific airliner impacted the Pentagon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gidday Stundie

That's one thing we have in common! Although sometimes I am not sure if it is going, or just sliding down LOL.

I do not regard Bush as a terrorist. I dot not agree with many of his ideals, particularly gun ownership, but I am not sure he was left with much of a choice after 911 to take the action taken. I do not think he would be regarded as evil if he had just pulled troops from Afghanistan in 1990. The middle East thought he was OK when the US fought alongside Mujahideen, but when they were victorious, The US forgot to go home. That to me seems really blown out of proportion. Many took such deep offence to US forces in the Holy land, and how that was contravening the Koran with regards to Holy Ground. I do not think the Middle East have a sound argument in the respect personally.

Such are the benefits if Religion I guess.

Alright Psyche...:)

I understand why you don't see Bush as a terrorist and he is, dare I say it, not wholly a bad person, but I do not see much of a difference between Bush or Osama, in terms of there reasons for terrorism and even their beliefs behind it. Osama is a terrorist to me and you because he and his group AQ have committed terrible atrocities but Bush and in particular his neo con group have done exactly the same in the war on terror the innocent people of Afghanistan, Iraq and now Pakistan. Osama may have been responsible for the deaths of over 3000 people but Bush may have been responsible for the deaths of over 100,000+.

I suppose it is because I don't support either side, by which I mean, I do not try and justify the differences by thinking that it's wrong for Osama to have killed those 3000 but its OK for Bush to have killed 100,000 whether it was in retaliation, cause it was war, cause it was X reason. The same arguments could be applied to the other side and American lives in my eyes are no more valuable or less valuable than the lives of those in Afghanistan or Iraq. All lives are equally valuable in my eyes. Of course, the lives of those I love maybe more valuable to me than to you, but vice versa. They are still equally valuable to each of us. Some times people get confused into thinking they are not equally valuable because we are blinded by images of patriotism, race, religion, sexual preferences, fashion, etc etc...and all the different subgroups that people want to identify with. This is what segregates people and causes divisions and in my eyes, both are wrong.

I do not think the middle east has much of an argument for religious grounds because I do not believe in religious arguments either.

That is OK, we cannot agree all the time or things would be boring.

I feel the US is responsible for atrocities like Haditha, and should be held accountable to provide evidence of justice, proof of action that is approved by the victim, and heavy compensation. I think these processes have to be transparent in a democratic situation or things will keep getting swept under the rug. I can even understand shooting at a car that refuses to stop, these animals use Children as bombs, it is not wonder that many soldiers have such an itchy trigger finger, but this style of Wild West violence must stop some place. Education would be a much better option if that is possible. With the current regime opposed to many Western influence, it is hard to see education being considered acceptable.

Things shouldn't be swept under the carpet but often are, I think those responsible should be held accountable but as per usual, they are not. Not a single soldier did any jail time and I think only one was found guilty. Now imagine for a second, if the Afghans/Iraqis sent an army over to the US and killed 24 innocent people, went back home and the charges against the soldiers were dropped, except one. I think there would be another invasion of Afghan/Iraq and the ruling leaders would be took out like with the Taliban or Saddam. Now I know the soldiers were in a war zone, so to speak, but as I said above, these arguments could be easily transferred to the other side in the 19 hijackers were in a war zone, they were behind enemy lines. Again, it's back to value of life of the Iraqis/Afghans are not worth as much as the live of their own citizens being emblazoned and blinded by patriotism. If they had done this to own citizens, I would expect a few of them to be on death row.

As for child bombers, you have to ask yourself what is so bad with there situation that they are resorting to using their own Children as bombs? Or soldiers in some countries? Just because they are bad people or animals doesn't really answer the reasons of why? Its a simplifying the argument to a jingoistic answer. I would again reverse the question in that what would have to be done to me, to make me want to make my child into a bomb?

To be honest, I can't honestly imagine what would have to be done to me and I have a open and pretty sick mind, but whatever it is, it must be much worse than I imagine.

LINK Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali

Most popular here for his comments concerning rape and female assault. He says the women are like uncovered meat, and would draw cats. He see's rape as a natural act for a man, ands something a woman should be responsible for suppressing. He was the Imam of Australia and The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils appointed him Mufti of Australia in 1988.

And if this is what we hear from the children, it is hard to see this situation moving forward for another generation. Islam seem to want things this way, Shari'ah or nothing. Not all that different from apartheid.

LINK Video captures 8-year-old 'Jihad girl' urging Islamic uprising

Ruqaya was one of nine speakers in a considerable line-up, which included a controversial keynote from Taji Mustafa, described by the Opposition as a "hate preacher".

I find this horrendously irresponsible. This is Australia. My only hope is that the parents of this child are investigated by authorities.

This guy sounds like a right C...(snip!) lol

However, I could easily find Christians who are just about as horrendously irresponsible this guy. Look at the Westboro Baptists brainwashing masses with stupid **** and many more fringes of just about every religion. I remember watching a program about child preachers in the US feeling and thinking how irresponsible these parents were. One in particular would spank their child as they called it, when the child at one point didn't want to perform.

Again, I do not justify it, but I wouldn't use that as a sample of why a religion is wrong.

Foolish enough. They are the words that I feel are the reason for such a radical notion. I do not feel such barbarism has a place in todays society, I also feel the same way about hippies who refuse to immunise their kids. Just because something is tradition does not mean it should go on costing lives. And too many lives are lost like this. Not only that, but it surely is a waste of life. How many fathers have killed teen daughters for this very action? I have read quite a few over the years, and to make a father sink so low as to murder his child is not living. I cannot agree that stoning is acceptable under ay circumstance whatsoever.

Well I was not speaking so much of Islam, but Shari'ah. And yes, we would see one heck of an uprising, but my hope is there would only be one, not endless years of terrorism for some ridiculous religious notion and countless innocents unjustly trialled and murdered for archaic ideals.. That is letting the human species down as a whole IMHO. As such, I feel we have a right to speak out, it wont change anything I understand that, but people might start to become aware enough to start acting some time in the future.

I get where you are coming from, but if barbarism has no place in today society, then it hypocritical not to judge the US by the same standards because killing people is barbaric whether it is done by stoning, beheading or whether it is high tech and done by electric chair or lethal injection. Even if we argue it is more humane to kill someone by an electric chair than by stoning them to death, it still doesn't take the barbaric act away, which is killing someone. Neither standard is acceptable as far as I can see.

I also hope of an uprising but not just where Sharia exists, everywhere. We have enough money and resources to feed, clothes, house every single man, women and child on this planet but yet we can't and get excuses as to why we can't, which in my opinion is more a letting down of the human species. People worldwide should have the freedom to speak out but as we know, speaking out freely can get you into trouble. Some people go ahead and do it anyway, sometimes to greater good of mankind and sometime to there own demise. The problem is the governors of all of our and their societies are always in a desperate bid to maintain their control over us. They will go to any lengths and it doesn't matter how they do it, whether it is done via religion, campaigning, repeating a line in the media, or simply done by staring down the barrel of a gun. Until people get a better concept of this ,whether it's Sharia law or Patriot acts it will never change.

I am not sure about the FBI as a whole, ONeill was FBI, and he was very much on the ball. Just some self important cow who felt she was at the top of the world let the team down, and because she is so high up the ladder, the team are taking the hit.

His wife was Christine Oneill, his Mistress, Valerie James. An interview with her at this link.

Oh I couldn't agree more. I think O'Neill was on the ball, I'm just wondering if he had been left to get on with the job, whether he might have uncovered the plot?

I also wonder what he would have had to say if he had survived 9/11 and was still alive?

Now called SAVAMA as far as I know.

Do you not feel though, that a Western influence would eventually lead to outlining such practises as unacceptable though? Had the region undertaken the direction the Shah had pushed it in, we might well be fighting to remove a Spanish Inquisition style of secret police force, but it took Russia a while to tone down the KGB too, it seems likely that Westen ways would evolve this secret police out of the picture.

But you are right, I digress this would be an interesting conversation I think.

I think that western influence would eventually lead to things which were acceptable, being unacceptable. 50 years ago here in the UK, it was an acceptable practise to drive a car while drunk, not to wear a seatbelt, put your child in the car without a car seat, or use a mobile phone (although I don't think they were available 50 years ago..lol) while you drive, but through campaigning, it has influenced a change of perspective. Imagine if I told someone 50 years ago you could have access to the worst kind of filth and degrading porn from your home for a small sum each month by using this computer device, they probably wouldn't accept it?

I understand where you are coming from and agree. My problems is that where we object to islam/Sharia being influenced on our society in the west, those in Islamic/sharia countries must be influenced by our western ideals and if they don't agree to our influence, then we will eradicate them, until they do conform to our way of thinking by imposing a tyrannical dictator like the Shah or if that don't work, impose a democracy.

Fair enough, I wont have any more to say, my only intention was just to lessen what seemed to be a heated argument. I think you both have good input, especially you Stundie, I must say this discussion has been a very pleasant surprise.
I wouldn't call it a heated argument because he has no real argument, that is why I refer to as "Panto" debunking, it's the....."Oh no he didn't!"... "Oh yes he did!" act. It is repetitive but part of the panto I'm afraid.

To be honest, I'm glad you've stepped in the hope you can show or lead Skyeagle on how to debate more effectively.

I would agree, I do not think the CT'ers are on the right track in trying to absolve the killers of what they needed to do for their religion, but as we can see, the FBI for one could have been much better. They have professionals on staff, but do not take their advice. And as I have mentioned, I have little faith in the CIA, it seems a bit of a joke to me to be frank. But I think where some people tried to cover their behinds over the blatant stuff ups that might have avoided this as much more than it really is. I think someone dropped the ball, tried to cover their mistake, mistakes always have a hole in them, it was discovered and now it has become this bottomless pit of conspiracy.
I do not think CTers are trying to absolve the killers, I think the problem is that they are trying to uncover the truth or though some think it's more twoof. lol I do not consider myself a CTer, but I'm fine with the label cause I've been called much worse. Anyway, I agree that mistakes were made and balls were dropped but if there are people then trying to cover up mistakes, then at the very least there is a cover up, so the question is why is not one been held accountable or responsible?

If you do a job and you screw up and the consequences of your screw up are major, then you would expect to face the consequences, however just because you work in government wouldn't make you any less responsible or accountable.

The problem with 9/11, is that what if there is a pattern to these mistakes? Do you just consider that mind of a CTer is delusional and they will make patterns out of anything? (Which I might add some do..lol) Or do you delve deeper?

I think that is what most so called 9/11 CTers do? I'm sure most so called 9/11 CTers like myself believed the official story and why not, it sounds sensible on paper, hijackers flew planes into buildings, they fell and killed a lot of people end of story, mad jihadists. However when you delve deeper there is one thing that all CTers agree on, is that the official story isn't wholly true, even if they all can't agree on whether the towers were collapsed by thermite or laser beams.

I also have a theory of why some people object so strongly to CT theories and don't even allow or like people discussing it, regardless of whether there is any truth behind them or not, I think it's a fear. What would happen tomorrow if there was an untold amount of evidence released showing the complicity of elements of the US government, of course you would have people like Skyeagle denying it...lol...But I mean in terms of the bigger picture? I think you would find a serious breakdown in society when you are having to remove and arrest those people who were responsible. What if the current president decided to pardon them all, then there would probably be an overthrowing of government by the people. It is much more psychologically comforting to think that it was 19 muslim hijackers than to think your government would behind it.

Where I stand, is that I do not think it is impossible for the government to have been involved or let it happen, where as others think it is impossible whether there is evidence to show whether it is possible or not. And that is why I discuss possibilities and not absolutes. This is why I accept both possibilities in that OBL may have been involved despite the FBI's lack of hard evidence and despite his denials. However, I also accept that it is possible that he might not be involved as he denied or the FBIs lack of evidence suggest, so both are possible. What I do not do is accept that any one of them is impossible.

This is where the confusion comes and why I'm often polarised as a CTer, because those who often defend the OCT as the truth, are often the ones who claim that 9/11 CT are impossible. Where in as I believe that the truth often lies somewhere in between.

Sorry, I did not mean so much lucky as in just taking a stab in the dark, but in that he was harassing the royals at the time for being reptiles, and this is where he happened upon the information. I think even Icke's natural instinct to protect another human being kicked in, proving is may not be rotten to the core, just on the surface ! :D But yeah, not much more to say, other than I agree with everything on this, and it is only a shame he was not caught out decades ago, and that nobody came forward. I hate seeing evil have a win.
Well we have laughed about Ickes reptile people but imagine if in twenty years, it turns out he was right?? :blink:....lol

Impossible right? Well I wouldn't say it impossible but I do think it's highly probable that he will ever be proven right on that one..lol

You raise a good point though, why didn't more people come forward? I think some people did actually come forward, but it was probably dismissed as..."You mean Jimmy Saville? Who runs marathons and raises millions of pounds for charity and good causes?? Raped you as a child?? Look here you, stop telling lies and making things up about Jimmy, he would never do such a thing and I think it's irresponsible of you to try and suggest it you nut job, carry on with that and you'll be in trouble"....Or something to that effect....I'm sure some of them would look at the status of Saville and think, whose going to believe me?

I remember an ex of mines mother told us about the time she was sexually assaulted when she was 8, she told her mother who slapped her in the face . Her mother then told her to stop telling lies. Luckily, it never happened again and her uncle died 2 years later. But there are a multitude of reasons why people keep quiet....

If there was a conspiracy behind 9/11, it would be easy to see why people would keep quiet and there are plenty of things people keep quiet about everyday, whether what they know are through rumours or evidenced. Some people will speak out and often do, but as I've said before sometimes its benefit, sometimes it's there demise and people are known for bringing about their own demise unlike suicide bombers. And it also depends on how much people would know about a conspiracy. In large organisations, it's very easy to compartmentalise things so that one department doesn't know what the other one is doing or what they are doing collectively or working towards.

You appear to be opened minded, even if you don't agree with the conspiracy theory. Now I'm not using Jimmy Saville as evidence of a 9/11 conspiracy, but I hope it highlights why the conspiracy isn't impossible as some people like to think it is.

Cheers

Stundie :)

Edited by Stundie
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And lump me in with those 41% of Americans who believed Saddam Hussein was directly involved?

No thank you :lol:

Ha, agreed, again as we both agree, polls are pretty limited.

It is evidence that American Airlines are missing the airliner designated Flight 77 on 9/11.

It is not evidence that specific airliner impacted the Pentagon.

Depends on how strict a definition you want to use. There is no common precedent for airliners, and their passengers and crew, going missing every now and then, thus it requires an explanation. Aren't the alternatives: 1) 77 was the plane that crashed into the Pentagon or 2) some other explanation that we have zero evidence for? Do you also agree that dancing Israeli agents who may or may not have had a bomb-sniffing dog alert to their van is not evidence that they had anything at all to do with a demolition plot? Do you agree that a molten flow that, among other explanations, superficially resembles the flow from a thermite device is also not evidence that thermite was used to demolish the towers? If not, what's the diff, how are you drawing the line, neither of these two pro-CT points is direct either, they are just extenuating circumstances just as missing Flight 77 is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that excellent post Stundie, I enjoyed the read - I think you did well to explain where we are coming from.

Depends on how strict a definition you want to use. There is no common precedent for airliners, and their passengers and crew, going missing every now and then, thus it requires an explanation. Aren't the alternatives: 1) 77 was the plane that crashed into the Pentagon or 2) some other explanation that we have zero evidence for? Do you also agree that dancing Israeli agents who may or may not have had a bomb-sniffing dog alert to their van is not evidence that they had anything at all to do with a demolition plot? Do you agree that a molten flow that, among other explanations, superficially resembles the flow from a thermite device is also not evidence that thermite was used to demolish the towers? If not, what's the diff, how are you drawing the line, neither of these two pro-CT points is direct either, they are just extenuating circumstances just as missing Flight 77 is.

The alternatives are: 1) 77 was the plane that crashed into the Pentagon which we have zero evidence for or 2) some other aircraft crashed into the Pentagon which we have zero evidence for.

Once the transponder switched off, the airliner disappeared altogether from radar (primary radar too in this case), the investigative audit trail was declared unavailable, neither the debris nor FDR serial numbers ever identified, it became, as described by ATC, an unidentified aircraft... yes, that left us with zero evidence as to specific identity of the airliner.

I’m not going to speculate, assume, take a leap of faith to declare the airliner was this or that - not with knowledge of the proposed Northwoods airliner switch (which would have been an astounding success judging by OCT naivety of today) and surrounding evidence on 9/11. If you want to, then be my guest. I’ll say it how it is – the identity of the airliner which impacted the Pentagon has not been proven to date.

This is not particularly evidence for a false flag (well, only so far that evidence black holes are to be fully expected in context of a false flag/cover-up), rather it is evidence of the possibility and a challenge to the official story upon which we launched a war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The alternatives are: 1) 77 was the plane that crashed into the Pentagon which we have zero evidence for or 2) some other aircraft crashed into the Pentagon which we have zero evidence for.

Considering that remains of passengers and crew were recovered from the Pentagon, proves beyond any doubt that you are mistaken.

Once the transponder switched off, the airliner disappeared altogether from radar (primary radar too in this case),...

That is incorrect. Turning off the transponder does not make an aircraft invisible to radar. Another misconception on the part of 911 conspiracist. Remember, the B-757 is not a stealth aircraft which should have told you that your claim is false. Even the F-117 stealth fighter was not totally invisible to radar. Turning off the transponder simply makes an aircraft more difficult to track on radar, not make it invisible.

...the investigative audit trail was declared unavailable, neither the debris nor FDR serial numbers ever identified, ...

You have just made another error. Who do you think supplied the information needed for investigators to decipher black box data that pertained ONLY to the airframe of American 77? The two companies were American Airlines and the Boeing Company.

it became, as described by ATC, an unidentified aircraft...

You have just proved your earlier comment in error when you posted; "...as described by ATC, an unidentified aircraft." That simply means that ATC was in fact, tracking American 77, but lost its ID when the transponder was turned off. In other words, American 77 was still bouncing back radar beams from ATC.

There are means to track an aircraft without the use of a transponder, but it seems that 911 conspiracist overlooked a few things. In addition, the pilot of the C-130 whose aircraft was near American 77, described the aircraft as a B-757 and watched as the aircraft struck the Pentagon.

..yes, that left us with zero evidence as to specific identity of the airliner.

On the contrary, American 77 was tracked by radar all the way to the Pentagon and ACARS did not depict American 77 landing anywhere else. On another note, I knew two people who were in the Pentagon when American 77 struck, both of whom I have spoken with over the past few weeks here in California. One of whom was the commanding officer of my former Wing.

About that C-130 that came near American 77.

O'Brien's flight tracks AA Flight 77

On September 11, 2001, O'Brien was flying a Minnesota Air National Guard C-130H (Hercules) cargo airplane. He and his crew were on a return journey to Minnesota after having delivered supplies in the Caribbean. He took off from Andrews Air Force Base, just southeast of Washington DC, at about 9:30 am (EDT), and headed "north and west". "[We] had a beautiful view of the Mall", he remarked.

O'Brien noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o'clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles or so away. The plane came nearer until it pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn, so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away.

Washington Reagan National Airport air traffic control asked O'Brien to identify the aircraft. He reported that the plane was either a 757 or 767 Boeing airliner, and that its silver fuselage meant it was probably an American Airlines jet. Controllers asked ("vectored") O'Brien to follow the plane (later identified as the errant AA Flight 77) as it approached Washington DC from the west.

He attempted to, having difficulty picking it out in the East Coast haze. O'Brien saw a fireball, and initially believed the aircraft had hit the ground, but then saw the west side of the Pentagon. He reported to the control tower, "Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon sir".

http://en.wikipedia....ven_O'Brien

I’m not going to speculate, assume, take a leap of faith to declare the airliner was this or that - not with knowledge of the proposed Northwoods airliner switch (which would have been an astounding success judging by OCT naivety of today) and surrounding evidence on 9/11.

Apparently, you do not understand the way things work in the real world of aviation.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The alternatives are: 1) 77 was the plane that crashed into the Pentagon which we have zero evidence for or 2) some other aircraft crashed into the Pentagon which we have zero evidence for.

The problem I have is with your #1; what do you mean we have 'zero evidence' that 77 was the plane that crashed into the Pentagon? You mean no evidence except the small fact that Flight 77 and it's occupants did not land at it's destination and the people have never been heard from again? And that a plane just so happened to hit the Pentagon in the timeframe that Flight 77 was supposed to be in the air? Your CT relies heavily on things not being 'just a coincidence' and now you are going to say it might just be a coincidence that Flight 77 disappeared around the same time that the Pentagon was struck and thus there is 'zero evidence'? Why is the identification of human remains from Flight 77 at the Pentagon not evidence? The transponder being shut off, no serial numbers, etc, doesn't remove either of these evidence points: Flight 77 is missing and the occupant's remains were found at the Pentagon. Again, the standard is almost never 'proof', if it was there'd really be no point in even discussing the CTs, the 'evidence' for those is nowhere near that standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LG

Q is quite right that whatever aircraft hit the Pentagon, and I believe something did, it cannot be proved exactly what aircraft it was. Further, regarding 77, close examination of all records suggest that as with Boston, there is conflicting evidence regarding just what gate at IAD 77 actually departed from. So it cannot be proved that 77 actually departed at all. Coupled with the fact that the FDR provided was unassigned to any aircraft at all, the picture becomes even more murky.

The identification of human remains of passengers at the Pentagon is suspect for the same reason they are suspect at Shanksville. Certain things suggest that there were no passengers at all, and that the authorities simply fabricated DNA evidence.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LG

Q is quite right that whatever aircraft hit the Pentagon, and I believe something did, it cannot be proved exactly what aircraft it was. Further, regarding 77, close examination of all records suggest that as with Boston, there is conflicting evidence regarding just what gate at IAD 77 actually departed from. So it cannot be proved that 77 actually departed at all. Coupled with the fact that the FDR provided was unassigned to any aircraft at all, the picture becomes even more murky.

The identification of human remains of passengers at the Pentagon is suspect for the same reason they are suspect at Shanksville. Certain things suggest that there were no passengers at all, and that the authorities simply fabricated DNA evidence.

Hi BR,

I'm not at all concerned with what can be 'proved', or probably more relevantly, what you or others accept as 'proof'; that is a huge rabbit-hole of a pointless conversation about semantics (although I may just be instead heading to a rabbit-hole of a conversation about what 'evidence' means). The claim I'm disputing is 'zero evidence'; a missing flight and passengers is a pretty significant evidence point that is highly unusual and requires an explanation. Nor am I concerned on this point about what is 'suspect' and is 'suggested', neither of those standards come close to removing this evidence as being supportive of Flight 77 impacting the Pentagon. And more importantly, and maybe you or Q has addressed it in the past (not that your theory holds that these planes did not crash, Q), I struggle with what possibly there is to gain for our theoretical CTs by faking either of these crashes. It certainly wouldn't be to save anybody's life, they showed wanton disregard for innocents at WTC I don't see why they'd blink at another few hundred casualties and whatever hit the Pentagon still caused as much damage as ramming the real plane into it. What possible purpose is there to fake that 77 hit the Pentagon that is not accomplished by crashing the real 77 into the Pentagon? On second thought, maybe that question is better applied to Flight 93, I think you are under the impression that maybe they had to fake it because Hani couldn't pull off the maneuver, which as we've all seen is highly debatable. Regardless, the possible explanations of how it was done and the motivations for faking the Pentagon crash seem extremely convoluted and not very compelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Stundie said it earlier – it appears that O’Neill may have known too much, his end coming after taking up a new job in the WTC just 19 days before 9/11 – unlucky, perhaps. However, O’Neill had established no direct order or action from bin Laden prior to 9/11.

From what I have seen of ONeill's notes, there were a great many boxes with Hijacker names in them, and many lines drawn to the box with Bin Ladens name in it. If Bin Laden is innocent, how did ONeill point the finger at him before it happened?

Yes, why not? I don’t think ‘justice’ should be predisposed for or against an individual. And lack of evidence is lack of evidence – we cannot draw a ‘guilty’ verdict on that basis. As your friend skyeagle says, “no evidence, no case!” haha. I think we are done on this line of discussion – you have admitted there is no evidence against bin Laden in regard to 9/11. Now we really need to look at those who were responsible for the attack.

Well I disagree, Mussolini, Hussein, Hitler, Stalin, Khomeini and Gaddafi are notable example in history that show individuals in attain power and abuse it offer a certain predisposition.

I have not said there is no evidence, I said there is no direct evidence, and I feel the blame for that rests squarely on the shoulders of Bodine-Pickard.

I think that is debatable. The same questions apply – guilty of what, exactly? Anyhow, we are discussing who was responsible for the 9/11 attack which occurred in 2001. You have already admitted there is no direct evidence of bin Laden’s responsibility.

I do not feel it is however, as you say, probably an entire new thread. All I have admitted is that the FBI had no hard evidence. I Consider what remains of ONeills notes evidence. With Bin Ladens backing, taking him to court with that would be like the OJ Simpson trial.

The fact there were overlapping areas between the CIA/ISI/‘Al Qaeda’ is not dependent on Sibel Edmonds’ testimony, whether you choose to disregard her expert testimony or not. You are ignoring the further corroborating evidence I set out: “Bin Laden’s ‘first trainer’, Ali Mohammed, was a CIA/‘Al Qaeda’ double-agent who operated with both groups up to 1998 for one example, and has now ‘disappeared’ in U.S. detention. Then you look at Jamal al Fadl, recruited to ‘Al Qaeda’ from Brooklyn in the U.S. in 1988, and who ended up being the star witness that helped define ‘Al Qaeda’ as a coherent ‘organisation’. We look at CIA infiltration of ‘Al Qaeda’ that was ongoing...”

Her expert testimony has been examined by other experts and found to be wanting.

I am pleased to see that you call it corroboration, not proof. Ali Mohammed can only be described as a mercenary, he was neither CIA nor Al Qaeda, he just used both sides to attain information, and seems to be an experiment that went wrong considering that he was picked up by the Special Forces in the American army, who sent him to the Special Warfare school and encouraged him to pursue a doctorate in Islamic Studies and teach courses on the Middle East. I do not think it is surprising that he is hard to find, rumours say he is feeding the US Al Qaeda information, who knows, that is possible. I do not think of the CIA as being in the same league as the FBI. More like keystone cops.

Also I should add that you are very selective in where you choose to take bin Laden at his word or not.

I am more than happy to consider him a liar and mass murderer 100% of the time if that helps. As you refer to what he says, you tend to leave me little recourse but to offer debate using the same sources.

There is nothing wrong with the prose in context of the previous sentence.

“As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. Neither I had any knowledge of these attacks...”

Ok, it sounds a little awkward but that is frequently the case in translating Urdu to English. All it is saying is, “I try my best to avoid telling a lie [and] neither I had any knowledge of these attacks...”.

But you think that both the FBIS and BBC conspired to edit “Neither I nor my organisation Al-Qaida” out of their transcripts? Why ever would they do that? And you think that ‘Ananova’ which you linked - the world’s first computer-simulated “cyberbabe” newscaster - got it right.

Ok, you just brightened my day :lol:

I did not say that one source - the FBIS or BBC - was better than the other. I linked both transcripts because they each corroborate that bin Laden did not say, “my organisation Al-Qaida”. And neither indicates such alteration to the transcript.

Well that pretty much says you have no interest in being objective. It is not acceptable english, and you can scream pigeon english form the rooftops, such is not reflected in any other part of the article. It seems pretty obvious that you do not wish to admit the it is painfully obvious that the source was doctored. Your agenda is now showing. Nothing wrong with it? It just happens to make a great deal more sense when put as "the electronic" reporter put it. I do not know if you realise, but people are swayed by threats of violence, such as the people at Al Jazeera, a computer is not biased, it is not threatened. Being a cyberbabe, who incidentally has elements of Aussie Kylie Minogue is neutral, and quicker of the mark, being able to read at thousands the speed you or I could, and would catch such slips before they are noticed and (badly) doctored.

Ananova claims Usama said:

"Neither I nor my organisation Al-Qaida is involved in the attacks and the US has traced the attackers within America.

"The attackers could be anybody, people who are part of the American system yet rebel against it, or some group that wants to make this century a century of confrontation between Islam and Christianity,"

FBIS

As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. Neither I had any knowledge of these attacks nor I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Where does that say I stand behind the headline, or that it is true? I asked if we could break the headline apart, and examine the questions within it to determine what it actually represents and how accurate it's elements are. Next thing you are off talking about Murdoch ruling the world and political agendas. I said I do not care what the media says, I said I just want to know what claims are true, and those which are not, no matter the source.

and by the time we get to the BBC it reads:

I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people. -

I have no doubt this is what the BBC were eventually fed, so that is what they reported. The evolution of the sentence is painfully obvious, in fact, I am rather stunned you would try to deny this obvious correction.

And while he says he will not condone killing innocents, do you deny he said:

those who say “killing a child is not valid” in Islam “speak without any knowledge of Islamic law” because murdering a child may be done in vengeance.

Thank goodness he is not around any more.

Brightened your day? You enjoy sticking your head in the sand immensely I take it?

Which were, in summary: that you don’t accept anything Pakistani or Taliban sources say where it suits, that you ignore corroborating facts on the ground (that is, bin Laden’s travel to Pakistan permitted by the U.S. Secretary of Defence and the prison-like nature of his ‘hideout’) and likewise refuse to accept further corroborating conclusions of multiple U.S. security analysts.

You initially provided that source to say Bin Laden did not spend his time hiding in caves, knowing his end was coming for his actions, he knew J=justice would be served, and it is what he wanted. To be a Matyr, and a long standing symbol for the ignorant. You seemed to find mirth when I said he was underground hiding in caves, expecting to die:

This failure and its enormous consequences were not inevitable.

By early December 2001, Bin Laden’s world had shrunk to a complex of caves and tunnels carved into a mountainous section of eastern Afghanistan known as Tora Bora. Cornered in some of the most forbidding terrain on earth, he and several hundred of his men, the largest concentration of Al Qaeda fighters of the war, endured relentless pounding by American aircraft, as many as 100 air strikes a day. One 15,000-pound bomb, so huge it had to be rolled out the back of a C-130 cargo plane, shook the mountains for miles.

It seemed only a matter of time before U.S. troops and their Afghan allies overran the remnants of Al Qaeda hunkered down in the thin, cold air at 14,000 feet

Rumsfield's tactics do not mean he was incarcerated by Pakistan officials. They probably got him to write them books about terrorism!

What you do fail to express is the reason Rumsfield did not "permit" Bin Laden a grand entrance, he was looking at the bigger picture, and where Bush had upset rather silly religious ideals earlier. The entire paragraphs explains a bit more than your interpretation.

The decision not to deploy American forces to go after bin Laden or block his escape was made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his top commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, the architects of the unconventional Afghan battle plan known as Operation Enduring Freedom. Rumsfeld said at the time that he was concerned that too many U.S. troops in Afghanistan would create an anti-American backlash and fuel a widespread insurgency. Reversing the recent American military orthodoxy known as the Powell doctrine, the Afghan model emphasized minimizing the U.S. presence by relying on small, highly mobile teams of special operations troops and CIA paramilitary operatives working with the Afghan opposition. Even when his own commanders and senior intelligence officials in Afghanistan and Washington argued for dispatching more U.S. troops, Franks refused to deviate from the plan.

This is crazy. You were telling me that I shouldn’t quote bin Laden and that he can’t be trusted. Now you are discarding multiple media reports, along with supporting facts and security analyst corroboration, on the basis of bin Laden’s word contradicting one irrelevant fact in a report.

Supporting hearsay, there is no evidence that Bin Laden was incarcerated by any governing force, and he was captured in a fortress, not a prison, and the differences are plainly obvious. Where is your "hard evidence"?

And, “a source that is obviously doctored by Bin Laden's command”? Oh? What’s that then? Are you talking about the Daily Ummat report again? You think the Daily Ummat and Al Jazeera are both in with bin Laden and ‘Al Qaeda’ now? Are you saying the Daily Ummat edited out “my organisation Al-Qaida”, the FBIS and BBC reported it, and Ananova somehow got hold of the ‘real’ transcript? Well... the conspiracy/paranoia deepens...

I think you must be kidding us all if you think reporters in the middle of a war zone that is heavily laden with terrorists, who take lives at the drop of a hat are not intimidated by them to make the releases try to appear sympathetic to their cause.

Or undoctored for that matter. Which the above reference clearly was.

As I said, computers are faster than people, better access, need no rest and are not intimidated. Digital processes do not have a bias. But you are trying to tell me that people who have to live near these insane fundamentalists are not worried about repercussions from them if they do not report what these maniacs want to hear?

Yes I did address it, for the second time, in my post #1062, where I wrote: -

“The documents refer to “the base” or “the military base”. It’s a generic term so much as Western politics and media would like it to be a name chosen and attached to bin Laden. We already know “the base” was the database of Mujahideen created and funded with help of the U.S. to combat the Soviets in Afghanistan (a U.S. Muslim recruited through the Brooklyn cell attended the initial meeting and would later be the prosecution star witness in their case against bin Laden in regard to the U.S. embassy bombings). There is no indication there was to be a unit that would go by the formal name “the base”. Again, that idea is a Western creation which bin Laden disavowed and only used long after 9/11 for benefit of a Western audience who had picked up on the term.”

And I refuted that in post #1075. 75 comes after 62, so I will consider this as resolved, and that the clams that Usama did not put it together, or that it is a Western construct refuted based upon the link and information offered. That being:

In some circles it has become fashionable to suggest that bin Laden has not been especially significant to the global jihadist movement, or that al Qaeda has always, in reality, been only a loose knit collection of like-minded Islamist militant groups, or even that al Qaeda is an organization that was fabricated by US law enforcement. The fullest exposition of this point of view was made in 2004 in the three-hour BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares," directed by Adam Curtis, which argued that "Beyond his small group, bin Laden had no formal organization, until the Americans invented one for him."

Curtis claims that al Qaeda was first "invented" in 2001 when US prosecutors put four men involved in the 1998 plot to blow up two US embassies in east Africa on trial in New York. During the trial they drew heavily on the testimony of former bin Laden aide Jamal al-Fadl, who Curtis explains spun a story about the Saudi militant that would make it easier for US prosecutors to target bin Laden using conspiracy laws that had previously put Mafia bosses behind bars. Curtis says: "The picture al-Fadl drew for the Americans of bin Laden was of an all-powerful figure at the head of a large terrorist network that had an organized network of control. He also said that bin Laden had given this network a name, al Qaeda. But there was no organization. These were militants who mostly planned their own operations and looked to bin Laden for funding and assistance. He was not their commander. There is also no evidence that bin Laden used the term 'al Qaeda' to refer to the name of a group until after 11th September, when he realized that this was the term the Americans had given it."

All of these assertions are nonsense. There is overwhelming evidence that al Qaeda was founded in 1988 by bin Laden and a small group of like-minded militants, and that the group would eventually mushroom into the secretive, disciplined, global organization dominated by bin Laden that implemented the 9/11 attacks. That evidence can be found in the documents in this chapter, which were recovered in Bosnia in 2002, and can also be found in the interviews throughout this book.

What follows are excerpts of a key document: The minutes of the first meeting about the establishment of al Qaeda on August 11, 1988. This document outlines the discussion between bin Laden, referred to as the "the Sheikh," and Abu Rida, or Mohamed Loay Bayazid, to discuss the formation of a "new military group," which would include "al Qaeda (the base)." Abu Rida refers to a disagreement with Abdullah Azzam, with whom bin Laden had founded the Mektab al Khidmat (Services Office).

LINK

That’s what I thought you would say.

Ziad Jarrah: -

  • had a comfortable Western life.
  • wealthy upbringing.
  • attend Christian schools.
  • was university educated.
  • liked to drink (as in, beer).
  • had a girlfriend.
  • spoke about and had bought a new suit for attendance at a family wedding on 22nd Sep.
  • was related to an Israeli intelligence informant.
  • could not take his own ‘will’ seriously.
  • was trained in close quarters combat by a former U.S. special forces soldier.

But no, nothing to see here, it all fits together.

Interesting that you use Peter Bergen as a source in your previous post but auto-disregard here when the same Peter Bergen states, “a more unlikely suicide attacker you could hardly think possible”. That quote can be found at the link below since you had difficulty with the original news report on YouTube: -

“Jarrah was sort of a Lebanese playboy who actually had a girlfriend. And she may have even secretly been his wife, somebody who was drinking occasionally. A more unlikely suicide attacker you could hardly think possible. Somebody who made American friends when he was in the United States.”

Does Jarrah have the profile of a Western agent? Nooo, never. At least, not so far as you would like to admit.

I did use his source, and told Stundie I thought he has a bit of a knob. You omitted that part.

  • had a comfortable Western life.

What? His parents were Sunni, when he was seven years old, Israel invaded southern Lebanon, a fact he referred to later in life! Motive! Ironically as a child he had always wanted to fly planes, but his family discouraged this. His parents tried to say he was still living in Lebanon when he killed all those people!

  • wealthy upbringing.

As did Usama, and no doubt a possibly early connection or inspiration for Jarrah.

  • attend Christian schools.

His parents sent him to a Catholic school in Beirut, he was failing so they e=sent him to private tutors. He attend A christian school. And struggled. Maybe another reason he held things against the West.

  • was university educated.

In Germany. Where he started to enjoy Western life, after meeting up with a more Traditional turkish girl, he got back on the Jihad path, left the Uni and went of to learn how to fly a plane, but not land it.

  • liked to drink (as in, beer).

Did he? the transcript states he snuck the occasional drink. Hardly the same thing. He might have even been forcing himself to do that "occasionally" to help subside suspicion.

  • had a girlfriend.

So? I have seen bouncers here that claim to be Muslim and use women left right and centre. They have girlfriends too, many of them in some cases. Islam is not what I call an ideal structure to propose evidence concerning a female acquaintance.

  • spoke about and had bought a new suit for attendance at a family wedding on 22nd Sep.

And what the heck does that have to do with anything He bought a suit, so he is most likely innocent? He was going to suicide, what does he care about finances? He could not say, "Sorry, wont be able to make the wedding, I am flying a plane into the WTC a week and a bit beforehand." Ya know, I think someone might just have taken note of that, unless it was Bodine that overheard it.

  • was related to an Israeli intelligence informant.

Making him important to Al Qaeda.

  • could not take his own ‘will’ seriously.

According the you, and Bergen. The response to Caroline Lins question is evasive, and does not show her assumption that they tape does not indicate animosity. More "truther" double talk:

LIN: You couldn't tell on the tape.

BERGEN: Yes, well, Atta - you know, Jarrah was sort of a Lebanese playboy who actually had a girlfriend. And she may have even secretly been his wife, somebody who was drinking occasionally. A more unlikely suicide attacker you could hardly think possible. Somebody who made American friends when he was in the United State

Bergen does not adress any part of the tape, he makes personal references, that even you have exaggerated above, and below.

  • was trained in close quarters combat by a former U.S. special forces soldier.

That as I pointed out, he sought out, and paid for this. It was not provided to him. I study TKD myself, that does not make me a terrorist. Again, this is pure unsupported exaggeration.

No, he was not Western in any way. He started to embrace such in Germany for a short while, and left it behind to kill people. I would like to know more about his Turkish girlfriend. She may even have been a plant. Al Qaeda can have operations too you know, they just have no ethics.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question; Who later admitted to his responsibility for the 911 attacks?

Answer: Osama bin Laden.

Q24 says Al Jazeera is unbiased does he not? This Al Jazeera article says:

May 23 2006: Bin Laden says he masterminded the September 11 attacks and that Zacarias Moussaoui, who was convicted for the attacks, had no part in them, in a recorded message posted on the internet.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/05/20115272955828212.html

Interesting nickname isn't it, Q24. That section of the Koran is rather controversial.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a couple of things psyche...

The red text appears to be an unfounded view only as result of your prejudice. Al Jazeera has upset all of the Palestinian authorities, Egypt and China on occasion. The worst wrath Al Jazeera has suffered came from U.S. bombing and killing of its journalists, in violation of international humanitarian law.

And you are still missing the point...

It is not a general battle of ‘which media is better’. We were discussing one particular bin Laden videotape from 2004. In this specific case, Al Jazeera, the initial media source of the videotape, simply reported the full transcript. In this specific case, that is a better source than Fox News who reported only excerpts and misleadingly presented editorial opinion as though it were fact.

In all of your responses you ignore the above finding, which is fairly straightforward, and go on some general attack against Al Jazeera which, as I say, misses the point in this specific case – even if Al Jazeera were headed by the devil himself, it would still be correct/the most accurate source when it comes to the 2004 bin Laden videotape.

I do not feel I am missing the point, I am talking about individuals, I am sure the operators are well informed by the Qatar Government who owns them.

LINK - Al Jazeera reporter killed by sniper in Syria

He was the second reporter to be killed by snipers in 24 hours in strife-torn Syria

Another source sporting the same headline says:

The killings take the death toll of reporters who have died in Syria’s 22-month conflict to at least 20

LINK - The local journalists under threat in Brazil

The Vienna-based International Press Institute says in 2012 the only countries more dangerous for journalists than Brazil were Syria, Somalia, Pakistan and Mexico.

No intimidation? That seems hardly prejudice considering these examples.

And, as headlines by your own admission, “often take a leap” (demonstrably so, in case of Fox News reporting on the 2004 bin Laden videotape), then the view of anyone who spams those headlines must also, ‘often be a leap’ (demonstrably so, in case of Fox News reporting on the 2004 bin Laden videotape).

Not if they post the link with supporting information.

The following is new so I’ll address it: -

Ah, now this is a completely different tape that you have moved onto. To begin, media reported the 2001 videotape as a bin Laden’s first ‘confession’ (it was nothing of the sort), then the 2004 videotape became bin Laden’s first ‘confession’ (again, it was not), then the 2006 audio recording became bin Laden’s first ‘confession’...

And I can agree to this one – the 2006 audio tape does finally appear to contain a legitimate confession from bin Laden (which is no doubt why Al Jazeera reported just that). The pertinent statement, in context of bin Laden defending Zacarias Moussaoui, is this: “I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers...”

There are however reasons to reject this alleged ‘confession’: -

  • The audio tape was never verified and earlier recordings were found to be fraudulent.
  • The tape superbly justified the U.S. government prosecution failure to convict Moussaoui...
  • Whilst having no benefit to Moussaoui or bin Laden whatsoever.
  • The ‘confession’ contradicts that of KSM: “I was responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z”. It is likewise a KSM counter-confession that was used by the Omar Sheikh defence to get him off charges of killing Daniel Pearl – if it works for Omar Sheikh (a British/Pakistani agent), then why not bin Laden also?
  • The tape was released at a time when bin Laden was under control/house-arrest in Pakistan.

In all, the above is reasonable cause for concern that the tape was coerced/edited/fabricated to implicate bin Laden and serve the U.S. government.

  • The audio tape was never verified and earlier recordings were found to be fraudulent.

They were found to be fraudulent, this was not found to be so.

  • The tape superbly justified the U.S. government prosecution failure to convict Moussaoui...
  • Whilst having no benefit to Moussaoui or bin Laden whatsoever.

The US need no justification with Moussaoui. His courtroom antics speak volumes.

  • The ‘confession’ contradicts that of KSM: “I was responsible for the 9/11 operation from A to Z”. It is likewise a KSM counter-confession that was used by the Omar Sheikh defence to get him off charges of killing Daniel Pearl – if it works for Omar Sheikh (a British/Pakistani agent), then why not bin Laden also?

So Bin Laden can organise future strikes as he threatened.

  • The tape was released at a time when bin Laden was under control/house-arrest in Pakistan.

There is no evidence that Bin Laden was incarcerated, and look at the house where has captured, in town, access to the Internet, and arials all over the building.

Osama_bin_Laden_compound1.jpg

And one of his wives also contradict any incarceration clam:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Osama bin Laden spent nine years on the run in Pakistan after the Sept. 11 attacks, during which time he moved among five safe houses and fathered four children, at least two of whom were born in a government hospital, his youngest wife has told Pakistani investigators.

LINK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While your bread & butter might be CD claims, mine is the aviation side.

You investigate plane crashes?

My experience is to do with large scale construction, which often requires controlled demolition.

Simply put, no Boeing at Shanksville, and no Boeing at the Pentagon. Everybody except the feds at Shanksville reported no Boeing, and pictures and videos confirm it.

No? Who put the debris at Shanksville?

Who saw someone taking all this stuff out there and setting it alight? Even body parts were recovered, and pictures of the recovery are plentiful. I recall reading about a tooth in a tree even.

Where is the plane now?

What happened to the passengers? Many of whom left family behind? You do think it is not a tad insensitive to suggest that when people called from the plane, they were lying, staged to set up their loved ones, and are faking it on some island someplace? Daddy faked his death?

If nobody saw this, what did Linda Shepley see?

11 years later we discover that Flight 93 was still communicating within the ACARS system, and was somewhere in Illinois 30 minutes after the fictitious crash at Shanksville. Impossible flying at the Pentagon, no evidence of Boeing there, and the Flight Data Recorder provided by NTSB was bogus.

Yes, FAA and UAL were tracking different planes coded UA93. I am sure you have seen the case study.

As for CD at WTC, the chemical byproducts of the thermite reaction were identified years ago. Molten steel for a month afterward CANNOT be the result of jetfuel fires and gravity.

Really, I seem to remember that when replication was attempted it failed 100% of the time, in every experiment. Also, notable chemist, Frédéric Henry-Couannier came to a very different conclusion and said the claims was baseless. The RJ Lee company also looked for thermite, and found nothing. LINK - WTC Dust Signature report. I know that when Harett and Jones put forth their claim, they compared the sudden energy spike of their burning chips with the spikes of known nanothermites, and found that their chips ignited at around 150° C. lower than the known nanothermites, and the energy release was off between their chips and the nanothermites by a factor of at least two. Yet they called this a match for nanothermite!

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright Psyche... :)

:st

I understand why you don't see Bush as a terrorist and he is, dare I say it, not wholly a bad person, but I do not see much of a difference between Bush or Osama, in terms of there reasons for terrorism and even their beliefs behind it. Osama is a terrorist to me and you because he and his group AQ have committed terrible atrocities but Bush and in particular his neo con group have done exactly the same in the war on terror the innocent people of Afghanistan, Iraq and now Pakistan. Osama may have been responsible for the deaths of over 3000 people but Bush may have been responsible for the deaths of over 100,000+.

I suppose it is because I don't support either side, by which I mean, I do not try and justify the differences by thinking that it's wrong for Osama to have killed those 3000 but its OK for Bush to have killed 100,000 whether it was in retaliation, cause it was war, cause it was X reason. The same arguments could be applied to the other side and American lives in my eyes are no more valuable or less valuable than the lives of those in Afghanistan or Iraq. All lives are equally valuable in my eyes. Of course, the lives of those I love maybe more valuable to me than to you, but vice versa. They are still equally valuable to each of us. Some times people get confused into thinking they are not equally valuable because we are blinded by images of patriotism, race, religion, sexual preferences, fashion, etc etc...and all the different subgroups that people want to identify with. This is what segregates people and causes divisions and in my eyes, both are wrong.

I see a tremendous amount of difference between Bush and Usama. Usama allows for women and children to be killed, Bush laments such, Bin Laden actively attacks America, America sent troops to Afghanistan to help which Bin Laden denies, which I found a huge insult to those who lost lives fighting so these cretins might enjoy freedom, Bin Laden declared war on America, Bush declared war on terrorism, and whilst 100-150 thousand are presumed dead, I understand that the vast majority of civilians killed in Iraq were not killed by US troops. I recognise that the actions of the USA bears some clear responsibilities for the chaos, but ineptitude, miscalculation, ignorance, etc do not qualify as genocide. Otheriwse the United Nations and France would be responsible for the genocide in Rwanda (900,000 people). Putin would be a better candidate for "genocider", since the vast majority of Chechen civilians killed under his watch were killed by Russian troops. And in now way do I believe that at any time did Bush collaborate with Australia or the UK in a deliberate attempt to harm any civillian. Bin Laden considers civillians collateral damage.

I do not think the middle east has much of an argument for religious grounds because I do not believe in religious arguments either.

I do not feel religion is an argument, it is in itself unsupported. Yet that is why we have Jihad, and Jihad being a direct citation of violence against others, ought to be outlawed. To me it is like saying certain faiths are OK with domestic violence so we have to accept it.

Things shouldn't be swept under the carpet but often are, I think those responsible should be held accountable but as per usual, they are not. Not a single soldier did any jail time and I think only one was found guilty. Now imagine for a second, if the Afghans/Iraqis sent an army over to the US and killed 24 innocent people, went back home and the charges against the soldiers were dropped, except one. I think there would be another invasion of Afghan/Iraq and the ruling leaders would be took out like with the Taliban or Saddam. Now I know the soldiers were in a war zone, so to speak, but as I said above, these arguments could be easily transferred to the other side in the 19 hijackers were in a war zone, they were behind enemy lines. Again, it's back to value of life of the Iraqis/Afghans are not worth as much as the live of their own citizens being emblazoned and blinded by patriotism. If they had done this to own citizens, I would expect a few of them to be on death row.

I agree that soldiers have to be held accountable. I do not subscribe to the war zone claim, I know that war would be worse than what I could even imagine, but I do not remember ANZAC's carrying on like this. It's not the first war fought, and it is not the first time we have seen unethical behaviour, Vietnam should have been a mental wake up call. Haditha is an atrocity I agree, and I would like to see harsher punishment. But I do not know if the is sympathy to ones own people, or to a greater picture. If the US did prosecute those at Haditha, would that have given more sympathy to Abhu Graib? Whilst Abhu Graib is considered an example of American injustice, looking at it closely, it is not as clean cut as the bleeding hearts would have one believe.

There might be a bigger picture, I cannot see it I admit, but if not, then I agree it is one sided to not dispense justice to perpetrators if US citizens. I think if Bales is not incarcerated for life, only so we can chop his brain up when he is dead to try and find what was broken, then he should be handed over the Afghan officials. That is the patriotism you spoke of, looking after one's own, and I admit it is most certainly a reality. I am personally not affected by that being an Aussie.

I think this is the sort of thing that needs to go to the press. There is most definitely two minds of the public on that issue.

As for child bombers, you have to ask yourself what is so bad with there situation that they are resorting to using their own Children as bombs? Or soldiers in some countries? Just because they are bad people or animals doesn't really answer the reasons of why? Its a simplifying the argument to a jingoistic answer. I would again reverse the question in that what would have to be done to me, to make me want to make my child into a bomb?

To be honest, I can't honestly imagine what would have to be done to me and I have a open and pretty sick mind, but whatever it is, it must be much worse than I imagine.

Religion has something of a history of sacrificing that which is greatest value to one to one's preferred deity. These people take religion to an extreme. They do not use their own all the time either:

Last summer, Afghan President Hamid Karzai pardoned a group of would-be child suicide attackers ranging in age from 8 to 17. Some of the 20 youngsters told Karzai they had been recruited by the Taliban, strapped with vests and ordered to detonate them near foreigners, the president's office said in a statement last August. Militants told the youngsters that the blasts would spare them but kill the foreigners, it said.

LINK

Not all of them it seems, I remember seing a thread here last year I think, where a child ran to officials and told them she had bombs strapped to her, they got her out of it.

This guy sounds like a right C...(snip!) lol

However, I could easily find Christians who are just about as horrendously irresponsible this guy. Look at the Westboro Baptists brainwashing masses with stupid **** and many more fringes of just about every religion. I remember watching a program about child preachers in the US feeling and thinking how irresponsible these parents were. One in particular would spank their child as they called it, when the child at one point didn't want to perform.

Again, I do not justify it, but I wouldn't use that as a sample of why a religion is wrong.

He is, and this is a kind description I think. A group of guys here called The Chasers caught him in the street and really took the Mickey. Really funny actually.

I do not see this as similar to the Christian comparison. Islam is mainly divided into two factions. That would be like Christianity having only say Catholics and Protestants. What Bin Laden represents also represents law in the Middle East. Shari'ah is not small, and comments like those of Hillali show us that this is what the leaders (a reasonable comparisons seems an Archbishop?) are preaching, and what they are spreading. The Pope is not ever going to incite a holy war. Muti's an Imams do, and all the time, and all over the world, and they have the blessing of their leaders. By comparison, Westboro seems little more than a joke. And they are to anyone outside f that particular group. Westboro also calls Catholicism Devil Worship. The main comparison I see is small minded people, but in every other way, they seem pretty different. They even say Christians are to blame for all the worlds woes today. More of a third party that stole the name really - LINK - Westboro Baptist Church Claims Christians Are To Blame For 'Fag Marriage' (VIDEO)

I get where you are coming from, but if barbarism has no place in today society, then it hypocritical not to judge the US by the same standards because killing people is barbaric whether it is done by stoning, beheading or whether it is high tech and done by electric chair or lethal injection. Even if we argue it is more humane to kill someone by an electric chair than by stoning them to death, it still doesn't take the barbaric act away, which is killing someone. Neither standard is acceptable as far as I can see.

I do not feel so, and I would vote for a death penalty. I think that is the price to pay for being in a society. Lethal injection is not barbaric painful nor humiliating, it is peaceful and puts an end to people who cannot fit into society, and are judged so by a jury of peers. Any child molester, murderer or the like IMHO has given away their rights, as that is the cost of living in society. I believe in a civilised death, and think death should be a more open subject, I completely support Euthanasia. Burying people up to their necks in the ground, and enticing their friends and neighbours to painfully and slowly kill them I think is about the lowest a human can sink to. If a man forfeits his right to life by forcibly taking a happy child's life and ending it I feel has no place n society, and must be removed. Quietly, quickly ,and painlessly. Put them to sleep, do not make them kneel in midday sun in front of all those who are part of their life, and have their head hacked away for a slow, humiliating painful death. I think a child killer is were we can draw this line as per cases such as the James Bulger case, but upon reaching a mature age, such should simply be expired.

This is the ultimate price one can pay for the worst actions one can commit. As such, I feel dignity is shown by finally doing "the right thing" and removing oneself from society is an act that should as such should be provided with privacy and dignity.

I also hope of an uprising but not just where Sharia exists, everywhere. We have enough money and resources to feed, clothes, house every single man, women and child on this planet but yet we can't and get excuses as to why we can't, which in my opinion is more a letting down of the human species. People worldwide should have the freedom to speak out but as we know, speaking out freely can get you into trouble. Some people go ahead and do it anyway, sometimes to greater good of mankind and sometime to there own demise. The problem is the governors of all of our and their societies are always in a desperate bid to maintain their control over us. They will go to any lengths and it doesn't matter how they do it, whether it is done via religion, campaigning, repeating a line in the media, or simply done by staring down the barrel of a gun. Until people get a better concept of this ,whether it's Sharia law or Patriot acts it will never change.

I think we rely too much on Governments for things like this. Apple and Windows have more money than the US does. We need Government's to put rules in place, and give guidelines. I do not know if it os so much control, and just keeping a status quo. Leaders have too short a time to make a real difference I feel, this I feel is not right. the Government does not use religion, religion was the Government until the 30 years war, when the common man insisted on a say. Not that it is a new Western concept, ancient rome practised democracy.

Whilst it is true that some people are given a hard time for speaking out, if they do, and are indeed right in what they say, it seems to me that these people are eventually recognised. Sometimes posthumously unfortunately, but if they have fact behind them, in antiquity, they tend to prevail. In fact, Ignaz Semmelweis immediately comes to mind as a precedent.

Bill Gates said he would end world hunger. If he can, and does, I think it will be a major motivating step forward for other philanthropists to make their mark. I keep an eye on Branson. He is going to do good things for all of us yet.

Oh I couldn't agree more. I think O'Neill was on the ball, I'm just wondering if he had been left to get on with the job, whether he might have uncovered the plot?

I also wonder what he would have had to say if he had survived 9/11 and was still alive?

I have no doubt he would have uncovered the plot, and I think Bodine knew that, and wanted the limelight, but was unable to hold a candle to ONeill.

Had he survived 911 I bet he could have really made some waves, but if the FBI had given him more room to investigate, I think he wold have been well on the way to disolving Al Qaeda now.

I think that western influence would eventually lead to things which were acceptable, being unacceptable. 50 years ago here in the UK, it was an acceptable practise to drive a car while drunk, not to wear a seatbelt, put your child in the car without a car seat, or use a mobile phone (although I don't think they were available 50 years ago..lol) while you drive, but through campaigning, it has influenced a change of perspective. Imagine if I told someone 50 years ago you could have access to the worst kind of filth and degrading porn from your home for a small sum each month by using this computer device, they probably wouldn't accept it?

I understand where you are coming from and agree. My problems is that where we object to islam/Sharia being influenced on our society in the west, those in Islamic/sharia countries must be influenced by our western ideals and if they don't agree to our influence, then we will eradicate them, until they do conform to our way of thinking by imposing a tyrannical dictator like the Shah or if that don't work, impose a democracy.

I do not know, to be frank, you could get some pretty hard*spam filter* 50 years ago, just on paper. Betty Page still turns heads, and despite heavy bondage which shocked most, she was quite religious. She something to the effect of "If God gave me a bidy that makes people happy, why should I not show it to them and make them happy?" Perspective I guess.

But I think that the major benefits of Western society would simply allow people to adopt and embrace it. Shari'ah only benefits men, who are the only ones allowed to vote, It's circular to keep it in place no matter what, and democracy out. I homestly do not think anyone would need to be erradicated, we just need to allow them to experience the benefits. From there, I feel it is just time. Generationally, Shari'ah would just be deemed unacceptable, as the notion of such suppression is in the West.

I wouldn't call it a heated argument because he has no real argument, that is why I refer to as "Panto" debunking, it's the....."Oh no he didn't!"... "Oh yes he did!" act. It is repetitive but part of the panto I'm afraid.

To be honest, I'm glad you've stepped in the hope you can show or lead Skyeagle on how to debate more effectively.

Cheers mate, nice of you to say.

I do not think CTers are trying to absolve the killers, I think the problem is that they are trying to uncover the truth or though some think it's more twoof. lol I do not consider myself a CTer, but I'm fine with the label cause I've been called much worse. Anyway, I agree that mistakes were made and balls were dropped but if there are people then trying to cover up mistakes, then at the very least there is a cover up, so the question is why is not one been held accountable or responsible?

Ohh, not I would not say you are a genuine CT'er, as I say, it has been a very pleasant discussion. I had that impression to begin with due to your debate with Sky, but I see now that is simply not the case. I guess I would consider you from my view as a fence sitter?

Have you seen any footage of those numpties at Ground Zero lounge? Laying of the Scotch before ranting might be a good idea for those blokes. This idiots do try to absolver murderers, bloody idiots the lot of them.

Or this moron

Eric-Hufschmid-small.jpg

Who's book Painful Questions has been aptly described as one of the softest piles of steaming BS ever produced. Or this tosspot:

Jimmy%20Walter%201_sm.jpg

Who goes as far as to suggest that ordinary Americans are involved in the cover up, and have faked their deaths.

He deserves to be handed over to a group of people who lost loved ones in these disasters.

These guys are detrimental to the way of life our brothers, sisters, uncles Aunts, and Dads and Mums fight and have fought for. No compassion for the real victims, these people are the ones absolving murderers with their actions for personal gain. They are really not much more than the scum who train for Al Qaeda.

If you do a job and you screw up and the consequences of your screw up are major, then you would expect to face the consequences, however just because you work in government wouldn't make you any less responsible or accountable.

Agreed, not the way things roll as I understand, but I agree. I bet ONeill would too. One is always remembered for the last thing they did wrong, not all the good things one does. This cost ONeill the path he needed to prevent 911. I admit that how Bodine remins scott free to this day is indeed a bewilderment. She did not entirely get away with it, we Aussies ousted he role and made it public in an ABC docudrama called The Path to 911. Upon having seen the show, she retorted:

"According to the mythmakers, a battle ensued between a cop obsessed with tracking down Osama bin Laden and a bureaucrat more concerned with the feelings of the host government than the fate of Americans and the realities of terrorism. I know this is false. I was there. I was the ambassador."

Yeah Barb, we hear ya. Loud and clear honey. Shame you could not hear ONeill, all that way back from Yemen when he was warning her about the cells.

The problem with 9/11, is that what if there is a pattern to these mistakes? Do you just consider that mind of a CTer is delusional and they will make patterns out of anything? (Which I might add some do..lol) Or do you delve deeper?

I think that is what most so called 9/11 CTers do? I'm sure most so called 9/11 CTers like myself believed the official story and why not, it sounds sensible on paper, hijackers flew planes into buildings, they fell and killed a lot of people end of story, mad jihadists. However when you delve deeper there is one thing that all CTers agree on, is that the official story isn't wholly true, even if they all can't agree on whether the towers were collapsed by thermite or laser beams.

Most CT'ers are delusional, do not have an argument, and just regurgitate what they hear. Many do not have an ounce of engineering capability, but will tell you that WTC was controlled demolition. For the larger part, just their claims are a strong indicator. Is it a regurgitated argument that has been doing the rounds? Or is it out and out plain nonsense? If neither, then it would appear serious debate will ensue. Not that any of the Thermite or Laser beams claims hold any water, or ever did. People like Bee cannot be as dim as they make out, in that case it is a game, some people have fun winding others up. Bee used to be a school teacher. I do not beliebe for a second that the ditzy questions and cailms she spreads are things she is so much as capable of believing in to begin with. The cutesy "dumb blonde" game. And I am fine with that. We are all different, and these claims are so off the wall, it is hard to see anyone taking them as truly serious.

Religion has always been a strong motivator, and these people were very proud of what they had accomplished, there is no reason to look at the US, they bungled the investigation and paid for it, but that is about the depth of their responsibility - stupidity and complacency. Some crazy religious zealots took their faith to an extreme, and hurt a lot of people for an imaginary ideal. Such is common in history, it is just that such thinking is very foreign to the west having abandoned such barbaric and backwards ways about 400 years ago. Just the astounding lack of respect for human life as a whole Indicates fundamental Isalm. The US learned the same lesson at Pearl Harbour, when they could not so much as fathom an enemy so determined as to take their own lives and fly their planes into targets, killing themselves for the Emperor. Astounding they fell for it again.

I also have a theory of why some people object so strongly to CT theories and don't even allow or like people discussing it, regardless of whether there is any truth behind them or not, I think it's a fear. What would happen tomorrow if there was an untold amount of evidence released showing the complicity of elements of the US government, of course you would have people like Skyeagle denying it...lol...But I mean in terms of the bigger picture? I think you would find a serious breakdown in society when you are having to remove and arrest those people who were responsible. What if the current president decided to pardon them all, then there would probably be an overthrowing of government by the people. It is much more psychologically comforting to think that it was 19 muslim hijackers than to think your government would behind it.

Where I stand, is that I do not think it is impossible for the government to have been involved or let it happen, where as others think it is impossible whether there is evidence to show whether it is possible or not. And that is why I discuss possibilities and not absolutes. This is why I accept both possibilities in that OBL may have been involved despite the FBI's lack of hard evidence and despite his denials. However, I also accept that it is possible that he might not be involved as he denied or the FBIs lack of evidence suggest, so both are possible. What I do not do is accept that any one of them is impossible.

This is where the confusion comes and why I'm often polarised as a CTer, because those who often defend the OCT as the truth, are often the ones who claim that 9/11 CT are impossible. Where in as I believe that the truth often lies somewhere in between.

Indeed, the US justice system would probably collapse. Yes, indeed it would be a major blow. Even with things like MKUltra in our history, we still get amazed that the Government are not always 100% of the time in out immediate best interests. We do need ombudsmen, we do need impartial bodies. Bodine alone is proof of this. Even if the level of her incompetence was made note of, it would undermine much of the US system. OBL was not even half as smart as he thought he was, he set sights on the wrong target to accomplish what he wanted, but again, blinded by what he thinks is important.

From what I understand, the Government could have prevented this, but had the wrong people in the wrong places, and one main person dropped the ball, which I feel is a very different thing as to what the CT'ers propose. I think it is fairly simple, just a bit muddy. Some patience, and the waters clear I feel.

Stundie said:

Well we have laughed about Ickes reptile people but imagine if in twenty years, it turns out he was right?? :blink:....lol

Impossible right? Well I wouldn't say it impossible but I do think it's highly probable that he will ever be proven right on that one..lol

I am going to run with impossible. He draws humanoid reptiles with nipples, not realising that the very definition of reptile means that his depiction is not a reptile by definition. If he cannot even get his lousy drawings and descriptions right, I do not have too much faith in his claim that the Queen is actually a reptillian alien.

I do not know if he is a liar, or a crackpot, but one of the two no doubt.

Stundie said:

You raise a good point though, why didn't more people come forward? I think some people did actually come forward, but it was probably dismissed as..."You mean Jimmy Saville? Who runs marathons and raises millions of pounds for charity and good causes?? Raped you as a child?? Look here you, stop telling lies and making things up about Jimmy, he would never do such a thing and I think it's irresponsible of you to try and suggest it you nut job, carry on with that and you'll be in trouble"....Or something to that effect....I'm sure some of them would look at the status of Saville and think, whose going to believe me?

I remember an ex of mines mother told us about the time she was sexually assaulted when she was 8, she told her mother who slapped her in the face . Her mother then told her to stop telling lies. Luckily, it never happened again and her uncle died 2 years later. But there are a multitude of reasons why people keep quiet....

If there was a conspiracy behind 9/11, it would be easy to see why people would keep quiet and there are plenty of things people keep quiet about everyday, whether what they know are through rumours or evidenced. Some people will speak out and often do, but as I've said before sometimes its benefit, sometimes it's there demise and people are known for bringing about their own demise unlike suicide bombers. And it also depends on how much people would know about a conspiracy. In large organisations, it's very easy to compartmentalise things so that one department doesn't know what the other one is doing or what they are doing collectively or working towards.

Wow, that lady really got the short end of the stick. It's terrible that things like this can happen. I am sincerely very sorry to hear she had to live with that.

Quite a similar story has been unfolding here over the last 10 months or so. We used to have a family show called "Hey Dad"! which was actually pretty good. Some nasty allegations are coming out about "Dad" (Robert Hughes) seeing an icon like that which one grows up with, you do not want it to be true, but unfortunately sometime facts are facts, and these things test us form time to time. Realisation is quite a deflating let down.

Stundie said:

You appear to be opened minded, even if you don't agree with the conspiracy theory. Now I'm not using Jimmy Saville as evidence of a 9/11 conspiracy, but I hope it highlights why the conspiracy isn't impossible as some people like to think it is.

Cheers

Stundie :)

I agree that conspiracy can and does happen. Sky would not deny this as he has participated in a cover up. He will tell you so. I am really glad to speak to you, I have seen a different light to many aspects of the case, and indeed, ONeill is a pivotal point in resolving 911 and the responsibility of the US, and I too would like to see everything out in the open public like it or lump it. But where we see instances such as Bodine letting the nation down, I am hoping not to give the zealots something to run with because in most cases, they need little to find a way of twisting a thing out of proportion and creating a monster, Again the Ground Zero Lounge comes to mind. They now congregate to sit around screaming at each other, then patting themselves on the back as to how these "truthers" have uncovered evil plots the government wish to experiment on them with. Nobody is perfect, I bet most people in Government realise this, but truthers seem to think they are. Thanks for the kind words Stundie. Aways a pleasure to discuss with you mate.

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that excellent post Stundie, I enjoyed the read - I think you did well to explain where we are coming from.

In this too, we agree. I am not sure he is definitely part of your "we" at the moment though, I think Stundie is Stundie and I do not think Stundie is entirely decided yet. I like the approach, it's refreshing.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The identification of human remains of passengers at the Pentagon is suspect for the same reason they are suspect at Shanksville. Certain things suggest that there were no passengers at all, and that the authorities simply fabricated DNA evidence.

I think that is really callous and heartless with regards to the people who were survived by the victims. You really out to have concrete proof of such an accusation. I find t hard to believe that 5- forensic scientists were paid off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q24 says Al Jazeera is unbiased does he not? This Al Jazeera article says:

May 23 2006: Bin Laden says he masterminded the September 11 attacks and that Zacarias Moussaoui, who was convicted for the attacks, had no part in them, in a recorded message posted on the internet.

http://www.aljazeera...2955828212.html

I just want to add that we cannot expect to find executives from Al-Jazeera and FOX News hamming it up arm-in-arm at the local pub singing; "14 Bottles of Beer on the Wall."

LG

Q is quite right that whatever aircraft hit the Pentagon, and I believe something did, it cannot be proved exactly what aircraft it was.

If you knew anything about the way we do things in the real world of aviation, you would know what it would have been impossible to switch airliners.

Further, regarding 77, close examination of all records suggest that as with Boston, there is conflicting evidence regarding just what gate at IAD 77 actually departed from.

That doesn't work because the airport keeps its own records as well.

So it cannot be proved that 77 actually departed at all.

It has already been proven the aircraft was American 77 and you knew that as well. On another note, all, what did you say about dual takeoffs out of Boston airport? You see, sometimes you are in such a hurry to concoct false stories that you tend to forget what you said the day before.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.