quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:

quote:

Originally posted by Soozy woo:

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:

quote:

Originally posted by mathom:
The lack of VTs especially considering the fact that there was CCTV in a nearby petrol station interests me. Somebody from "the authorities" came and took it away really quickly after impact, and only a few stills have been seen since. So where were the marks on the Pentagon lawn then? Has anything been provided yet?

its estimated that there are in the region of 25 cctv tapes of the pentagon attack that were confiscated within an hour of the attack so far 2 have been released....WHY?

It's all in the wording though isn't it? Confiscated or taken to be used to get a bigger picture/gain evidence?

I guess it's how you choose to look at it.

what almost 9 years later and they aint been released yet?
I want to be clear here I AM NOT having a pop at the American people here, there seems to be this idea on some forums that to question the events of 11/9 is to have a "go" at America, thats NOT what this is about at all, nor is it in anyway meant to be disrespectfull to those who died that day,
but there ARE questions that need answering, it wasnt ONLY Americans who lost their lives that day,

quote:

Originally posted by china:
hiya commrade *salutes*

dan j knows too many big words for my liking

hiya dan - if youre up and about

quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:

quote:

Originally posted by china:
hiya commrade *salutes*

dan j knows too many big words for my liking

hiya dan - if youre up and about

Hello China,

Do you have an opinion on 911 ?

Apologies if you've posted already on the subject and I've missed it.

quote:

Originally posted by china:

quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:

quote:

Originally posted by china:
hiya commrade *salutes*

dan j knows too many big words for my liking

hiya dan - if youre up and about

Hello China,

Do you have an opinion on 911 ?

Apologies if you've posted already on the subject and I've missed it.

cant stop long-but i'll just say-and i have no proof/links of this-ive always thought it was a load of crock,and that the USA instigated it for their convienience (sp)

same as iraq war-WMD? yeah right
i dont trust 'em-never have and never will

correct me if im wrong-but didnt our government let coventry get bombed during WWII-so they didnt let on to the germans that they were 'code cracking'
summat like that anyway

what im saying is that governments will do ANYTHING to further themselves inc killing a few of their own

did any of that make sense

anyway-who trusts governments?

ina bit-gotta go shopping

nice talking to ya commrade

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:
it wasnt ONLY Americans who lost their lives that day,

quote:

Was a monstrous and highly risky action like that the only way to achieve it?

quote:

Originally posted by Blue Diamond:

quote:

Was a monstrous and highly risky action like that the only way to achieve it?

No

Great post Daniel J.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:
it wasnt ONLY Americans who lost their lives that day,

I think that's quite significant.

With something of the scale of this, I don't think there's a way of piecing together a narrative or an overall explanation or even assessing much of the evidence yourself. There's stuff that's been doctored, stuff that's probably propaganda, and lots of technical evidence that most people do not understand.

I'm a natural sceptic anyway but I tend to take a step back and look at the big picture. Lots of foreign nationals died that day and, if we believe the alternative hypotheses here, their deaths were caused by the states of either America or Israel or perhaps both.

So, if a state was involved in perpetuating mass murder on this scale, the risks or costs would be absolutely enormous. If substantial proof got out then America would be a pariah state around the world. The political damage would be catastrophic.

The scale of planning and execution inherent in some of these hypotheses (tactical nuclear explosions, structural cutting, guided military planes masquerading as commerical airlines, and so on) would involve lots of people and lots of potential errors. For something like this to be undertaken, there would need to be 'plausible deniability' at every level, including if stuff went wrong on the day.

So, the costs would be enormous. But what about the benefits? They would have to be enormous too and far outweighing the costs. What has America as a state achieved by this? What might it think it would achieve at the point before the event? Was a monstrous and highly risky action like that the only way to achieve it?

Even after the event, there needs to be 'plausible deniability' and for years. Everyone allegedly involved would have to stay on message throughout their lives. What about deathbed confessions? Or, even better, terminal illness confessions? Evidence stashed away in safe places by individuals involved against state threats? Blackmail?

Also, I think people generally over-estimate the competence of the state when subjects like this come up. It seems to me that in America there is strong suspicion in the collective mind against federal government almost to the point of paranoia. In the UK, I think we tend to think the government is mostly incompetent and the secret state small and inadequate, at least at the moment. Does anyone here think the UK state, for example, is capable of a 11/9 scale atrocity?

quote:

Originally posted by china:
im off to bed cos im knackered
dont reply with big words as im not very well educated and i have to keep looking them up (its true!)

quote:

Originally posted by china:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:
it wasnt ONLY Americans who lost their lives that day,

I think that's quite significant.

With something of the scale of this, I don't think there's a way of piecing together a narrative or an overall explanation or even assessing much of the evidence yourself. There's stuff that's been doctored, stuff that's probably propaganda, and lots of technical evidence that most people do not understand.

I'm a natural sceptic anyway but I tend to take a step back and look at the big picture. Lots of foreign nationals died that day and, if we believe the alternative hypotheses here, their deaths were caused by the states of either America or Israel or perhaps both.

So, if a state was involved in perpetuating mass murder on this scale, the risks or costs would be absolutely enormous. If substantial proof got out then America would be a pariah state around the world. The political damage would be catastrophic.

The scale of planning and execution inherent in some of these hypotheses (tactical nuclear explosions, structural cutting, guided military planes masquerading as commerical airlines, and so on) would involve lots of people and lots of potential errors. For something like this to be undertaken, there would need to be 'plausible deniability' at every level, including if stuff went wrong on the day.

So, the costs would be enormous. But what about the benefits? They would have to be enormous too and far outweighing the costs. What has America as a state achieved by this? What might it think it would achieve at the point before the event? Was a monstrous and highly risky action like that the only way to achieve it?

Even after the event, there needs to be 'plausible deniability' and for years. Everyone allegedly involved would have to stay on message throughout their lives. What about deathbed confessions? Or, even better, terminal illness confessions? Evidence stashed away in safe places by individuals involved against state threats? Blackmail?

Also, I think people generally over-estimate the competence of the state when subjects like this come up. It seems to me that in America there is strong suspicion in the collective mind against federal government almost to the point of paranoia. In the UK, I think we tend to think the government is mostly incompetent and the secret state small and inadequate, at least at the moment. Does anyone here think the UK state, for example, is capable of a 11/9 scale atrocity?

deathbed confessions-pushed aside as nutters

terminal illness confessions-medication talking

USA-already a pariah state around the world

blackmail-have 'em done in-USA has done it before

benefits for such a high risk operation-overall control of everything and everyone

whats a couple of buildings-just bricks and mortar!
whats losing a few thousand lives? when you can blame someone else and start invading the world on a crusade of fighting terrorism!
just think, being in control of a major fuel supply=a heck of a lot of power

i dont trust 'em
but then again-i dont trust a lot of people

and mr dan

im off to bed cos im knackered
dont reply with big words as im not very well educated and i have to keep looking them up (its true!)

i like your debates-very interesting

quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
"The bigger the lie the more people will believe it"

quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
"The bigger the lie the more people will believe it"

quote:

Originally posted by Garage Joe:

quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
"The bigger the lie the more people will believe it"

I don't see why people can't believe that a bunch of misguided blokes, with much previous form, and a lot of money, were capable of this.

What's more, hanging your hopes on a dubious case like this one, means that people forget obvious issues, such as whether the Libyans caused Lockerbie. There is much official information to prove otherwise as anyone party to the International Institute Strategic Studies papers will testify.

quote:

Originally posted by Smoke:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
Does anyone here think the UK state, for example, is capable of a 11/9 scale atrocity?

In principle, it is perfectly 'capable'. It merely has to create a rationale, assemble the resources, plan - and then execute the operation(s).

So, I imagine you are really asking a different question.

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:
IF the new inqury was held in say....Holland or somewhere neutral, and it was public and far reaching and supported by an international court, then this would once and for all silence the doubters, what have they got to hide?

quote:

Originally posted by Moonbeams:
Please tell OHG.

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:

quote:

Originally posted by Moonbeams:
Please tell OHG.

it would take hours to write,
honestly and NO ONE would wade through it they would die of boredom,

quote:

Originally posted by Garage Joe:
I have read Russell Brand's autobiography.
I can do it OHG.

quote:

Originally posted by Garage Joe:

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:

quote:

Originally posted by Moonbeams:
Please tell OHG.

it would take hours to write,
honestly and NO ONE would wade through it they would die of boredom,

I have read Russell Brand's autobiography.
I can do it OHG.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:
IF the new inqury was held in say....Holland or somewhere neutral, and it was public and far reaching and supported by an international court, then this would once and for all silence the doubters, what have they got to hide?

Under what jurisdiction? This matters because of the release of official documents and how would any culpability be settled? By observation, America as a state is rather shy of relinquishing control. They won't for example, give jurisdiction to the International Criminal Court.

Also, rather than asking what have they got to hide, why not ask what they have got to gain instead? If it is as you say then the propaganda war is already won. America as a state has victim status for a world terrorist event now and that gives it some sort of mandate for maintaining a 'war on terror' around the world. Why risk undermining that given what it cost?

When the loons in the 1960s and onwards were convinced we were being visited by aliens, America was going through a industrial/militaristic counter-culture. I'm not saying the state started the alien thing but I expect the state found it very convenient. There might be something similarly useful to the state in leaving different sections of society speculating about 11/9 and being worried about terrorism.

quote:

What's more, hanging your hopes on a dubious case like this one, means that people forget obvious issues, such as whether the Libyans caused Lockerbie. There is much official information to prove otherwise as anyone party to the International Institute Strategic Studies papers will testify.

quote:

Originally posted by Smoke:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
Does anyone here think the UK state, for example, is capable of a 11/9 scale atrocity?

In principle, it is perfectly 'capable'. It merely has to create a rationale, assemble the resources, plan - and then execute the operation(s).

So, I imagine you are really asking a different question.

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:
what have they got to gain? well firstly I think it all went "tits up" for them as in, didnt quite go to plan,
but world domination would be a nice prize,
the worlds oil is running out, wars are coming, fighting over dwindling resources is already happening, do you think Afghanistan is realy about squashing the Taliban?
countries (unlike US we etc), dont just plan for the next 10 years ya know?, they plan for the next 200 years or more, ....the world and its dependance on oil, is up shit creek, TROUBLE is coming, its all about vieing for possition, being sure to be the biggest kid on the block and in the right place/s at the right time when the shit hits the fan,
the USA is the richest and strongest country in the world and they aint about to give that up easily, and I believe that the BUSH dynasty were very aware of this,

quote:

Originally posted by Garage Joe:

quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
"The bigger the lie the more people will believe it"

I don't see why people can't believe that a bunch of misguided blokes, with much previous form, and a lot of money, were capable of this.

quote:

I have seen video of the guy who was supposed to be training some of these guys to fly, he said(in so many words) these guys couldnt fly for shit, n that was a single engined light aircraft,
yet we are expected to believe that they not ONLY flew high tech passenger airliners but also put them through manouvers that highly trained and experienced figher AND passenger jet pilots have gone on record saying that THEY could not fly in this manner,

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

You need to re-read what I wrote in its context. You're answering a completely different question.

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
You need to re-read what I wrote in its context. You're answering a completely different question.

oops sorry DJ bit distracted, R/L stuff to deal with, got to go for a while will re read, be back later,

quote:

Originally posted by Kaytee:

quote:

What's more, hanging your hopes on a dubious case like this one, means that people forget obvious issues, such as whether the Libyans caused Lockerbie. There is much official information to prove otherwise as anyone party to the International Institute Strategic Studies papers will testify.

Quoted by Garage Joe


Having studied the Lockerbie Bombing as part of a paper on international terrorism, it is unclear whether Libya bankrolled the event, but it is clear that the men imprisoned for it, could not have perpetrated it.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
You need to re-read what I wrote in its context. You're answering a completely different question.

oops sorry DJ bit distracted, R/L stuff to deal with, got to go for a while will re read, be back later,

The context is: what has the American state got to gain by holding an international inquiry into 11/9?

It would also be very costly to stage.

Truth in situations like this is not an absolute thing worth pursing for its own sake, I suggest. At least not to a nation state anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by jonono:
The thing I'm willing to believe is what I thought of for myself at the time. I don't believe the US govt CARRIED OUT the attacks, I think that's massive paranoia, however I agree it was convenient for Western Governments and I don't think it's a massive step of imagination to imagine they had wind of such plans and possibly allowed it to happen, knowing it would give them a bit of clout /public support when it came to declaring wars.
I think however the internet and all this 'I saw it on telly' stuff is a bit of a laugh really, come on do you think if the US managed to pull off something like this they would let the bubble burst by allowing TV programmes to be made and distributed?

I also think we LIKE to have a conspiracy, we like to discuss moon landings and dead princesses/presidents and living Elvises etc however I believe it also comforts people to think that 'they' are against us and there is nothing 'we' can do.

quote:

Originally posted by Extremely Fluffy Fluffy Thing:

quote:

I have seen video of the guy who was supposed to be training some of these guys to fly, he said(in so many words) these guys couldnt fly for shit, n that was a single engined light aircraft,
yet we are expected to believe that they not ONLY flew high tech passenger airliners but also put them through manouvers that highly trained and experienced figher AND passenger jet pilots have gone on record saying that THEY could not fly in this manner,

If that's the case then it's just as feasible that they crashed into the towers because they COULDN'T fly and their intention may have been something else, though just as nasty.