# The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower (BBC2 Sun 6/7).



## danny la rouge (Jul 6, 2008)

What happened to building 7?

It got hit by big fucking bits of collapsing skyscraper, then collapsed after hours of incineration.

Were the fire fighters and the BBC part of a big conspiracy to build the tower in the 80s already wired up with explosives ready just for that fateful day?  Erm... does that really require an answer?


----------



## N_igma (Jul 6, 2008)

I blame Lord Lucan for building 7.


----------



## editor (Jul 6, 2008)

Each time they got a conspiraloon onscreen to spin out their fantasy version of events it sounded ever more ridiculous.

A huge building quietly wired up with thousands of tons of explosives that no one noticed? Yep, that's going to work.
A building constructed with tons of explosives already wired in and that no one noticed during building or for twenty years after? Ya rly.
How about, "Whoops! We'd better cover our arse! Let's not bother shredding the documents revealing our Evil Plot. Let's just pull down the entire building using invisible explosives installed invisibly!"

And perhaps the most ludicrous one of the lot: "Let's control our evil 9/11 airplane attack plot featuring massive destruction, collapsing buildings, burning debris, flying concrete, hurtling metal beams and mammoth explosions.... from a building less than 200 metres away."  Way to go with the logic loons!


----------



## Pavlik (Jul 6, 2008)

editor said:


> Each time they got a conspiraloon onscreen to spin out their fantasy version of events it sounded ever more ridiculous.
> 
> A huge building quietly wired up with thousands of tons of explosives that no one noticed? Yep, that's going to work.
> A building constructed with tons of explosives already wired in and that no one noticed during building or for twenty years after? Ya rly.
> ...


not convinced then?


----------



## TrippyLondoner (Jul 6, 2008)

Glad i didn't bother watching that.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 6, 2008)

It was yet more proof of how utterly idiotic and pathetic the "truth seekers" are.

Cunts the lot of them - how those guys handing out leaflets and DVDs at gound zero haven't had the shit kicked out of them by members of the New York Fire Department I'll never know.


----------



## Voley (Jul 6, 2008)

They've been good programmes these - last weeks one was enjoyable, too.

Decent reporting, and just enough rope for the 9/11 'Truth' lot to hang themselves.

That bloke that made 'Loose Change' gets riled up easily,doesn't he?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 6, 2008)

editor said:


> Each time they got a conspiraloon onscreen to spin out their fantasy version of events it sounded ever more ridiculous.
> 
> A huge building quietly wired up with thousands of tons of explosives that no one noticed? Yep, that's going to work.
> A building constructed with tons of explosives already wired in and that no one noticed during building or for twenty years after? Ya rly.
> ...


Quite. The, as you put it, "demolish a building rather than use a shredder" thing was perhaps the funniest bit, though it's a close call. 

What was most striking was that it's astonishing how people will widen the scope of the conspiracy in order to keep their barmy theories afloat.  The sheer numbers involved in bringing down building 7 for want of a shredder!


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 7, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Quite. The, as you put it, "demolish a building rather than use a shredder" thing was perhaps the funniest bit, though it's a close call.
> 
> * What was most striking was that it's astonishing how people will widen the scope of the conspiracy in order to keep their barmy theories afloat.*  The sheer numbers involved in bringing down building 7 for want of a shredder!



That was what struck me most - and generally does with all conspiracy theories - that as soon as a plausible explanation is mooted the theorists immediately side step or introduce even more ludicrous theories

I felt that especially with the 'well they could have rigged up the building with explosives during renovation or when it was built'. Why? Oh yeah let's just put a self destruct mechanism in a building in case we need to destroy it and blame others at some unknown point in the future. Mmm...yep that's really plausible!

I have to admit that I am fascinated by conspiracy theories and also 'alternative' history not because I believe them but because of some peoples seemingly absolute need for them


----------



## TitanSound (Jul 7, 2008)

NVP said:


> That bloke that made 'Loose Change' gets riled up easily,doesn't he?



He is a fucking knob end.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 7, 2008)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I have to admit that I am fascinated by conspiracy theories and also 'alternative' history not because I believe them but because of some peoples seemingly absolute need for them


Absolutely.  As a matter of fact I'm currently re-reading Carl Sagan's _Demon Haunted World_, for the first time in about 10 years, which covers exactly that point.


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2008)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I felt that especially with the 'well they could have rigged up the building with explosives during renovation or when it was built'. Why? Oh yeah let's just put a self destruct mechanism in a building in case we need to destroy it and blame others at some unknown point in the future. Mmm...yep that's really plausible!


And don't forget: explosives have a limited shelf life and become increasingly volatile and unpredictable over time, so what kind of deluded nutter would sanction (invisibly) wiring up a massive building in the heart of Manhattan with tons of (invisible) explosives on the off chance that some Evil Plan might be hatched two decades later - while running the risk of them going off randomly and blowing up their own operatives and evil control centre?!


----------



## TitanSound (Jul 7, 2008)

editor said:


> And don't forget: explosives have a limited shelf life and become increasingly volatile and unpredictable over time, so what kind of deluded nutter would sanction (invisibly) wiring up a massive building in the heart of Manhattan with tons of (invisible) explosives on the off chance that some Evil Plan might be hatched two decades later - while running the risk of them going off randomly and blowing up their own operatives and evil control centre?!



That bit gave me the biggest lol of the program


----------



## Voley (Jul 7, 2008)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I have to admit that I am fascinated by conspiracy theories and also 'alternative' history not because I believe them but because of some peoples seemingly absolute need for them



Yeah, that was the really interesting bit of the programme - why people need to invent this stuff. Everyone likes a good X-Files type story but but most can distinguish between that and reality. Yet quite a few people seem taken along with it. A form of mass hysteria, perhaps? Interesting ...

... but laughable. Last weeks one where the guy was trying to put forward a credible argument that the Pentagon plane was remotely controlled by that Army plane nearby was priceless. 

Looking forward to the rest of the series. They've been good so far.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 7, 2008)

NVP said:


> Yeah, that was the really interesting bit of the programme - why people need to invent this stuff. Everyone likes a good X-Files type story but but most can distinguish between that and reality. Yet quite a few people seem taken along with it. A form of mass hysteria, perhaps? Interesting ...
> 
> ... but laughable. Last weeks one where the guy was trying to put forward a credible argument that the Pentagon plane was remotely controlled by that Army plane nearby was priceless.
> 
> Looking forward to the rest of the series. They've been good so far.



I some times wonder if the popularity of conspiracy theories and urban legends (another favourite of mine!) is because they take the place of myths/stories/legends which we now longer have or at least no longer beleive in (I am discounting religion in this of course!). As if the human psyche must have some kind of mystery.

The problem is that while urban legends are generally fun and don't really do any harm conspiracy theories and alternative histories are more dangerous in that thay can deflect research, inquiry and even money from more useful and more legitimate efforts.

I did also like the rather strange explantaion that the smoke was not coming out of building 7 but was somehow being drawn towards it. Followed by the video footage showing it plainly streaming out of the windows. They were so pwned


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 7, 2008)

editor said:


> And don't forget: explosives have a limited shelf life and become increasingly volatile and unpredictable over time, so what kind of deluded nutter would sanction (invisibly) wiring up a massive building in the heart of Manhattan with tons of (invisible) explosives on the off chance that some Evil Plan might be hatched two decades later


That only goes to show that all the builders and builders' labourers in New York for the last 20 years were also in on it!  <diminished chords: dum dum DUM>


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jul 7, 2008)

You are all sheeple. It was done by the reverse vampires from tansylvania using mind rays.


----------



## miniGMgoit (Jul 7, 2008)

editor said:


> Each time they got a conspiraloon onscreen to spin out their fantasy version of events it sounded ever more ridiculous.
> 
> A huge building quietly wired up with thousands of tons of explosives that no one noticed? Yep, that's going to work.
> A building constructed with tons of explosives already wired in and that no one noticed during building or for twenty years after? Ya rly.
> ...


----------



## Voley (Jul 7, 2008)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I some times wonder if the popularity of conspiracy theories and urban legends (another favourite of mine!) is because they take the place of myths/stories/legends which we now longer have or at least no longer beleive in (I am discounting religion in this of course!). As if the human psyche must have some kind of mystery.



You might be on to something there. Perhaps as we move into more secular times more of this stuff will keep coming up. Maybe religion fulfilled that for people in the past. Interesting stuff. 

And yes, the bit with the smoke was ludicrous. But some people have just _got _to argue that black = white, too. There's a deep-seated need for that, too ...


----------



## baldrick (Jul 7, 2008)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I did also like the rather strange explantaion that the smoke was not coming out of building 7 but was somehow being drawn towards it. Followed by the video footage showing it plainly streaming out of the windows. They were so pwned


yes me too, that made me giggle 

and that prof bloke banging on about how they'd used some special form of thermite to bring the building down, based on one dodgy sample of dust.  how is that science?  it's not, clearly, but he was convinced.


----------



## Gingerman (Jul 7, 2008)

TitanSound said:


> He is a fucking knob end.



Very slappable is'nt he? That Government guy at the end summed it up,Governments are too dumb to organise conspiracies and to be able to maintain them in this day and age is almost impossible


----------



## MikeMcc (Jul 7, 2008)

I like how they keep reguritating the Danny Joenko (?sp) interview, troofers never show the bit at the end of the interview when he was told the set up had to be done in a matter of hours in a burning building.  His face changed then and he said 'No way! Can't be done'.


----------



## exosculate (Jul 7, 2008)

Why did building seven collapse?


----------



## brixtonvilla (Jul 7, 2008)

exosculate said:


> Why did building seven collapse?



It went on fire and fell over.


----------



## exosculate (Jul 7, 2008)

brixtonvilla said:


> It went on fire and fell over.



I thought it was a long way from the twins, so how did it catch fire?

I am not a conspiracy theorists, but it doesn't make sense to me at all.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 7, 2008)

exosculate said:


> I thought it was a long way from the twins, so how did it catch fire?
> 
> I am not a conspiracy theorists, but it doesn't make sense to me at all.



It wasn't that far, loads of debris fell onto it and caused the fires.

Even the loons don't deny that, they just say it caught fire and was then blown up.


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2008)

Monkeygrinder's Organ;7735184]It wasn't that far said:


> Even the loons don't deny that, they just say it caught fire and was then blown up.


Curse those clever CIA operatives and their invisibly wired mega-building/evil control centre packed with fireproof and damage-proof everlasting  explosives!


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 7, 2008)

The Loose Change guys arguments:

The government must have had something to do with it
Anyone who disagrees is working for the fucking man, man.

The best bit was at the end, when the ex-Counter terrorism guy came on:

'I've been in government for 30 years, and I'll give you 2 reasons why it wasn't a conspiracy:

1. No government is competent enough to carry it out
2. Government could never keep a secret that big

I was appalled at what Loiseax from CDI said about the hate campaign levelled against the employees of that company as well.

The Indian professor dude from NIST on why it's taking so long:

'Well, when we investigate a plane it takes 2-4 years. This is completely off the scale, and it's taking a long, long time to investigate every angle'

But the stuff about thermite was best. The CD argument went from;

People heard explosions

to 

Well, this thermite wouldn't have sounded like an explosion. I can prove it was thermite because someone gave me some dust they found on a bridge 2 miles away


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 7, 2008)

exosculate said:


> I thought it was a long way from the twins, so how did it catch fire?


No, it was very close to them; great big bits of debris fell onto it.


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> Well, this thermite wouldn't have sounded like an explosion. I can prove it was thermite because someone gave me some dust they found on a bridge 2 miles away


And forgive me for prejudging the guy, but the excitable bloke who 'found' the dust didn't seem the most reliable or scientific of  contributors.


----------



## lostexpectation (Jul 7, 2008)

same reason as the other buildings, it ws good program, but didn't really do enough about how the actually buildings fell.


----------



## exosculate (Jul 7, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> No, it was very close to them; great big bits of debris fell onto it.



Oh, its something that they always seem to bang on about, I've never had the energy to examine the information closely. 

We certainly don't need conspiracy theory to damn the current world order, it does a fine job of that on its own.


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2008)

lostexpectation said:


> same reason as the other buildings, it ws good program, but didn't really do enough about how the actually buildings fell.


That'll be because they're still investigating it and not all things have quick and easy-to-digest explanations. The program certainly offered some scientific insights into possible causes of the collapse.

One thing is for sure, and that is that the bonkers conspiracy theories surrounding its collapse come straight from the Great Book Of Intense Stupidity And Gullibility (moron's edition), authored by the Gang o'Thickoes.


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 7, 2008)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> It was yet more proof of how utterly idiotic and pathetic the "truth seekers" are.
> 
> Cunts the lot of them - how those guys handing out leaflets and DVDs at gound zero haven't had the shit kicked out of them by members of the New York Fire Department I'll never know.



No group got treated worse than the first responders. If you watch 'the elephant in the room' you'll find they are extremely sceptical about the motives about the USG. They know the whole thing stinks.

on the collapse of WTC7


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 7, 2008)

MikeMcc said:


> I like how they keep reguritating the Danny Joenko (?sp) interview, troofers never show the bit at the end of the interview when he was told the set up had to be done in a matter of hours in a burning building.  His face changed then and he said 'No way! Can't be done'.



Which means it had to be pre-planned. The purpose of that question is to eliminate the possibility that the USG could have blown it up honestly, as it were.


----------



## exosculate (Jul 7, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> No group got treated worse than the first responders. If you watch 'the elephant in the room' you'll find they are extremely sceptical about the motives about the USG. They know the whole thing stinks.
> 
> on the collapse of WTC7



What is a first responder?


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> on the collapse of WTC7


Give it up Jazzz. 

You've had _years_ to cut'n'paste up every crackpot theory you can find from DVD-shifting Internet nutters and shunting up a link to another dodgy YouTube video edited by thoroughly discredited _fuck-knows-who_ Troofers isn't going to help you claw back any credibility.


----------



## bristol_citizen (Jul 7, 2008)

editor said:


> And forgive me for prejudging the guy, but the excitable bloke who 'found' the dust didn't seem the most reliable or scientific of  contributors.



Seemed very knowledgeable on the qualities of "superthermite" to me. This is the substance that the US government's got that does exactly what conspiracy theorists want it to. Clever eh?


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2008)

bristol_citizen said:


> Seemed very knowledgeable on the qualities of "superthermite" to me. This is the substance that the US government's got that does exactly what conspiracy theorists want it to. Clever eh?


Best of all, they've kept it under their hats for seven years despite its near magical powers and awesome power.  Not a single leak or a peep from a whistleblower anywhere - and it's never been seen in use since.

Brilliant!


----------



## Belushi (Jul 7, 2008)

bristol_citizen said:


> Seemed very knowledgeable on the qualities of "superthermite" to me. This is the substance that the US government's got that does exactly what conspiracy theorists want it to. Clever eh?



I remember when it was called Red Mercury...


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 7, 2008)

exosculate said:


> What is a first responder?


The emergency services that were called in the immediate aftermath of the event and the cleanup, in particular the fire crews. Many of the guys that did the cleaning up are now dying after being told the air was safe


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 7, 2008)

editor said:


> Give it up Jazzz.
> 
> You've had _years_ to cut'n'paste up every crackpot theory you can find from DVD-shifting Internet nutters and shunting up a link to another dodgy YouTube video edited by thoroughly discredited _fuck-knows-who_ Troofers isn't going to help you claw back any credibility.



ed, I really can't give a shit what you think any more about 9/11, why don't you go post on the wanking threads if you aren't interested here? thanks!


----------



## tarannau (Jul 7, 2008)

And what the fuck makes you think that anybody wants to hear you, the discredited king of gullibility, waffle your latest daft theory on 9/11 again?


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> ed, I really can't give a shit what you think any more about 9/11, why don't you go post on the wanking threads if you aren't interested here? thanks!


Aw...


----------



## Vash (Jul 7, 2008)

I wonder if other buildings have been built with explosives in them?  That Gherkin thing in London looks like a giant bomb or missle.


----------



## Dravinian (Jul 7, 2008)

NVP said:


> They've been good programmes these - last weeks one was enjoyable, too.
> 
> Decent reporting, and just enough rope for the 9/11 'Truth' lot to hang themselves.
> 
> That bloke that made 'Loose Change' gets riled up easily,doesn't he?



I saw the first one it was very good.  There are actually things that happened on the day that were a bit odd, the lack of Air Force interception, but it was clearly explained in a lot of detail that made absolute sense.  yeah they got things wrong, but look at what happened, something the likes of which had never happened outside of Sci Fi programs, and you can see exactly how they got it wrong and you could see exactly why they got it wrong on the day.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 7, 2008)

Vash said:


> I wonder if other buildings have been built with explosives in them?


Bound to be: there's a huge conspiracy of firefighters, builders, maintenance workers and the BBC.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jul 7, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Bound to be: there's a huge conspiracy of firefighters, builders, maintenance workers and the BBC.



It is probably best to assume that all buildings have explosives built into them. Just in case.


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> It is probably best to assume that all buildings have explosives built into them. Just in case.


Apart from the Houses of Parliament of course, because silly Guy Fawkes forgot to buy the special invisible explosives.


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 7, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> I saw the first one it was very good.  There are actually things that happened on the day that were a bit odd, the lack of Air Force interception, but it was clearly explained in a lot of detail that made absolute sense.  yeah they got things wrong, but look at what happened, something the likes of which had never happened outside of Sci Fi programs, and you can see exactly how they got it wrong and you could see exactly why they got it wrong on the day.



Oh come on. They tried to pretend that the scenario couldn't have been foreseen but it was an absolute lie: the possibility of hijacked jets being used as missiles was well known. And a trillion dollar defence system failed not once but four times, apparently! Now that is unbelievable, and if there are explanations, why have all these questions put by the families of the bereaved not been answered?


----------



## Vash (Jul 7, 2008)

The explosives makes me wonder about asbestos in buildings maybe at the time the same people knew it caused cancer and put it there deliberately.   

(No-one will ever take anything I say seriously again.)


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> Oh come on. They tried to pretend that the scenario couldn't have been foreseen but it was an absolute lie: the possibility of hijacked jets being used as missiles was well known. And a trillion dollar defence system failed not once but four times, apparently! Now that is unbelievable, and if there are explanations, why have all these questions put by the families of the bereaved not been answered?


Which 'family member' asked this question please? They seem to have forgotten to include a name.


> Please discuss the advice and plans of the Energy Advisory Council specifically as they relate to pipeline development and gas/oil exploration in Afghanistan, Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries, and the feasibility of such development or exploration specifically in those two countries in 2001.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 7, 2008)

> the possibility of hijacked jets being used as missiles was well known.



First proposed by Tom Clancey in the mid-90s (a Japanese student flies a 747 into the Empire State building), it was first considered a possible method of attack by teh USG and factored into planning sessions, wargames etc at the end of the Clinton administration.



> And a trillion dollar defence system failed not once but four times, apparently!



1. NORAD didnt cost $1trn
2. As was discovered by the original commission, the Airforce and NORAD both covered up the fact that the US's internal air defence system was only turned on 1 week in 3 because of budget cuts. So it didn't fail, it was never turned on.

These are old, old points you've been taken down on before Jazz, don't make yourself look a tit again.


----------



## 1927 (Jul 7, 2008)

I think it is unfair to label everybody who questions anything about 9/11 a conspiraloon.

I am genuinely intersetd in how WTC7 fell as if a controlled explosion.

I understand that the stell may well have been weakened by fire, I understand that this would cause the building to fall. What I find hard to understand is how the collapse was so even when the ehat would not have been even across the building, especially when in the programme last night they showed that one side of the building was supported on huge beams over the subway. As a layman I owuld have expected the forces here to be far higher than the rest of the building and would have expected these beams to fail first, that wasn't explined at all last night.

Like I said I'm not a conspiraloon, but would like to know why the building collapsed in the way it did.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 7, 2008)

> I understand that the stell may well have been weakened by fire, I understand that this would cause the building to fall. What I find hard to understand is how the collapse was so even when the ehat would not have been even across the building, especially when in the programme last night they showed that one side of the building was supported on huge beams over the subway. As a layman I owuld have expected the forces here to be far higher than the rest of the building and would have expected these beams to fail first, that wasn't explined at all last night.
> 
> Like I said I'm not a conspiraloon, but would like to know why the building collapsed in the way it did.



Did you watch the show? There was some pretty sound speculation about how loss of load bearing capacity would cause this.


----------



## Vash (Jul 7, 2008)

There haven't been any attaks in America since there was something going on.


----------



## exosculate (Jul 7, 2008)

1927 said:


> I think it is unfair to label everybody who questions anything about 9/11 a conspiraloon.
> 
> I am genuinely intersetd in how WTC7 fell as if a controlled explosion.
> 
> ...



I'm in this camp too - to be honest!


----------



## 1927 (Jul 7, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> Did you watch the show? There was some pretty sound speculation about how loss of load bearing capacity would cause this.



It didn't explain why it collapsed so absolutely perfectly tho.


----------



## exosculate (Jul 7, 2008)

1927 said:


> Like I said I'm not a conspiraloon,



When I say this I feel like someone denying they are a feminist (I mean heaven forbid), but protesting for the rights of women nonetheless.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 7, 2008)

The chances are nothing ever will 'explain' it in that kind of way. The investigation will throw up more or less likely possibilities. 

More to the point, why do you say 'collapse perfectly'?


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Jul 7, 2008)

1927 said:


> I think it is unfair to label everybody who questions anything about 9/11 a conspiraloon.
> 
> I am genuinely intersetd in how WTC7 fell as if a controlled explosion.
> 
> ...


It wasn't even in the slightest. WATCH the video rather than just taking what you read as the truth. IIRC the collapse started about 2/3 of the way along the center on one side and the building collapses into itself a bit.

It was nothing like a controlled explosion, it's only the same when you look really superficially, there was dust and it fell down, that's about all it's collapse and a controlled demolition have in common. I've gone into detail on this in the past, search still pulls some of the posts up.


----------



## tarannau (Jul 7, 2008)

1927 said:


> It didn't explain why it collapsed so absolutely perfectly tho.



What the hell is a 'perfect' collapse?

Doesn't this phrase alone show your preconceptions particularly, if you're like me, your experience of and expertise on controlled demolitions and collision forces is strictly limited.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 7, 2008)

This thread is certainly going in an unpredictable direction.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Jul 7, 2008)

Sadly most of the posts search still finds are me ranting and raving. I'll respond to any questions in a more polite and sensible manner this time 

Misconception 1: There are "squibs" visible. There are windows breaking as the structure deforms. If they were squibs they'd happen before the building starts to move, as it is they happen after the inital movement, it's close as glass is very rigid and will fail very quickly but if you run the video several times you'll see the sequence. The debris is too small to be from explosive demolition, check out the youtube videos of it being done for real.

Also the patern of breaking glass does not conform to a sensible demolition plan, that'd be done on a ring main located on each floor (quick option taking a few days to rig) or a series of ring mains with delays for each beam (couple of weeks) and a distinct, visible lag between them. The pattern is too quick to be a series of ring mains, it's as if a shockwave is moving through the building (oh, that'd be what's really happening ), the progression is as if it were on a plane at 45 degrees to the ground (you just can't do this) and finally the squibs go all the way to the roof, what's the point?

If you were going to blow the building itself you'd take out the central pillars, wait a half second or so and then blow the next furthest out, then another half and blow the next etc. It'd be on two or three floors and massive explosions compared to the visible debris and smoke, the building would have fragmented more (that's why you have several floors rigged) as the explosives cut through the structural joists. Oh yeah and you wouldn't have it on fire, cos that'll cook off detonators, cut detcord and drop debris that could do either at any point.


----------



## 1927 (Jul 7, 2008)

tarannau said:


> What the hell is a 'perfect' collapse?
> 
> Doesn't this phrase alone show your preconceptions particularly, if you're like me, your experience of and expertise on controlled demolitions and collision forces is strictly limited.



The one side of that building was supported on beams over the subway. If the beams weakened then you would expect one side of the building to collapse before the other side, this didnt happen, the building came down together.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 7, 2008)

Dravinian said:


> There are actually things that happened on the day that were a bit odd, the *lack of Air Force interception*



God, do we really have to go through this shit _again_?


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Jul 7, 2008)

1927 said:


> The one side of that building was supported on beams over the subway. If the beams weakened then you would expect one side of the building to collapse before the other side, this didnt happen, the building came down together.


It really didn't though.  The building didn't have bits standing for a bit afterwards like the towers did but the collapse was not simultaneous, find the vid clip on youtube and look at it.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 7, 2008)

Well, I guess the Bush administration must be getting pretty nervous about leaving office with the possibility of Obama's lot coming into power and unearthing all the secret documents containing the full damning story of the truth behind 9/11. I can't wait.


----------



## EddyBlack (Jul 7, 2008)

I don't reckon that the buildings where demolished, and WTC7 collapsing due to damage and fire is obviously the sensible option.

But I have doubts that the story in the 911 comission report is very comprehensive, and it is completely inadequate as it is. There are problems in the narrative that clearly don't make sense. Of course you are not allowed to discuss them around here because that makes you a conspiraloon.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 7, 2008)

1927 said:


> It didn't explain why it collapsed so absolutely perfectly tho.





> "As the North Tower collapsed on September 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center, damaging the south face of the building and igniting fires. The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged from debris, including: damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floor, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor
> 
> A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building. During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10 and 13th floors which was a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. Around 3:30 pm, given that 7 World Trade Center was unstable and would possibly collapse, FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel. At 5:20 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center collapsed.
> 
> ...



(From here). 

A paper by structural engineers on how the loss of one column may have led to the collapse:

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf


Alternatively, it was a conspiracy planned decades in advance when the building was wired for demolition as it was built, this conspiracy involving builders, the fire department and the BBC.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 7, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> I don't reckon that the buildings where demolished, and WTC7 collapsing due to damage and fire is obviously the sensible option.
> 
> But I have doubts that the story in the 911 comission report is very comprehensive, and it is completely inadequate as it is. There are problems in the narrative that clearly don't make sense. Of course you are not allowed to discuss them around here because that makes you a conspiraloon.



Actally that's something that's never been levelled against you cos you bother doing things like providing well researched sources and evidence instead of the usual 'Well it must have been the USG cos that's what The Man does' type stuff.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Jul 7, 2008)

Eddy walks a fine line and sometimes does wander across to the dark side  

Yeah the report was not as comprehensive/heads-must-roll as it could/should have been. My view is that it's arse covering rather than MIHOP/LIHOP


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 7, 2008)

Bob_the_lost said:


> Yeah the report was not as comprehensive/heads-must-roll as it could/should have been.


Is the US administration a mendacious arse-covering bunch of sleezeballs?  Yes.

Did WTC7 collapse/ get demolished because of a conspiracy?  No.


----------



## Flashman (Jul 7, 2008)

goldenecitrone said:


> Well, I guess the Bush administration must be getting pretty nervous about leaving office with the possibility of Obama's lot coming into power and unearthing all the secret documents containing the full damning story of the truth behind 9/11. I can't wait.



Obama and the Democrats are in on it too. 

As is editor. 

As am I.


----------



## EddyBlack (Jul 7, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> Actally that's something that's never been levelled against you cos you bother doing things like providing well researched sources and evidence instead of the usual 'Well it must have been the USG cos that's what The Man does' type stuff.



Yeah but you can't discuss the errors in the 911 commission report without being told your making up conspiracy theories. Like this thread I started got locked, but I'll give it a plug anyway. I mean I'm not having a go at FM for locking it, I just think he saw it as one of _those_ threads, which perhaps it was:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=249076

I can see that the forum has debunked many of the 911 conspiracy theories, and I can understand and share the sense of frustration with a lot of it, but for me at least (leaving aside the bullshit Loose Change official 911 troof stuff) there are things that haven't been answered. That is one example, another is that the 911 Commission was pretty limited in its scope i.e. it was to describe what happened on the day, but had nothing to do with going into where mistakes if any where made througout the intelligence agencies and governmental chains of command in any detail or with any authority. Anyway, I won't go on all day, I'm sure people have had enough of it all.


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> There are problems in the narrative that clearly don't make sense. Of course you are not allowed to discuss them around here because that makes you a conspiraloon.


Strange that, because I can count at least 10,000 posts discussing every conceivable aspect of 9/11 residing in the archives. Are you saying that those posts didn't actually happen? 

OMG! Non-LOL!


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 7, 2008)

Flashman said:


> Obama and the Democrats are in on it too.
> 
> As is editor.
> 
> As am I.



How come nobody ever lets me in on this stuff? I can keep a secret. Honest.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jul 7, 2008)

Flashman said:


> Obama and the Democrats are in on it too.
> 
> As is editor.
> 
> As am I.



So am I.


----------



## editor (Jul 7, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Alternatively, it was a conspiracy planned decades in advance when the building was wired for demolition as it was built, this conspiracy involving builders, the fire department and the BBC.


Yes. That clearly looks to be the most likely option. The BBC always looked a bit shifty to me. Especially hendo.


*ignores comprehensive report by structural engineers.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 7, 2008)

goldenecitrone said:


> How come nobody ever lets me in on this stuff? I can keep a secret. Honest.


You need a Badge.  Do you have a Badge?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jul 7, 2008)

goldenecitrone said:


> How come nobody ever lets me in on this stuff? I can keep a secret. Honest.



Your just not _cool_ enough.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 7, 2008)

editor said:


> Yes. That clearly looks to be the most likely option. The BBC always looked a bit shifty to me. Especially hendo.
> 
> 
> *ignores comprehensive report by structural engineers.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 7, 2008)

goldenecitrone said:


> How come nobody ever lets me in on this stuff? I can keep a secret. Honest.



'cos youre not a jew innit.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 7, 2008)

I'm interested in the same thing, but from the perspective of someone who always finds the inner workings of government interesting! As you know, I lean toward cock-up and incompetence rather than deliberate conspiracy, but even that should be punished given the magnitude of what was to come afterwards...


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 7, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> You need a Badge.  Do you have a Badge?



No, but I have a lock of Yul Bryner's hair. That must count for something.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 7, 2008)

Belushi said:


> 'cos youre not a jew innit.



Then he probably knew about it 15 years ago.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 7, 2008)

goldenecitrone said:


> No, but I have a lock of Yul Bryner's hair. That must count for something.


_Everybody_ in the world has one of them...


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jul 7, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> Then he probably knew about it 15 years ago.



He probably got the email about not turning up for work at the WTC.



I mean, he survived, didn't he?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 7, 2008)

I should be quiet cos otherwise he'll be demanding his Russell book back


----------



## EddyBlack (Jul 7, 2008)

editor said:


> Strange that, because I can count at least 10,000 posts discussing every conceivable aspect of 9/11 residing in the archives. Are you saying that those posts didn't actually happen?
> 
> OMG! Non-LOL!



No they where very informative. I don't think they did discuss _every_ conceivable aspect though. But as I say they where very worthwhile. But there is a 'no 911 shit' policy now in force, which my thread got 'pulled' under. I wasn't even complaining really just stating my opinion/plugging contraband thread.


----------



## MikeMcc (Jul 7, 2008)

1927 said:


> I think it is unfair to label everybody who questions anything about 9/11 a conspiraloon.
> 
> I am genuinely intersetd in how WTC7 fell as if a controlled explosion.
> 
> ...


WTC7 had a unique construction.  Most of the building was built over a framewok that surrounded a pre-existing electrical substation.  My thinking is that this framework failed causing the rest of the building to collapse.  That is pure supposition on my part, but does seem to me to be the most likely cause.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2008)

to be honest, i don't believe the stories of controlled demoliton etc, but i do think there are certain things about 9/11 which are dodgy as fuck

not saying that the big bad USG planned it all of coruse (preparations for an attack of that magnitude were probably underway well before bush got into power) but i lean towards thinking that some people in the security services could (COULD!) have had prior knowledge ...


----------



## scifisam (Jul 8, 2008)

At the time I did think the whole thing seemed a little too convenient for the Bush government - I reckon it was one of the factors that helped him win the next election: he was seen as strong enough to defend the country against The Terrorists. So I could believe that government agents helped the bombers, maybe, or that errors were allowed to be made deliberately. That wouldn't take too many people. 

I've never read anything about it, because it doesn't make any difference either way, AFAIC. 

Any conspiracy would take too many people is unrealistic, for the reasons that that bloke gave in the show - government too stupid and too disorganised. Believing that the government could ever engineer something this big over such a long time shows a surprising amount of respect for politicians' intelligence. 

In any case, the buildings obviously really did collapse for normal reasons - as normal as 'big plane flies into big buildings, big bits of building fall on other buildings, creating big fire' can be. 



Bob_the_lost said:


> Yeah the report was not as comprehensive/heads-must-roll as it could/should have been. My view is that it's arse covering rather than MIHOP/LIHOP



And this - incompetence - is still the most plausible reason. For almost anything, really.


----------



## Fidel (Jul 8, 2008)

frogwoman said:


> to be honest, i don't believe the stories of controlled demoliton etc, but i do think there are certain things about 9/11 which are dodgy as fuck
> 
> not saying that the big bad USG planned it all of coruse (preparations for an attack of that magnitude were probably underway well before bush got into power) but i lean towards thinking that some people in the security services could (COULD!) have had prior knowledge ...



Anyone not agree with this?


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2008)

Fidel said:


> Anyone not agree with this?


Do I think that "some people" in the security services had - and wilfully concealed - prior knowledge that a large chunk of New York was about to be destroyed in a humiliating attack that would kill thousands of their citizens?

No I don't agree with that. I don't believe you'd be able to keep a lid on something as big as that. And if 'they' did know and 'let it happen', then that would have involved giving orders to people to ignore certain things and, again, I don't believe you'd be able to keep those things 100% airtight for ever.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2008)

But similar things happened during the troubles in Northern Ireland. Not saying this is the same scale,and im not saying that i definitely believe it was a conspiracy or whatever, but it would not be the first time that people in the secret services, even the cia, have had "divided loyalties" so to speak


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2008)

frogwoman said:


> But similar things happened during the troubles in Northern Ireland. Not saying this is the same scale,and im not saying that i definitely believe it was a conspiracy or whatever, but it would not be the first time that people in the secret services, even the cia, have had "divided loyalties" so to speak


Totally different scenario on an _unbelievably_ different scale. 

And, crucially, it wasn't kept secret for long, which rather undermines your comparison.


----------



## pk (Jul 8, 2008)

editor said:


> Do I think that "some people" in the security services had - and wilfully concealed - prior knowledge that a large chunk of New York was about to be destroyed in a humiliating attack that would kill thousands of their citizens?
> 
> No I don't agree with that.



That's fair enough.

But I think for such an attack to be successful, a fair few people in positions of considerable responsibility must have been passing info on, even if not in a position to know what would happen with that info.

Maybe Bush himself didn't know what would occur on 9/11, but all those cousins and sisters of Bin Laden delivered safely to the Saudis... fuck the US Government, there was some kind of deal made there and you'd be blind to deny it.

How come the capture of Bin Laden is no longer priority, and yet he's still recording webcam and radio shows? Saddam Mk II ?

The whole thing smells of Royal Saudi shit, from top to bottom.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2008)

editor said:


> Totally different scenario on an _unbelievably_ different scale.
> 
> And, crucially, it wasn't kept secret for long, which rather undermines your comparison.



What about the whole Stakeknife affair, which was kept secret for years and years and was only discovered long after the fact/s? 

i agree that was not the best scenario to compare it to, but what about things like the spies who sold secrets to the soviets, etc, involving atomic bombs, with potentially deadly consequences for all involved 

not trying to say that i definitely believe this is true, but i do think it is a possibility. there was plenty of intelligence suggesting that the highjackers were a threat, which was ignored. i just cannot believe that NOBODY knew anything before it was going to happen.

again not saying the us government was involved, or jews or aliens or anything, but i find the idea that the only people who had knowledge were those twelve plus (possibly) Osama bin Laden et al very very hard to believe


----------



## elbows (Jul 8, 2008)

Well there's no way I could bet my life on knowing for sure the full realities of 9/11 anymore than I would bet my life on being sure of the exact forces behind JFKs killing.

These arent exactly the easiest things to remain open minded about. But I cant get away from the impression that most peoples opinions about these sorts of events are based on their pre-existing beliefs about the world, more than any real evidence of what exactly happened.

We are left knowing that lots of people died, and many of the consequences of the attacks. We saw some stuff for ourselves on TV. There are other bits and bobs of real evidence, and a heck of a lot of opinions. If we live long enough then other detail may emerge that either solidify or changes our beliefs.

And I guess what people believe about these events, is now more important than what actually happened, as these beliefs will have more consequences for the future.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 8, 2008)

frogwoman said:


> What about the whole Stakeknife affair, which was kept secret for years and years and was only discovered long after the fact/s?


Or Pearl Harbour?  Which arguably brought America into WWII, and which some allege Churchill knew about and deliberately let happen.

Three things:  

First, just because an event has a desired effect doesn't mean it was planned.  

Secondly, you'd need convincing evidence that it _was_ planned, not just a notion that governments are capable of mendacity and barbarism.  (They are, but that is in the general and doesn't prove anything in the particular).

Thirdly, in the case of 9-11, what _was_ the desired effect?  I've heard no coherent theory on this.


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2008)

frogwoman said:


> What about the whole Stakeknife affair, which was kept secret for years and years and was only discovered long after the fact/s?


That was one lone spy only tasked with fooling those around him - an *infinitely* easier task than any kind of 'let it happen' 9/11 scenario happening on the world stage..

That would involve far, far more people, some kind of connections with terrorists and US operatives happy to see thousands of their fellow citizens slaughtered and a  large part of New York destroyed and for what?

And all without a single credible leak happening in 7 years despite the massive death toll, humiliating damage, subsequent disastrous war and Bush's plummeting popularity.

America needs no high-profile, self inflicted acts of murder and destruction on their own soil to justify attacking or invading other nations in recent years, as this catalogue of events proves: http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 8, 2008)

> Thirdly, in the case of 9-11, what was the desired effect? I've heard no coherent theory on this.



Well, most would hold that it's something to do with PNAC, but since 9/11 the US' global punching weight has dropped on just about all fronts, it's backfired spectacularly.

Re: intelligence service types 'knowing'...like scientists, many spooks will always argue that any hypothesis or conclusion is only ever temporary and awaiting more data. Is there a possibility that at least one friendly or semi-friendly had a deep cover agent who found out and reported it? Of course, and if they had it would have led to an Enigma Problem - that of using the information and thus flagging up to your enemy just how good your intel is.


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2008)

Loons also argue that the UK government knew all about 7/7 and/or they were actively involved in its execution. 

Some people just can't accept that big bad things don't always need nefarious, multi-agency plots and shadowy conspiracies to happen. Maybe for some loons, their conspiracy-obsessed outlook on life is more to to do with their own insecurities and world view?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 8, 2008)

I watched this program and got the impression that there was enough in it for either side to feel they had conclusive evidence for their theory. Until one asks the question, why would anyone bother? OK, so I can see how people think there might have been an inside plot to detroy the twin towers for some nefarious PNAC/Bilderberg purpose or other, but why would they bother knocking down tower 7 as well? Did they think there'd be millions of americans who were at home thinking; 'those two towers, that's not enough to start a massive war and sacrifice our civil liberties over', and then suddenly it's; 'woah, tower seven as well! Those bastards, where's the nearest place to join the army?'

Tower seven was a footnote in the news coverage on the day itself, and apparently demolishing it deliberately would have required a titanic amount of effort and a simillarly massive cover-up afterwards. _Why would anyone bother?_


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2008)

SpookyFrank said:


> Tower seven was a footnote in the news coverage on the day itself, and apparently demolishing it deliberately would have required a titanic amount of effort and a simillarly massive cover-up afterwards. _Why would anyone bother?_


They couldn't find the paper shredder to destroy their conspiracy plot documents, but conveniently, the building/evil control centre was already invisibly pre-wired with everlasting, blast, water, heat, damage and fire resistant invisible explosives, so it had to go!


----------



## pk (Jul 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Thirdly, in the case of 9-11, what _was_ the desired effect?  I've heard no coherent theory on this.



PNAC directives outlined this. 
Start global conflicts and steal all the oil, in a nutshell.

Makes one wonder why the price of oil has gone through the roof, if they nicked all Iraq's sweet crude.


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2008)

pk said:


> PNAC directives outlined this.
> Start global conflicts and steal all the oil, in a nutshell.


But the price of oil in America has _gone through the roof_ and is having devastating affect on their economy.

 Imported oil had already doubled between summer 2003 and summer 2005, the economy is in freefall downwards, people are losing their houses faster than before and American Airlines is now downsizing as sharply as after the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

The electorate aren't happy, the government's popularity is at rock bottom, so if 9/11 was all a cunning plan driven by the PNAC's aims, it's the fullest of fail ever.


----------



## pk (Jul 8, 2008)

editor said:


> But the price of oil in America has _gone through the roof_ and is having devastating affect on their economy.
> 
> Imported oil had already doubled between summer 2003 and summer 2005, the economy is in freefall downwards, people are losing their houses faster than before and American Airlines is now downsizing as sharply as after the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
> 
> The electorate aren't happy, the government's popularity is at rock bottom, so if 9/11 was all a cunning plan driven by the PNAC's aims, it's the fullest of fail ever.



Well quite.

I blame the Saudis myself. For everything.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 8, 2008)

pk said:


> PNAC directives outlined this.
> Start global conflicts and steal all the oil, in a nutshell.
> 
> Makes one wonder why the price of oil has gone through the roof, if they nicked all Iraq's sweet crude.


That's what I mean about coherent theory.  That doesn't add up.


----------



## pk (Jul 8, 2008)

Conspiraloon twaddle rarely does.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 8, 2008)

Indeed.


----------



## EddyBlack (Jul 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> That's what I mean about coherent theory.  That doesn't add up.



Yes but who gives a fuck about taxpayers and the civilian economy? Take for instance Iraq. 'It is a massive fuck up for everybody concerned', so some people haven't got enormously rich out of it? Its all too simplistic to say that nobody has benefited out of it all.


----------



## exosculate (Jul 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Thirdly, in the case of 9-11, what _was_ the desired effect?  I've heard no coherent theory on this.



I'll play.

Surely the desired effect is obvious, to make it easier to re-intervene in the middle east, to establish long term bases in oil rich and strategic areas. To prevent Iraqi oil and others selling in Euros not dollars, which would have happened without military intervention.


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> Yes but who gives a fuck about taxpayers and the civilian economy? Take for instance Iraq. 'It is a massive fuck up for everybody concerned', so some people haven't got enormously rich out of it? Its all too simplistic to say that nobody has benefited out of it all.


Some people will always manage to make money out of a disaster/war/catastrophe. Doesn't prove a single thing though other than man's ability to coin cash from chaos. It's been going on since mankind first rocked up on earth.


----------



## Voley (Jul 8, 2008)

editor said:


> Loons also argue that the UK government knew all about 7/7 and/or they were actively involved in its execution.



Do they? Not surprising, really.

Watching the conspiracy programme and that one about the carriage on 7/7 last night made me wonder whether someone had put 2 and 2 together to make 5 over 7/7, too.


----------



## Voley (Jul 8, 2008)

editor said:


> It's been going on since mankind first rocked up on earth.



Ahhhh, but _did _mankind really rock up on Earth? 

That's what *they *want you to think.


----------



## Structaural (Jul 8, 2008)

pk said:


> PNAC directives outlined this.
> Start global conflicts and steal all the oil, in a nutshell.



and install new economies in the Argentina/Poland/Bolivia/Russia model (Friedmanism), allowing America corporations to effectively own the place.


----------



## happie chappie (Jul 8, 2008)

frogwoman said:


> but i lean towards thinking that some people in the security services could (COULD!) have had prior knowledge ...



Yes - but what does having "prior knowledge" actually mean? Have you any idea just how much information passes across the desks of the intelligence services? Masses and masses - 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

It's quite possible that someone in an intelligence agency (either in the US or abroad) was either told about a possible plot to ram planes into New York skyscrapers, or otherwise received such information.

Remember, no one prior to 9/11 had used commercial airliners for terrorist purposes so, even if one or more intelligence officers were given some information prior to 9/11, they may have filed it under "not very likely" and moved on to something they thought was more feasible and/or of a more immediate threat.

Thus, in the strictest sense of the term the intelligence agencies may have had "prior knowledge" but that is a long, long, long way from proving that 9/11 was an inside job involving thousands and thousands of people.

Happie Chappie


----------



## chico enrico (Jul 8, 2008)

The Axis of Evil spreads its tendrils:


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 8, 2008)

NVP said:


> Ahhhh, but _did _mankind really rock up on Earth?
> 
> That's what *they *want you to think.



We're all descended from Kiss.


----------



## chico enrico (Jul 8, 2008)

editor said:


> Loons also argue that the UK government knew all about 7/7 and/or they were actively involved in its execution.
> 
> Some people just can't accept that big bad things don't always need nefarious, multi-agency plots and shadowy conspiracies to happen. Maybe for some loons, their conspiracy-obsessed outlook on life is more to to do with their own insecurities and world view?



Just as Larry O'hara asserts that the UK govt and London police deliberately allowed Copeland to carry out his nail-bombing campaign.


----------



## chico enrico (Jul 8, 2008)

exosculate said:


> Surely the desired effect is obvious, to make it easier to re-intervene in the middle east, to establish long term bases in oil rich and strategic areas. To prevent Iraqi oil and others selling in Euros not dollars, which would have happened without military intervention.



i just _love_ that hypothesis. Like they'd really need to go to all the bother of 9/11 if that was their objective. 

Kinda like suggesting Brown has unleashed a platoon of knife weilding zombie killers to go about stabbing folk throughout the country so he can introduce further stop-and-search legislation.


----------



## jæd (Jul 8, 2008)

happie chappie said:


> Remember, no one prior to 9/11 had used commercial airliners for terrorist purposes so, even if one or more intelligence officers were given some information prior to 9/11, they may have filed it under "not very likely" and moved on to something they thought was more feasible and/or of a more immediate threat.



Bzzzt..! Wrong..! 



> ]Intelligence reports suggested that the hijackers intended to fly the plane into the Eiffel Tower in Paris, or blow it up over the city; a maximum fuel load would make the Airbus into a flying bomb.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_8969

Ramming planes into other things is an old idea, and the CIA, etc, were conducting exercises on this premises on that exact day...


----------



## happie chappie (Jul 8, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> i just _love_ that hypothesis. Like they'd really need to go to all the bother of 9/11 if that was their objective.
> 
> Kinda like suggesting Brown has unleashed a platoon of knife weilding zombie killers to go about stabbing folk throughout the country so he can introduce further stop-and-search legislation.



That's exactly the point - why bother?? In fact, the first country the USA attacked after 9/11 was Afghanistan - a county with no oil nor any other natural resources, save a shed load of heroin.

If Bush really planned to invade Iraq all along, I'm sure he could have done so on the pretext of "finishing unfinished business" or suchlike.

And, if there really was a 9/11 conspiracy, and it was all designed to give a fig-leaf for an invasion of Iraq, why didn't the seemingly omnipotent conspirators plant some evidence of WMDs after they'd invaded and had seized control of the county?

Surely a whole lot easier than flying holograms of planes into buildings; attaching missiles to commercial airliners; having controlled explosions bring down three large skyscrapers; or any of the other frankly bonkers theories.

Happie Chappie


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 8, 2008)

jæd said:


> Bzzzt..! Wrong..!
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_8969
> ...



Ah, so that's where Clancey got the idea from...


----------



## happie chappie (Jul 8, 2008)

jæd said:


> Bzzzt..! Wrong..!
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_8969
> ...



I shall make allowances for the fact that reading and comprehension are not your strong points. Read what I wrote again.

Oh, and I wouldn't be too quick to use as a basis for your argument a totally  unsourced article in Wikipedia. 

Happie Chappie


----------



## happie chappie (Jul 8, 2008)

jæd said:


> Bzzzt..! Wrong..!
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_8969
> ...



BTW, while we're on the subject, which bonkers theory are you propounding this week? Is it the holograms? Or the missiles-attached-to-commericial-airliners-without-anyone-including-the-hundreds-of-passengers-noticing idea?

Happie Chappie


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 8, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> Yes but who gives a fuck about taxpayers and the civilian economy? Take for instance Iraq. 'It is a massive fuck up for everybody concerned', so some people haven't got enormously rich out of it? Its all too simplistic to say that nobody has benefited out of it all.


I didn't say nobody benefited.  I said just because an event has a desired effect doesn't mean it was planned.

Furthermore, Occam's Razor isn't being applied enough, for example on the WTC7 collapse, and on Exo's hypothesis.  Why go to all that convoluted trouble?


----------



## jæd (Jul 8, 2008)

happie chappie said:


> I shall make allowances for the fact that reading and comprehension are not your strong points. Read what I wrote again.



 Go on then, tell us all what you were really meaning. Oh, and here's more evidence that crashing planes into stuff was a recognised threat:



> In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.
> 
> One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm



happie chappie said:


> Oh, and I wouldn't be too quick to use as a basis for your argument a totally  unsourced article in Wikipedia.



If you look a bit closer, you'll notice there have been documentaties on that hijacking that mention the same thing. And umpteen articles findable by Google that point out the same thing.

Or perhaps Google and Wikipedia are part of a big conspiracy...


----------



## jæd (Jul 8, 2008)

happie chappie said:


> BTW, while we're on the subject, which bonkers theory are you propounding this week? Is it the holograms? Or the missiles-attached-to-commericial-airliners-without-anyone-including-the-hundreds-of-passengers-noticing idea?



Go on then. Find a post where I've ever posted up a conspiracy theory...?


----------



## EddyBlack (Jul 8, 2008)

editor said:


> Some people will always manage to make money out of a disaster/war/catastrophe. Doesn't prove a single thing though other than man's ability to coin cash from chaos. It's been going on since mankind first rocked up on earth.



Taxes pay for the war, people make money off the war. Its not a disaster for 'America', it is for some and very lucrative for others. You say for example that 'if the idea by the USG was to make money, then it has been a complete failiure because it has cost the American public a lot of money', Dick Cheney meanwhile has made lots.

Just look at the reconstruction money for example:

'Halliburton has been more closely associated with the invasion of Iraq than any other corporation. Before the Iraq War began, it was 19th on the U.S. Army's list of top contractors and zoomed to number 1 in 2003. In 2003 Halliburton made $4.2 billion from the U.S. government. Cheney stated he had , "severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest."

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) recently asserted that Cheney's stock options which were worth $241,498 a year ago, are now valued at more than $8 million-- for an increase of 3,281% . Cheney has pledged to give the proceeds to charity. Cheney continues to received a deferred salary from the company. He was paid $205,298 in 2001; $162,392 in 2002; $178,437 in 2003; and $194,852 in 2004'

Who cares if it has cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, the likes of Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman etc. have seen huge growths in sales. 

For very many powerful and influential people the war has been very lucrative, and not a disaster at all. Its not just a few chancers spying an opportunity. We're talking huge numbers. Billions and billions have been funnelled out into private corporations.

The oil companies too have no doubt increased their assets greatly. You think their profits have been falling?


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> Taxes pay for the war, people make money off the war. Its not a disaster for 'America', it is for some and very lucrative for others. You say for example that 'if the idea by the USG was to make money, then it has been a complete failiure because it has cost the American public a lot of money', Dick Cheney meanwhile has made lots.


So it was Dick wot done it then?

Oil  companies were making money before 9/11, they made money after 9/11 and will no doubt continue to do so while the world craves the stuff.

So what is your actual point in relation to 9/11 here?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 8, 2008)

Bill Gates and Scott MacNealy have also made 'lots' because of the huge investment in the Networked Battlefield Concept - does that mean they too are involved in this? Of course not. While Cheney and co are close enough to ask questions about their conduct, and more importantly the processes that enabled Halliburton to *lose* nearly half a $trillion, it does not mean you can go on to say 'This was all planned in advance'.


----------



## EddyBlack (Jul 8, 2008)

editor said:


> But the price of oil in America has _gone through the roof_ and is having devastating affect on their economy.
> 
> Imported oil had already doubled between summer 2003 and summer 2005, the economy is in freefall downwards, people are losing their houses faster than before and American Airlines is now downsizing as sharply as after the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
> 
> The electorate aren't happy, the government's popularity is at rock bottom, so if 9/11 was all a cunning plan driven by the PNAC's aims, it's the fullest of fail ever.



It started from this. I disputed that the economy going down hill means that the likes of the PNAC people have lost because America's economy has fell.

They haven't. That is all. Working class American's losing their homes does not mean that that 'the PNAC people have lost'. Neither does it mean therefore that 911 was an inside job and I never claimed that, but it is an important point that I think you are very much oversimplifying.


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> Working class American's losing their homes does not mean that that 'the PNAC people have lost'.


I don't recall anyone saying that but I'm still at a loss as to what the connection between 'PNAC people' (whoever they all are) and 9/11 is.

But seeing as you keep going on about them, perhaps you might illustrate the personal financial gains made by PNAC founders William Kristol and Gary Schmitt in relation to 9/11?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 8, 2008)

It's not serving PNACs 'strategic' objectives tho - the US is significantly worse off on the global stage than it was before GWB came in, and sucessfully managed to squander any post-9/11 sympathy it had; it's economy is in serious trouble. PNAC is/was ideological, and concerned with maintaining US hegemony over primary resources in a multi-polar world - so while individuals within the MIC _have_ made piles of cash, and the USM has had a test area for it's new weapons systems and battleplan concepts which it can learn from first hand rather than through proxy forces, the Neo-con global plan has fallen apart.


----------



## EddyBlack (Jul 8, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> It's not serving PNACs 'strategic' objectives tho - the US is significantly worse off on the global stage than it was before GWB came in, and sucessfully managed to squander any post-9/11 sympathy it had; it's economy is in serious trouble. PNAC is/was ideological, and concerned with maintaining US hegemony over primary resources in a multi-polar world - so while individuals within the MIC _have_ made piles of cash, and the USM has had a test area for it's new weapons systems and battleplan concepts which it can learn from first hand rather than through proxy forces, the Neo-con global plan has fallen apart.



I think your right to make the distinction there. But wasn't PNAC about extending and securing America's sphere of influence in the Gulf for example? They have achieved this as far as I can see.




editor said:


> I don't recall anyone saying that but I'm still at a loss as to what the connection between 'PNAC people' (whoever they all are) and 9/11 is.



Did you read my last post?


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> Did you read my last post?


 I did and I'm still not sure what your point is in relation to this thread.

What gains have  PNAC founders William Kristol and Gary Schmitt made in relation to 9/11?


----------



## EddyBlack (Jul 8, 2008)

editor said:


> I did and I'm still not sure what your point is in relation to this thread.
> 
> What gains have  PNAC founders William Kristol and Gary Schmitt made in relation to 9/11?



I give up. You win!

As much as I try and repeat, explain or discuss with editor, his brilliant disingenuous debating tactics are sure to bore you into submission sooner or later.


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> As much as I try and repeat, explain or discuss with editor, his brilliant disingenuous debating tactics are sure to bore you into submission sooner or later.


Nice ad hom attack there - perhaps the fact that I can see right through your tactic of never actually _saying_ the word 'conspiracy', but constantly eluding to one upsets you?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 8, 2008)

Alluding.  Eluding means escaping.


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Alluding.  Eluding means escaping.


I thank you for your correction. I was typing in a  café and distracted by a copy of those curious Men Fitness mags  that tell you how to turn into Hercules in an afternoon.


----------



## Vash (Jul 8, 2008)

Seriously it isn't unrealistic for a building to be built with explosives in it.  If the country was invaded they could detonate it too stop it falling into enemy hands.  I could go on but best not here.


----------



## editor (Jul 8, 2008)

Vash said:


> Seriously it isn't unrealistic for a building to be built with explosives in it.  If the country was invaded they could detonate it too stop it falling into enemy hands.  I could go on but best not here.


Yes dear.


----------



## elbows (Jul 8, 2008)

Ah well the PNAC got dragged into theories because their agenda was served by events such as 9/11. This doesnt mean they had anything to do with 9/11 of course. I think the following is the quote that gets people going, from their 2000 report 'Rebuilding America's Defences':



> "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"


----------



## exosculate (Jul 8, 2008)

elbows said:


> Ah well the PNAC got dragged into theories because their agenda was served by events such as 9/11. This doesnt mean they had anything to do with 9/11 of course. I think the following is the quote that gets people going, from their 2000 report 'Rebuilding America's Defences':





chico enrico said:


> i just _love_ that hypothesis. Like they'd really need to go to all the bother of 9/11 if that was their objective.
> 
> Kinda like suggesting Brown has unleashed a platoon of knife weilding zombie killers to go about stabbing folk throughout the country so he can introduce further stop-and-search legislation.



See above, don't shoot the messenger,


----------



## spartacus mills (Jul 8, 2008)

Vash said:


> Seriously it isn't unrealistic for a building to be built with explosives in it.  If the country was invaded they could detonate it too stop it falling into enemy hands.  I could go on but best not here.



Reminds me of Aesop's Fable of 'The Blacksmith and the Chaffinch'.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 8, 2008)

Vash said:


> Seriously it isn't unrealistic for a building to be built with explosives in it



Apart from the fact that it's completely unrealistic of course.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 8, 2008)

im not saying that the government of the usa carried out 9/11 in order to go to war. 

the USA didn't need 9/11 to go to war. it had been conducting miltiary operations in Iraq since the early 1990s and plans for another invasion were already underway once bush was in power. 

what i am saying is that i find it implausible that the ONLY PEOPLE who knew about 9/11 - something that big - were the terrorists.


----------



## exosculate (Jul 9, 2008)

Question

Is an explosives factory a factory made out of explosives?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 9, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> Kinda like suggesting Brown has unleashed a platoon of knife weilding zombie killers to go about stabbing folk throughout the country so he can introduce further stop-and-search legislation.


This is the winning post.

Yes, 9-11 led to new bad laws, a cranking up of bad foreign policies, and an unjust war.  Yes people (arms dealers, oil barons etc) made a lot of money as a result.  But 9-11 was not planned in order for that to happen.

And that's really it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 9, 2008)

editor said:


> I thank you for your correction. I was typing in a  café and distracted by a copy of those curious Men Fitness mags  that tell you how to turn into Hercules in an afternoon.


 I feel your pain.  At my age I've started using words I know perfectly well are the wrong ones in everyday conversation.  If that's me in my mid 40s, Christ knows what I'll be like at 70.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 9, 2008)

Read this thread yesterday, but haven't watched the programme(s) in question I'm afraid.



frogwoman said:


> what i am saying is that i find it implausible that the ONLY PEOPLE who knew about 9/11 - something that big - were the terrorists.



I'm sure you'd agree though that some of the conspiranoid speculation outlining which people in the USG must 'surely' have known about and planned this, far far greater on the implausibility scale ...

I'm with danny all the way on this. The patent refusal of most conspiracists to apply Occams Razor, and their inability to  apply principles of scientific and historical evidence, their inability to assess credibility of differing sources properly, and their flat refusal even to apply simple logic and common sense, is an absolute disgrace.

Monbiot had some of these crazies and obsessives sussed in his articles last year on how 'truthseekers' serve the interests (even if inadvertantly) of the PNAC/Neocon establishment.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 9, 2008)

QueenOfGoths said:
			
		

> That was what struck me most - and generally does with all conspiracy theories - that as soon as a plausible explanation is mooted the theorists immediately side step or introduce even more ludicrous theories
> 
> I felt that especially with the 'well they could have rigged up the building with explosives during renovation or when it was built'. Why? Oh yeah let's just put a self destruct mechanism in a building in case we need to destroy it and blame others at some unknown point in the future. Mmm...yep that's really plausible!
> 
> *I have to admit that I am fascinated by conspiracy theories and also 'alternative' history not because I believe them but because of some peoples seemingly absolute need for them*



QOG (and others), have you read Francis Wheen's 'How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World : A shoirt history of modern delusions'?

Thoroughly recommended. Fascinating read!


----------



## bigbry (Jul 9, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> Oh come on. They tried to pretend that the scenario couldn't have been foreseen but it was an absolute lie: *the possibility of hijacked jets being used as missiles was well known*. And a trillion dollar defence system failed not once but four times, apparently! Now that is unbelievable, and if there are explanations, why have all these questions put by the families of the bereaved not been answered?



But only as a possibility - it's a suicide mission involving several people, you can brainwash one suicide bomber , several is much more difficult - I find it quite plausible that they lost contact and didn't realise the scale and intention until the first one hit.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 9, 2008)

William of Walworth said:


> QOG (and others), have you read Francis Wheen's 'How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World : A shoirt history of modern delusions'?
> 
> Thoroughly recommended. Fascinating read!


Thanks for the recommendation, I'll give it a go. In turn I thoroughly recommend Michael Shermer's _Why People Believe Weird Things_.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Jul 9, 2008)

William of Walworth said:


> QOG (and others), have you read Francis Wheen's 'How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World : A shoirt history of modern delusions'?
> 
> Thoroughly recommended. Fascinating read!





danny la rouge said:


> Thanks for the recommendation, I'll give it a go. In turn I thoroughly recommend Michael Shermer's _Why People Believe Weird Things_.



Thanks for those suggestions, they sound really interesting


----------



## EddyBlack (Jul 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> This is the winning post.
> 
> Yes, 9-11 led to new bad laws, a cranking up of bad foreign policies, and an unjust war.  Yes people (arms dealers, oil barons etc) made a lot of money as a result.  *But 9-11 was not planned in order for that to happen.
> 
> And that's really it*.



Of course because everyone knows what really happened - it was in the 911 report!


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 9, 2008)

Froggy - you still haven't defined what you mean by 'know'. Presumably you mean 'Had absolute awareness and surety that the event was going to happen'. I've talked about the internal politics of the various intel agencies in the US and internationally, as well as how 'knowledge' in a bureaucracy doesn't work in the same way. Someone might have been aware of intel of a plan. They may have dismissed it, someone higher than them may have dismissed it. You're searching for an absolute that doesn't exist. 



> But wasn't PNAC about extending and securing America's sphere of influence in the Gulf for example? They have achieved this as far as I can see.



PNAC wasn't 'about' anything. It was a collection of right-wing 'thinkers' in the US who largely re-iterated policy aims that had been around since the 1950s, and who held that the peace dividend in the 1990s had left America unable to maintain said policies of primary resource hegemony, and that it would take an extraorinary event to create the frame of mind that would enable the US to re-arm. This was, however, a very small part of PNAC's witterings, which covered everything from abortion to complete privatisation of all state services, and formed the 'philosophical' backdrop to GWBs presidency, and has been shown to be made of absolute fail - the best example of it's failure domestically was the Privatisation of FEMA and the subsequent disaster in New Orleans. 

As for America's influence in the Gulf...they have NO control over Iraq, and once they leave that will drop off even further. The rest of the Gulf states are deeply divided, largely between their élites who look to the US for umbrella protection against Iran, and in the case of the Saudis, internal dissent against the House of Al-Saud. To say that it's been extended or secured is a gross overstatement IMO.


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> Of course because everyone knows what really happened - it was in the 911 report!


Which aspects of the report do you believe to be untrue and what motivation do you think there might be for the authors to falsify their findings?


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 9, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> Of course because everyone knows what really happened - it was in the 911 report!


You appear to be putting words into my mouth.  I have not offered any opinion thus far on the official report, but you seem to assume that because I'm dubious about conspiracy theories I'm a government dupe.  Quite the contrary; I have little confidence in any government ever telling us the whole truth about anything.


----------



## chico enrico (Jul 9, 2008)

editor said:


> Which aspects of the report do you believe to be untrue and what motivation do you think there might be for the authors to falsify their findings?



and more to the point, what makes you think you are better qualified on this matter - _which you have absolutely no involvement with or scientific knowledge of whatsoever_ - than the hundreds of politically independant and impartial engineers, structural scientists etc who contributed work to the report? 

other than having seen a few youtube clips or watched some free dvd a strange looking chap in a stained Lord Anthony anorak gave you on the high street?


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> and more to the point, what makes you think you are better qualified on this matter - _which you have absolutely no involvement with or scientific knowledge of whatsoever_ - than the hundreds of politically independant and impartial engineers, structural scientists etc who contributed work to the report?
> 
> other than having seen a few youtube clips or watched some free dvd a strange looking chap in a stained Lord Anthony anorak gave you on the high street?


I'd say say that the chances of EddyBlack giving me a straight answer to my question are pretty much zero, but who knows? He might  just surprise me yet and detail which aspects of the report he believes to be untrue and explain what motivation the authors might have for knowingly falsifying their findings and risking their scientitific credibility.


----------



## EddyBlack (Jul 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> You appear to be putting words into my mouth.  I have not offered any opinion thus far on the official report, but you seem to assume that because I'm dubious about conspiracy theories I'm a government dupe.  Quite the contrary; I have little confidence in any government ever telling us the whole truth about anything.



Point taken, see quite a few of us are in agreement to that extent about the report and official account, but still having different ideas.

Whereas editor demands that I give him some great big answer breaking down every problem I have with the report which he will then twist and pull apart disingenuously as usual for some reason, some partisan intolerance he has for me. I can't be arsed as I've said. I've had lots of good proper discussions with people with different views, everyone knows I think it was a conspiracy, but he thinks I'm playing some kind of tactical game, not at all. Its not petulance, its just that it is a complete waste of time trying to answer his questions or discuss anything with him.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 9, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> see quite a few of us are in agreement to that extent about the report and official account, but still having different ideas.


To be fair, I should point out that while I'm sure we didn't get the whole truth, I don't think the whole truth would have altered things much.


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> Whereas editor demands that I give him some great big answer breaking down every problem I have with the report which he will then twist and pull apart disingenuously as usual for some reason, some partisan intolerance he has for me.


I just asked you a straight question in the crazy hope of getting a straight reply. 

Shame that it looks like you're running on empty when it comes to actually offering some detail.


----------



## EddyBlack (Jul 9, 2008)

editor said:


> I just asked you a straight question in the crazy hope of getting a straight reply.
> 
> Shame that it looks like you're running on empty when it comes to actually offering some detail.



Editor, I've had tons of discussions with you, but unlike nearly everyone else your not being genuine. What are you up to? You expect me to discuss anything with you? You know for example I've already posted a link to a thread I started about the Commission report, so I'm obviously not just _pretending_ I have problems with the report, or 'running on empty when it comes to actually offering some detail.' I'm quite happy to be sussed out, change my mind etc. on any number of topics through _real _discussion, what I'm not prepared to do is waste my time talking to someone who deliberately twists and misrepresents what I say, and tries to antagonise me in the process.


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> Editor, I've had tons of discussions with you, but unlike nearly everyone else your not being genuine. What are you up to? You expect me to discuss anything with you? You know for example I've already posted a link to a thread I started about the Commission report, so I'm obviously not just _pretending_ I have problems with the report, or 'running on empty when it comes to actually offering some detail.' I'm quite happy to be sussed out, change my mind etc. on any number of topics through _real _discussion, what I'm not prepared to do is waste my time talking to someone who deliberately twists and misrepresents what I say, and tries to antagonise me in the process.


Oh, I can't be arsed with this nu-conspiraloon wriggling cobblers.


----------



## chico enrico (Jul 9, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> Editor, I've had tons of discussions with you, but unlike nearly everyone else your not being genuine. What are you up to? You expect me to discuss anything with you? You know for example I've already posted a link to a thread I started about the Commission report, so I'm obviously not just _pretending_ I have problems with the report, or 'running on empty when it comes to actually offering some detail.' I'm quite happy to be sussed out, change my mind etc. on any number of topics through _real _discussion, what I'm not prepared to do is waste my time talking to someone who deliberately twists and misrepresents what I say, and tries to antagonise me in the process.



Ok, on another tack, do you not think that if the bush admin/axis of evil/cia/pentagon/lizards were so adept at cover ups and fabricating documents they couldn't have done a better job with the commission into the validation of "weapons of mass destruction" which essentially resulted in them being exposed for the lying, duplicitous bastards they are? just a thought like as i've never really had that one adequately explained


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2008)

It would have been a damn sight easier to slip into the barren wastelands of Iraq and drop off a few dozen weapons of mass destruction/mini-nukes than go through the whole wildly risky palaver of destroying a big chunk of New York and slaughtering thousands of their own citizens - and then hoping that not a single person involved in the colossal  conspiracy would ever squeak a word of it for all time.


----------



## chico enrico (Jul 9, 2008)

editor said:


> *It would have been a damn sight easier to slip into the barren wastelands of Iraq and drop off a few dozen weapons of mass destruction/mini-nukes* than go through the whole wildly risky palaver of destroying a big chunk of New York and slaughtering thousands of their own citizens - and then hoping that not a single person involved in the colossal  conspiracy would ever squeak a word of it for all time.



yes. If they even _needed_ to go to such lengths to begin with. Which I can't really see why they would have done


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2008)

William of Walworth said:


> Read this thread yesterday, but haven't watched the programme(s) in question I'm afraid.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with everything you said. Im not disagreing and i have talked about this (at great length) in the past


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2008)

> Froggy - you still haven't defined what you mean by 'know'. Presumably you mean 'Had absolute awareness and surety that the event was going to happen'. I've talked about the internal politics of the various intel agencies in the US and internationally, as well as how 'knowledge' in a bureaucracy doesn't work in the same way. Someone might have been aware of intel of a plan. They may have dismissed it, someone higher than them may have dismissed it. You're searching for an absolute that doesn't exist.



And this is also very possible as well - they might have recieved information but simply disregarded it. But if a few (a few!!) intel operatives in the CIA did know that something was about to take place - without the sanction of the us government - , it would hardly be an implausible scenario. 
and the conspiranoid speculation is obviously bollocks of course ...


----------



## chico enrico (Jul 9, 2008)

Jesus! every now and then it kinda hits you - just how fucking _*ABSURD*_ all these 9/11 conspiracy 'fables' are and how insane it is that one actually spends time arguing with people who believe them!

They may as well be arguing that Godzilla stepped out of the skies and trampled the twin towers underfoot for all the rationality and reason their ridiculousness has.

holograms...controlled explosions...hidden explosives...missiles controlled by planes...

utterly, totally, incomprehensibly *NUTS!*


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> Jesus! every now and then it kinda hits you - just how fucking _*ABSURD*_ all these 9/11 conspiracy 'fables' are and how insane it is that one actually spends time arguing with people who believe them!
> 
> They may as well be arguing that Godzilla stepped out of the skies and trampled the twin towers underfoot for all the rationality and reason their ridiculousness has.
> 
> ...



Yeah and they only serve the agenda of the people they claim to despise by discrediting criticism of subsequent events ..


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 9, 2008)

frogwoman said:


> Yeah and they only serve the agenda of the people they claim to despise by discrediting criticism of subsequent events ..



Quite.  Which makes you wonder whether it isn't a conspiracy...


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> holograms...controlled explosions...hidden explosives...missiles controlled by planes...
> 
> utterly, totally, incomprehensibly *NUTS!*


Don't forget the mini-nukes and destructive laser beams from space (yes, really!).


----------



## Voley (Jul 9, 2008)

Anyone know what next week's edition of this is going to be? 

The trailers had Diana on 'em ...

That should be a good un, too ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 9, 2008)

Cheers for that book recomemndation danny ...



danny la rouge said:


> [to Eddy Black] You appear to be putting words into my mouth.  I have not offered any opinion thus far on the official report, but *you seem to assume that because I'm dubious about conspiracy theories I'm a government dupe.*  Quite the contrary; I have little confidence in any government ever telling us the whole truth about anything.



It looks like Eddy is on the fairly moderate/fairly reasonable wing of the conspiracist scale. But this false equivalence that _so bloody many_ conspiracists make between scepticism about conspiracies on the one hand, and gullibility towards Governments/the Establishment on the other, is near universal when  a conspiracist gets challenged.

This 'gullibility to Governments'/'sheeple' smear is the default kneejerk reaction of so many conspiracists, showing a mindset/assumption that's frankly insulting as well as devoid of logic.  I think the term 'shill' derives from this way of thinking. It's perfectly possible to be sceptical about BOTH conspiracies AND Governments. It's about time conpiracists applied at least the same level/critical assesment/questioning towards conspiraloon sources as they do towards 'official' ones.

But until they do, suggesting, even just hinting, that counter-conspiracists are Government dupes, will do more to discredit their 'case'  than anything -- other than the innate bonkersness of their actual arguments.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 9, 2008)

NVP said:


> Anyone know what next week's edition of this is going to be?
> 
> The trailers had Diana on 'em ...
> 
> That should be a good un, too ...



Express TV!


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 9, 2008)

frogwoman said:


> [responding to my post from earlier]I agree with everything you said. Im not disagreing and i have talked about this (at great length) in the past



Yeah fair dos!


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Quite.  Which makes you wonder whether it isn't a conspiracy...



Well check out some of Pat Buchanan's books about tne NWO, black helicopters,jews and such like in the early 90s - he donated millions to bush's campaign

also check out the links some of these other conspiracy theorists have

its not THAT implausible


----------



## EddyBlack (Jul 9, 2008)

editor said:


> Oh, I can't be arsed with this nu-conspiraloon wriggling cobblers.



Its not wriggling ed, I've spoken about and linked to more detailed criticisms of the report already haven't I? Anything I say you will deliberately misrepresent, selective ignore and seek to antagonise won't you?


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> Its not wriggling ed, I've spoken about and linked to more detailed criticisms of the report already haven't I? Anything I say you will deliberately misrepresent, selective ignore and seek to antagonise won't you?


I must have missed the bit where you explained what motivation the authors might have had to falsify their findings while risking their credibility as scientists.

But your links follow the same old pattern of pointing out relatively microscopic discrepancies that don't add up to a hill of beans in the big picture and then concluding 2+2= 684.5875.

But I'm loving the nu-conspiraloon approach, by the way. It's a bit like the modern BNP, who don't _actually say what they're really thinking_ but keep dancing around the same old subject.


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 9, 2008)

oh piss off editor! you're a pain in the arse on these threads.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 9, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> oh piss off editor! you're a pain in the arse on these threads.



PMSL.

You gonna chuck your toys out of the pram and dissapear off the thread when people ask you questions again then?


(btw - come to a conclusion about your old pal Kollerstrom yet? You never did get back to *that* thread)


"Truth seeker" my fucking arse, you're all being made to look more and more stupid as every bit of evidence comes to light.


----------



## EddyBlack (Jul 9, 2008)

editor said:


> I must have missed the bit where you explained what motivation the authors might have had to falsify their findings while risking their credibility as scientists.



I never said they have falsified anything, I said it was limited and inadequate. I will give you benefit of the doubt that your not trying the old 'ignore what I actually say and deliberately mis-represent.'



editor said:


> But your links follow the same old pattern of pointing out relatively microscopic discrepancies that don't add up to a hill of beans in the big picture and then concluding 2+2= 684.5875.



No, its quite a big discrepency. You asked for specifics anyway, and theres one.



editor said:


> But I'm loving the nu-conspiraloon approach, by the way. It's a bit like the modern BNP, who don't _actually say what they're really thinking_ but keep dancing around the same old subject.



I do say what I'm really thinking, your just being silly now. BNP indeed. What am I _really_ thinking do you reckon?


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 9, 2008)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> PMSL.
> 
> You gonna chuck your toys out of the pram and dissapear off the thread when people ask you questions again then?
> 
> ...



Seems like you are having the hissy fit. I've barely posted on this thread - I've had enough discussions with editor to realise that engaging with him is a pointless exercises for all parties. No-one else has asked me any questions (and if you examine editor's it was stupidly petty questioning, just being awkward for the sake of it - which is his whole modus operandi)

Nick Kollerstrom is a very silly man but no neo-nazi, I am sure you all enjoyed feasting on his carcass.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 9, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> Nick Kollerstrom is a very silly man



Christ, you really can't see the truth even when it slaps you in the face, can you?

Un fucking believable.


(FWIW he wasn't being called a "neo nazi", he was being called a holocaust denier.  Which he is.)


----------



## Balbi (Jul 9, 2008)

William of Walworth said:


> QOG (and others), have you read Francis Wheen's 'How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World : A shoirt history of modern delusions'?
> 
> Thoroughly recommended. Fascinating read!



Outstanding piece of work. His 'History from 1979 to now....' outlook is very good. Much thumbed in the Balbi household


----------



## EddyBlack (Jul 9, 2008)

Just having a look at the Anthrax attacks stuff in the aftermath of 911. That was an inside job wasn’t it? I wonder how many people would have had access to weapons grade anthrax? One week after 911 as well, they must have been really upset. That’s why I can’t understand people who think you’re a loony if you think anybody in America could have been involved with 911, especially given the historical and ongoing involvement between the CIA and Al-Qaeda and other Sunni extremist groups.


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> What am I _really_ thinking do you reckon?


Why not help me out. Do you think the USG was involved in 9/11 or not?


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 9, 2008)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Christ, you really can't see the truth even when it slaps you in the face, can you?
> 
> Un fucking believable.



I can promise you that Kollerstrom was no racist - he was simply unable to articulate his theory without guarding against how it would be perceived. As you know, people took his writing and took it to mean that he thought no Jewish people died during WWII and the nazi regime was nice and fluffy: that's absolutely not what he thought at all. I sent him an email suggesting that for his own sake rather than trying to give detailed arguments about chemical studies he should simply be at pains to confirm that he thought the nazi regime was abhorrent and vast numbers of Jews died as a result - he certainly had no problem with that, but it was a bit late in the day for him.

Anyway you think what you like about Kollerstrom. I don't think I'll be seeing much more of him.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 9, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> I can promise you that Kollerstrom was no racist



He. Is. A. Holocaust. Denier.


----------



## exosculate (Jul 9, 2008)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> He. Is. A. Holocaust. Denier.



What is the purpose of holocaust denial, is it intended to be racist?


----------



## EddyBlack (Jul 9, 2008)

editor said:


> Why not help me out. Do you think the USG was involved in 9/11 or not?



I strongly doubt it. I think somebody in the intelligence services could have been. I don't think the Bush administration themselves were in on it beforehand.


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> I can promise you that Kollerstrom was no racist


Here's your scumbag pal again:



> 'Let us hope the schoolchildren visitors are properly taught about the elegant swimming pool at Auschwitz, built by the inmates, who would sunbathe there on Saturday and Sunday afternoons while watching the water polo matches,' he said of the Nazi genocide.
> 
> 'Let's hope they are shown postcards written from Auschwitz, where the postman would collect the mail twice weekly.'
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2008/may/04/highereducation


What nice people you associate with Jazzz.


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> I strongly doubt it. I think somebody in the intelligence services could have been..


Really? Who and in what capacity?


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 9, 2008)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> (FWIW he wasn't being called a "neo nazi", he was being called a holocaust denier.  Which he is.)



I didn't defend him against the definition 'holocaust denier', just anti-semitism. So where's our disagreement?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 9, 2008)

exosculate said:


> What is the purpose of holocaust denial, is it intended to be racist?



Who knows?  This is just another example of Jazzz refusing to accept the truth and wriggling like a WD-40 coated eel.

Note the "he was no neo nazi" and "was no racist", two phrases nobody used.  He can type this and try and convince himself he's right, rather than face up to what was being said.

Classic conspiraloonery.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 9, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> I didn't defend him against the definition 'holocaust denier'



You wouldn't even admit this is what he is either.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 9, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> I didn't defend him against the definition 'holocaust denier', just anti-semitism.


Jazzz, mate.  Re-read that post and think about it harder.  About how it looks, about what it means, about how we are supposed to take it.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 9, 2008)

And before I get accused of dragging this thread off topic, I think that who the conspiraloon cunts hang out with, who they share common ideas with and where they publish their nonsense is extremely relevant.

Look at any of the fruitloop sites and you're almost never more than two clicks away from far right bullshit.


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Jazzz, mate.  Re-read that post and think about it harder.  About how it looks, about what it means, about how we are supposed to take it.



I'm well aware of how it looks - that's why Kollerstrom has been a fucking idiot. I know what he believes. If you find the original piece, he confirms that hundreds of thousands of Jews died. Now I know he believed the nazi regime was abhorrent and responsible for the whole mess. I think he finally said something sensible in this letter to the jewish chronicle



> I wouldn't mind having an apology for calling me a racist. I'm not doubting that this period of history was the most terrible in the collective memory of the Jewish people in which vast numbers of them died and have no objection to this being called "the Holocaust".


 http://www.ziopedia.org/articles/holocaustrevisionism/kollerstrom_replies_in_jewish_chronicle/

Anyway you'll all be pleased to know that he emailed about posting on urban75 and I told him not to bother or I would speak against him


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 9, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> I'm well aware of how it looks - that's why Kollerstrom is a fucking idiot.


I've never heard of him.  I'm talking about your post trying to differentiate between holocaust deniers and anti semites.  If he is the former, he is by definition the latter.


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 9, 2008)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> And before I get accused of dragging this thread off topic, I think that who the conspiraloon cunts hang out with, who they share common ideas with and where they publish their nonsense is extremely relevant.
> 
> Look at any of the fruitloop sites and you're almost never more than two clicks away from far right bullshit.



As you said, you weren't accusing him of being a 'neo-nazi', so what are you saying?


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> I've never heard of him.  I'm talking about your post trying to differentiate between holocaust deniers and anti semites.  If he is the former, he is by definition the latter.



No that's not true. Someone can think the nazi regime utterly evil, and yet also believe that gas chambers were a fiction and that the true Jewish death toll was much lower than usually estimated, which is 'holocaust denial'.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 9, 2008)

exosculate said:


> What is the purpose of holocaust denial, is it intended to be racist?


The purpose of holocaust denial is to refuse to accept the absolute STACKS of evidence that 6 million Jews, and others but usually focusing on the Shoah, were murdered by the Nazis.  There is no possible credible reason for questioning that.  None.

So why question it?  Why would anyone want to spread the idea that 6 million Jews were not murdered, that it is a lie, a falsehood, a myth?


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> I'm well aware of how it looks - that's why Kollerstrom has been a fucking idiot. I know what he believes.


Indeed you do. Back in November 2005 you described him as your friend when you were chasing around Birmingham on your comedy quest to  be a scoop-discoverin' undercover reporter. Rarely has FAIL been writ so large after that ridiculous expedition.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 9, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> and yet also believe that gas chambers were a fiction and that the true Jewish death toll was much lower than usually estimated.


In the face of all the evidence?  Why?  Why would a reasonable person do that?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 9, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> As you said, you weren't accusing him of being a 'neo-nazi', so what are you saying?



Eh?  I just pointed out your usual tactic of a subtle goalpost shift, and made another point about conspiraloons often being assicated with far right cunts.


----------



## editor (Jul 9, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> Anyway you'll all be pleased to know that he emailed about posting on urban75 and I told him not to bother or I would speak against him


He asked your permission to post here and was scared off by the prospect of you 'speaking against him'?

Wow. A man of little conviction then.


----------



## laptop (Jul 9, 2008)

Vash said:


> I wonder if other buildings have been built with explosives in them?  That Gherkin thing in London looks like a giant bomb or missle.




There's a Secret Blue Touchpaper in the basement


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 9, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> In the face of all the evidence?  Why?  Why would a reasonable person do that?



Danny it's not a topic I have much inclination to research. What little I know is that there's certainly no firm figure of the number of Jews that died and 6 million is simply a commonly-quoted estimate. And I'm bloody glad that my great-grandfather got out of Germany in time.


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 9, 2008)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> Eh?  I just pointed out your usual tactic of a subtle goalpost shift, and made another point about conspiraloons often being assicated with far right cunts.



It seems the shift is all yours. On one hand you were saying that 'no-one was accusing NK of being a neo-nazi' (in a sneaky post-edit, no less) and then you're implying he's far right in the next post


----------



## Balbi (Jul 9, 2008)

laptop said:


> There's a Secret Blue Touchpaper in the basement



You think they build buildings with metal rods in the concrete? Or actual cement between the bricks? It's actually thermonuclearinvisibleite, which can only be set off by members of a certain USG subcommittee chaired by Scaramanga, Voldemort and Mickey Mouse.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 9, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> Danny it's not a topic I have much inclination to research. What little I know is that there's certainly no firm figure of the number of Jews that died and 6 million is simply a commonly-quoted estimate. And I'm bloody glad that my great-grandfather got out of Germany in time.


Your ancestry is irrelevant; I'm not accusing you, I'm accusing your friend.

The figure of 6 million is well substantiated.  The figures are derived by collating the number of Jews recorded as living in Europe, transported to camps, liberated from camps, killed in Einsatzgruppen actions, and alive after the war.  It is a matter of population demographics.  There might be a small margin of error, but not any doubt that we are still talking 6 million.  

The inter corroboratory evidence for the holocaust _includes_:

_Written documents_:  hundreds of thousands of letters, memos, blueprints, orders, bills, speeches, articles, memoirs, and confessions.

_Eyewitness testimony_: accounts from survivors, Kapos, Sonderkommandos, SS guards, commandants, local townspeople, and upper echelon Nazis who did not deny the Holocaust.
_
Photographs_: official military and press photographs and films, secret photographs taken by prisoners, aerial photographs, and German and allied film footage.  For example, archive aerial photographs of Auchwitz were recently moved from Keele to Edinburgh.  You can see for yourself where the Zyklon B was inserted into Krema II.  Before and after pictures are available.

_Physical evidence_: Artifacts found at the sites of camps.

_Demographics_: all those people the deniers claim survived are missing. 

All these things add up to absolute certainty.  You can quibble about this and that, but it is the inter-corroboration as well as the weight of evidence that is irrefutable.


----------



## Jazzz (Jul 9, 2008)

Wikipedia doesn't hold 6 million as such a firm number at all. But I'm not quibbling and the holocaust denial figure is certainly much much lower than all the estimates listed on the link. I'm not here to debate the holocaust - if you wan't to know Kollerstrom's reasoning you should look him up.

It's the nature of conspiracy theories that once you feel you can be completely lied to you'll start wondering about all sorts of stuff. As I understand it, one motivation for conspiracy theorists and HD is that the idea was to sensitize everyone against 'anti-semitism' so specifically that criticism of zionism becomes impossible. Now while I don't go for HD that certainly happens.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 9, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> Wikipedia doesn't hold 6 million as such a firm number at all.


The current evidence puts the figure at 6 million. The figure isn't accurate to 6 places.  Nobody is saying: "It's 6 000 003, no arguments".  But the estimates made just after the war which put the figure in the 5 millions were made without all the evidence now available.  So, yes it is a general figure, but it is nonetheless firmly 6 million.

I've skimmed the Wikipedia article, and it says nothing at all to contradict that.


----------



## elbows (Jul 9, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> It's the nature of conspiracy theories that once you feel you can be completely lied to you'll start wondering about all sorts of stuff.



Well thats the big problem. Some people like to join all the dots, believe any evidence no matter how flimsy so long as it fits their existing beliefs. Some have other agenda's, like making a name for themselves, making money, feeling like they are on a just quest to open the worlds eyes, further a specific political position, encourage others to buy into their beliefs, etc.

Humans do pattern recognition rather well, but that also means we see patterns where there are none. By joining all the dots, even those that are based on dodgy evidence, all is lost.

People have a right to be skeptical, not to buy the official line, to make up their own minds, etc. But its so easy to fall off that path into some sort of hideous nonreality where prejudice and hate can brew. Or at the very least confusion and fear.

It is no mere theory that humans are capable of conspiring, of misusing their power, kill eachother, and lie. We know that governments cover up and like to paint an image of events that is not exactly equal to the reality. But we usually lack the hard facts, and have to deal with disinformation and prejudice soiling much of the information. Against this backdrop, the knowledge that would make us wise is hard to attain.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 9, 2008)

elbows said:


> People have a right to be skeptical, not to buy the official line, to make up their own minds, etc.
> 
> [...]We know that governments cover up and like to paint an image of events that is not exactly equal to the reality. But we usually lack the hard facts


Absolutely.  However, for the consumption of Jazzz and especially his friend, the hard facts about the Holocaust are there for all to see.  You can sift through the lot.  And anyone who does that and comes up with holocaust denial is doing it for a reason: they are anti semitic.


----------



## elbows (Jul 9, 2008)

Indeed. Just because governments lie, doesnt mean everything they say is untrue. The best propaganda is truth. Even 9/11 fits that bill in one way - so many people saw the towers fall, there is no dispute that the attack happened.


----------



## chico enrico (Jul 9, 2008)

Two important points: 

1) Like Kollerstrom, neither Ernst Zundel, David Irving or Nick Griffin have ever _denied _that 'millions of Jews did in World War 2' (or however they care to dress that statement up). What they deny/repudiate is the concept that there was a policy of mass genocide, largely implemented through _extermination_ camps.

2) the purpose of Historical Revisionism/Holocaust Denial is simply to _rehabilitate_ fascism as genocide is a bit of a PR obstacle to the return to fascism they wish to see. get that rather embarrasing 'footnote in history' out of the way and the rest of it isn't so bad; trains on time, smart uniforms, providing kiddies with something to do on the school holidays etc.

that's pretty much it really.

Jazzz, you're an oddball. You come across as an amusing and personable guy on all the other threads but when it comes to this conspiracy cobblers the red mist comes down. Doesn't it ever feel a bit weird to be the only one at the disco not dancing?


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jul 9, 2008)

Jazzz said:


> you're implying he's far right in the next post



I did nothing of the sort you tiresome tit, learn to read.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 9, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> Two important points:
> 
> 1) Like Kollerstrom, neither Ernst Zundel, David Irving or Nick Griffin have ever _denied _that 'millions of Jews did in World War 2' (or however they care to dress that statement up). What they deny/repudiate is the concept that there was a policy of mass genocide, largely implemented through _extermination_ camps.


Irving has changed his position several times.  At one time he didn't deny the holocaust, just Hitler's involvement.  (It was kept from him; he wouldn't have wanted it).  In '94 he said only 500 000 to 600 000 Jews died.  And in '95 he said 1 million.  

I think he revised that upwards latterly.


(That said, I agree with your post).


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 10, 2008)

And the fact that the 9/11 truth crowd associate with holocaust deniers provides the zionists with more very convenient ammunition for their idea that anyone who criticises Israel or even america is an anti-semite


----------



## EddyBlack (Jul 10, 2008)

editor said:


> Really? Who and in what capacity?



You do realise that America is training and funding Al-Qaeda (Baluchis, source Seymour Hersh) that have previously attacked America for covert terrorist attacks in Iran?

You do realise that the Anthrax attacks where an inside job, and occurred only one week after 911?

My critique of the 911 report (which Editor demanded) goes right to the heart of the key piece of evidence as far as the identities and details of the hijackers, and the actions of the ringleader on 911. At the very least it shows again just how limited and inadequate the 911 report was. Editor asks for details and then dismisses them in no detail. He is not interested in discussion, he prefers to play games.


----------



## chico enrico (Jul 10, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> You do realise that the Anthrax attacks where an inside job, and occurred only one week after 911?
> 
> My critique of the 911 report (which Editor demanded) goes right to the heart of the key piece of evidence as far as the identities and details of the hijackers, and the actions of the ringleader on 911. *At the very least it shows again just how limited and inadequate the 911 report was.* Editor asks for details and then dismisses them in no detail. He is not interested in discussion, he prefers to play games.



sorry, what 'anthrax attacks' ? 

and re the 911 report. Please explain how better qualified you are to pass judgement/critique it and on what quantifiable data/evidence?


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> My critique of the 911 report (which Editor demanded) goes right to the heart of the key piece of evidence as far as the identities and details of the hijackers, and the actions of the ringleader on 911. At the very least it shows again just how limited and inadequate the 911 report was.


So what conclusion does your vital 911 'critique' lead you to?

Oh, and when you claimed that these 'anthrax attacks' were an inside job, could you explain who was involved please, what your  evidence of official government involvement  is and  and your sources for this claim?  What evidence do you have that it wasn't a lone govt employee or scientist, for example, instead of an exciting "inside job"? And how does it link to your suspicions about the culprits of 911?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jul 10, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> *sorry, what 'anthrax attacks'* ?
> 
> and re the 911 report. Please explain how better qualified you are to pass judgement/critique it and on what quantifiable data/evidence?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks


----------



## chico enrico (Jul 10, 2008)

danny la rouge said:


> Irving has changed his position several times.  At one time he didn't deny the holocaust, just Hitler's involvement.  (It was kept from him; he wouldn't have wanted it).  In '94 he said only 500 000 to 600 000 Jews died.  And in '95 he said 1 million.



all true, but that's basically becuse he knows full well what happened and the truth of it but basically he just thinks the holocaust was a good thing as he's a pathological anti semite whose dream is of seeing Berlin 1942 again.

A similar 'dream' i'd expect Kollerstrom has otherwise why bother devoting one's life-studies to the topic of the holocaust? It's hardly a 'hobby' like studying Aubrey Beardsley prints or running an Abba fanclub or something, FFS!


----------



## chico enrico (Jul 10, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks



oh, THOSE, anthrax attacks.

and you're saying they were an 'inside job' ? 

by whom and for what possible purpose please?


----------



## chico enrico (Jul 10, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> _*You do realise*_ that America is training and funding Al-Qaeda (Baluchis, source Seymour Hersh) that have previously attacked America for covert terrorist attacks in Iran?
> 
> _*You do realise*_ that the Anthrax attacks where an inside job, and occurred only one week after 911?



NB: I always find this hectoring, rhetorical linguistic metre which conspiraloons invariably employ is a valuable 'ringing bell' to alert one to the fact that what will follow is complete unsubstantiated bullshit.


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 10, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> all true, but that's basically becuse he knows full well what happened and the truth of it but basically he just thinks the holocaust was a good thing as he's a pathological anti semite whose dream is of seeing Berlin 1942 again.


Absolutely.  I was just adding a footnote to your post, really. The general point is Holocaust Deniers are by definition anti semites, and usually motivated by fascism.  (I use the terms advisedly and in their correct context).


----------



## Yetman (Jul 10, 2008)

I reckon, like all media overlords, the ed is in on it. Come on ed, who's really financing this site? Its BJ init. Him and the puppeteers which run the show. Bush, Blair, BJ, Ed, they're all in on it. Fuck them all, who's up for rebellion?!


----------



## danny la rouge (Jul 10, 2008)

Yetman said:


> I reckon, like all media overlords, the ed is in on it.


Are we back on topic?  WTC7?  Yep, he probably helped wire the building in the 80s.  He was in New York at lot, wasn't he?


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2008)

Yetman said:


> I reckon, like all media overlords, the ed is in on it. Come on ed, who's really financing this site? Its BJ init. Him and the puppeteers which run the show. Bush, Blair, BJ, Ed, they're all in on it. Fuck them all, who's up for rebellion?!


Damn right. You should see the new yacht the CIA is giving us, with deluxe cabins for all the mods.

MrsMagpie gets to wear the Captain's hat though.


----------



## chico enrico (Jul 10, 2008)

editor said:


> Damn right. You should see the new yacht the CIA is giving us, with deluxe cabins for all the mods.
> 
> MrsMagpie gets to wear the Captain's hat though.



can we take conspiraloons out for '_Godfather_-style' fishing trips in it?


----------



## EddyBlack (Jul 10, 2008)

editor said:


> Oh, and when you claimed that these 'anthrax attacks' were an inside job, could you explain who was involved please, what your  evidence of official government involvement  is and  and your sources for this claim?  What evidence do you have that it wasn't a lone govt employee or scientist, for example, instead of an exciting "inside job"?



CONSIDER THESE COINCIDENCES 

- The anthrax attacks were concurrent with the debate of Bush's 
Patriot Act by Congress and the media.
- All the senators receiving anthrax letters were trying to amend the
Patriot Act to protect civil liberties and the innocent.
- Two senators received anthrax letters mailed the same day that 
Senator Feingold blocked an attempt to rush the bill through without 
discussion or amendments.
- Senator Leahy received an anthrax threat after he expressed
reservations about the Bill. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 
he managed the debate on the Bill.
- Senate Majority Leader Daschle received the first Senate anthrax
letter as he led the opposition to the original version of the Bill.
- After receiving the anthrax letter, Daschle switched from 
supporting a 2 year limit on the Bill, later defending a 4-year 
sunset clause as the appropriate balance. 
- No Republican received an anthrax letter.
-The House and Senate buildings were closed and not reopened until
after the Patriot Act was passed.
- The Supreme Court was shut down with an anthrax scare the day after
the constitutionally-challenged Patriot Act was signed by President
Bush.

This bits good:

‘In October 2001, press reports revealed that White House staff had been on a regimen of the powerful antibiotic Cipro since the September 11th terrorist attacks. Judicial Watch is aggressively pursuing the disclosure of the facts and the decision for White House staff, and President Bush as well, to begin taking Cipro nearly a month before anthrax was detected on Capitol Hill.’

So the decision was made before 911.

‘Furthermore this would imply prior knowledge Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman. "One doesn't simply start taking a powerful antibiotic for no good reason. The American people are entitled to know what the White House staffers knew nine months ago, " he added.’ 
http://www.judicialwatch.org/1967.shtml

What motivation other than terrorizing their opponents? Well the Bush administration’s withdrawal from bio-weapons treaties before 911 followed shortly by the massive increase in funding could be another. 

‘The anthrax attacks, as well as the September 11, 2001 attacks, have spurred significant increases in U.S. government funding for biological warfare research and preparedness. For example, biowarfare-related funding at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) increased by US$1.5 billion in 2003. In 2004, Congress passed the Project Bioshield Act, which provides US$5.6 billion over ten years for the purchase of new vaccines and drugs.wiki’

There is no doubt that the anthrax was military grade, something the FBI originally tried to dispute. Scientists at Fort Detrick admit that the closest match is the anthrax made in their lab.

A recent report about the current investigation.
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,342852,00.html


----------



## editor (Jul 10, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> CONSIDER THESE COINCIDENCES


I asked for proof and evidence. 'Coincidences' are not proof, especially when they're presented in a piece of 6 year old cut'n' paste from some little homepage authored by Richard J. _"who he?"_ Ochs.

Oh, hang on: he's a "retired printer and free lance  writer." And he can't even spell "freelance."


----------



## chico enrico (Jul 10, 2008)

because of course if the Bush administration was going to launch an 'inside job' it would do it in a way which would be open to such conspiraloon interpretations.

and sent anthrax to their own offices.

which were already expecting the anthrax letters, as suggested by them _*ostensibly*_ already taking Cipro.

so we can now add the 110 members of Whitehouse permenant staff (including cleaners, kitchen staff, gardeners, groundsmen etc) to the thousands of engineers and other staff who were involved with and aware of the planting of explosives and detonation charges in the twin towers/third tower?

Ok then, my mistake, _makes utter sense._


----------



## EddyBlack (Jul 10, 2008)

editor said:


> I asked for proof and evidence. 'Coincidences' are not proof, especially when they're presented in a piece of 6 year old cut'n' paste from some little homepage authored by Richard J. _"who he?"_ Ochs.
> 
> Oh, hang on: he's a "retired printer and free lance  writer." And he can't even spell "freelance."



Of course nobody has been convicted if you want proof and evidence, but that post as a whole is my rationale for thinking it was an inside job.

So can I ask you a question now? I will repeat my earlier one:

‘You do realise that America is training and funding Al-Qaeda groups (Baluchis, source Seymour Hersh) that have previously attacked America for covert terrorist attacks in Iran?’

The CIA conspires with Al-Qaeda groups to terrorise, in this case the Iranians? What is your view on this?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh

http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/5551


----------



## chico enrico (Jul 10, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> Of course nobody has been convicted if you want proof and evidence, but that post as a whole is my rationale for thinking it was an inside job.
> 
> So can I ask you a question now? I will repeat my earlier one:
> 
> ...



sounds to me pretty similar to what they did with the Contras in Central America. Not exactly surprising, but then againn i wouldn't exactly expect the CIA to be a very ethical bunch.

Don't really see what it's got to do with 9/11 or letters full of anthrax tho.


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2008)

BBC2 are showing a follow up to this tonight at 9pm.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7675392.stm



> The documentary updates an edition of The Conspiracy Files shown earlier this year.
> 
> It features new interviews with the lead official investigator and an important new eyewitness together with architects, scientists and others who think there was a sinister plot to destroy the building.
> 
> World Trade Centre Building 7 has become the subject of heated speculation and a host conspiracy theories suggesting it was brought down by a controlled demolition.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2008)

_So the missing BBC footage turned up. How convenient._


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> _So the missing BBC footage turned up. How convenient._


Yes! And all those experts not agreeing with the conspiracy version and folks throwing around dodgy things like research, evidence, eye witness accounts and computer simulations.

_Very suspicious._


----------



## EddyBlack (Oct 26, 2008)

I don't think it solved 'the last mystery of 911' like it says, implying there are no more important questions worth looking at. But overall it was very good, and laid out clearly the stuff about building 7, like its uneven foundation and frame structure making it vulnerable to total collapse should certain parts of it fail or weaken.


----------



## editor (Oct 26, 2008)

It proved fairly conclusively that the conspiracy loons have now fully migrated into a faith based cult.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 26, 2008)

Simplest explanations are almost always the best. In my view the two simplest are in order of simplicity. 

1) They were too incompetent to react to the fairly numerous warnings of an imminent terrorist plot. Perhaps because the new head of the FBI (a religious loon) was far more interested in harassing sex-workers and pot-smokers than in stopping foreigners with names he couldn't pronounce from places he'd never heard of from doing something that didn't involve fornication or marijuana and the various urgent warnings left on the desks of Bush's national security team by the departing Clinton administration were disregarded for partisan political reasons. 

2) They knew there was some sort of plot but thought it'd be a cool idea to let it run unhindered, in case it gave them a plausible reason to invade Iraq (which they'd been planning since before taking office according to several sources of excellent provenance) So they just made it clear internally that they weren't interested in hearing about that sort of stuff and that it'd be career-limiting for any of the professional anti-terrorism guys to make too big a fuss about it.

Either of the above explanations is perfectly plausible given the personalities, ideology and intellectual limitations of Bush's crew, entirely consistent with the testimony of good provenance that's in the public domain and either of them provides an entirely satisfactory explanation for any signs of a cover-up that might be detectable. I don't see any reason to introduce remote controlled planes or buildings wired with explosives unless you're seeking to confuse what seems to me to be a fairly simple issue with clear culpability either way pointing squarely at the Bush White House.


----------



## laptop (Oct 26, 2008)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Simplest explanations are almost always the best. In my view the two simplest are in order of simplicity.
> 
> 1) They were too incompetent to react to the fairly numerous warnings of an imminent terrorist plot...



Option zero:

They were too incompetent even to have heard of On the Psychology of Military Incompetence and, if they had, would not have read it because it conflicts with their belief in, er, their own competence. Its thesis is that hierarchical organisations are inherently incompetent. No further explanation for one failing to act on information - especially a needle of information in a haystack of noise - is required.


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2008)

Bernie Gunther said:


> So they just made it clear internally that they weren't interested in hearing about that sort of stuff and that it'd be career-limiting for any of the professional anti-terrorism guys to make too big a fuss about it.


Nah. You'd never keep a lid on such instructions being made once 9/11 had happened. 

I'd go for laptop's option zero myself.


----------



## starfish2000 (Oct 27, 2008)

Erm...this is the only thing that has ever troubled me and its never on any documentary

How did people with flying time in light aircraft manage to turn the Jets round and Pilot them so accurately into buildings?

If your coming in from the coast maybe as there landmarks, but taking planes off course inland, ploting new courses? How do you know the fuel will last?

My mate has as much time in the cockpit of a Cessna as one of the 9/11 conspiritors and he doesn't think he'd manage it


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2008)

Where did they take off from?


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2008)

starfish2000 said:


> How did people with flying time in light aircraft manage to turn the Jets round and Pilot them so accurately into buildings?


I do believe you'll find the answer right here: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=70


----------



## Augie March (Oct 27, 2008)

I hadn't realised that Barry Jennings passed away recently. 

Guess what though? That was part of the conspiracy too...



> It is very unusual that a prominent — and controversial– 9/11 witness would die only days before the release of NIST’s report on WTC7 and shortly after a firestorm erupted over his testimony that he heard explosions inside the building prior to collapse of either tower and that there were dead bodies in the building’s blown-out lobby.
> 
> http://www.infowars.com/?p=4602


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 27, 2008)

Augie March said:


> I hadn't realised that Barry Jennings passed away recently.
> 
> Guess what though? That was part of the conspiracy too...



The paranoia of these idiots is quite staggering


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2008)

Sick fuckers.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 27, 2008)

editor said:


> Nah. You'd never keep a lid on such instructions being made once 9/11 had happened.
> 
> I'd go for laptop's option zero myself.


 Well, it's been a while since I looked into any of this stuff but I do fairly clearly recall a whole lot of recently-ex counterrorism types talking about resources being reprioritised and a lack of interest in any of the cases Clinton's people had been pursuing. So it's not that such instructions needed or recieved a 'lid on them' they made it into the public domain, it's just that they're more or less impossible to distinguish from incompetence.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 27, 2008)

starfish2000 said:


> Erm...this is the only thing that has ever troubled me and its never on any documentary
> 
> How did people with flying time in light aircraft manage to turn the Jets round and Pilot them so accurately into buildings?
> 
> ...



They'd all had lots of time in simulators for the 767, and as has been pointed out endlessly, they weren't doing anything really challenging with them, besides keeping guns held at the pilots heads...


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 27, 2008)

BG - see my posts _passim_ about the internal politics between the CIA, FBI and Bush Whitehouse with Condi as the head of the NSA for a convoluted but simple answer to how the intel warnings were ignored or 'politiked' out of existance...plus of course there's laptop's option zero...


----------



## STFC (Oct 27, 2008)

starfish2000 said:


> Erm...this is the only thing that has ever troubled me and its never on any documentary
> 
> How did people with flying time in light aircraft manage to turn the Jets round and Pilot them so accurately into buildings?
> 
> ...



I have read statements from pilots stating you don't need much skill to point a plane at a large building and hit it. Taking off and landing safely are the difficult parts, and that was never in their plan.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Oct 27, 2008)

top programme. Without even looking at the loonsites, though, I can predict their reaction to it, and the follow up.


----------



## The Octagon (Oct 28, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> They'd all had lots of time in simulators for the 767, and as has been pointed out endlessly, they weren't doing anything really challenging with them, *besides keeping guns held at the pilots heads*...



Surely the pilots weren't the ones flying the planes by this point?


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 29, 2008)

I've just joined the Facebook group 'Id Like to hit Dylan 'loose change' Avery in the face with a Spade'.

That is all.


----------



## Cid (Oct 29, 2008)

From what I've learned about structures (a reasonable amount) it all makes sense, there really is no reason to think otherwise.


----------



## Augie March (Oct 29, 2008)

Cid said:


> From what I've learned about structures (a reasonable amount) it all makes sense, there really is no reason to think otherwise.



Unless you really, really wanted to think otherwise. In which case, any logical explanation is disregarded, in favour of wild, vague theories with no actual basis in reality.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 29, 2008)

Every 9/11 conspiracy theory debunked on youtube for those interested:

http://uk.youtube.com/results?search_query=9/11+debunked&search_type=&aq=f


----------



## 8den (Oct 29, 2008)

Grandma Death said:


> Every 9/11 conspiracy theory debunked on youtube for those interested:
> 
> http://uk.youtube.com/results?search_query=9/11+debunked&search_type=&aq=f



RKOWens4 has been a busy boy, he's a regular over at JREF forums.


----------



## EddyBlack (Oct 31, 2008)

Prior to the 911 Commission report, there was a congressional investigation in 2003 called the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001. The report had 28 pages redacted by order of the White House. 

Members of the investigation team tried to get these pages declassified at a congressional meeting. The transcript from the congressional record gives us a good indication of what was in these pages, and why the public where not allowed to see them. 

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s102803.html

Excerpts from the congressional transcript:

'The contents of the redacted pages discuss sources of foreign support for some of the September 11th hijackers while they were in the United States.

Mr. DORGAN: This past summer, when the report was finally authorized for release by the administration, we discovered that the report, which took 9 months to write and 7 months to declassify, contained 28 pages that had been redacted by White House lawyers.

Mr. GRAHAM of Florida: This report makes a very compelling case, based on the information submitted by the agencies themselves, that there was a foreign government which was complicitous in the actions leading up to September 11, at least as it relates to some of the terrorists who were present in one part of the United States.

Why would this government have provided the level of assistance--financial, logistical, housing, support service--to some of the terrorists and not to all of the terrorists? We asked that question. There has been no response.
  My own hypothesis--and I will describe it as that--is that in fact similar assistance was being provided to all or at least most of the terrorists. The difference is that we happened, because of a set of circumstances which are contained in these 28 censored pages, to have an unusual window on a few of the terrorists. We did not have a similar window on others. Therefore, it will take more effort to determine if they were, in fact, receiving that assistance. That effort has, in my judgment, been grossly insufficiently pursued.

Mr. DORGAN: The inquiry, as described by my colleague in part, is an evaluation of whether there were other governments that participated in supporting groups of terrorists who committed acts of terror against this country.'

The involvement of the Saudi government with the 911 hijackers is being concealed from the public, and as Senetor Graham has said (the chair and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee while this inquiry was underway) this link has been 'grossly insufficiently pursued'.


----------



## iskande (Oct 31, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> The involvement of the Saudi government with the 911 hijackers is being concealed from the public, and as Senetor Graham has said (the chair and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee while this inquiry was underway) this link has been 'grossly insufficiently pursued'.



translated for you : saudi govt got usa visas for terrorists. us doesnt want to make it obvious because of contracts in the area. quelle conspiracy !


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 31, 2008)

Yeah, it's an interesting document that does need releasing, but it's intreresting to note that the Saudi govt want it released as well so they can clarify any accusations...so from an FP perspective, it would make more sense to release the documents, since keeping them classified is clearly causing some friction with KSA.


----------



## EddyBlack (Oct 31, 2008)

iskande said:


> translated for you : saudi govt got usa visas for terrorists. us doesnt want to make it obvious because of contracts in the area. quelle conspiracy !



It sounds like there is a bit more in there than the Saudi government getting them visas. Here is the quote from Senator Graham again:

'Why would this government have provided the level of assistance--financial, logistical, housing, support service--to some of the terrorists and not to all of the terrorists? We asked that question. There has been no response.'


----------



## 8den (Oct 31, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> It sounds like there is a bit more in there than the Saudi government getting them visas. Here is the quote from Senator Graham again:
> 
> 'Why would this government have provided the level of assistance--financial, logistical, housing, support service--to some of the terrorists and not to all of the terrorists? We asked that question. There has been no response.'



Because only some of the terrorists were Saudi you fucking cretin.


----------



## EddyBlack (Oct 31, 2008)

8den said:


> Because only some of the terrorists were Saudi you fucking cretin.



15 of the 19 in fact. Not sure what you are saying though mate, that only the Saudi ones were assisted, or what?


----------



## 8den (Oct 31, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> 15 of the 19 in fact. Not sure what you are saying though mate, that only the Saudi ones were assisted, or what?



That the only ones who would have received Visas from Saudi were Saudi citizens. 

From the quote



> -financial, logistical, housing, support service--to some of the terrorists and not to all of the terrorists? We asked that question.



The fucker doesn't know what support the Saudi government gave at all if any, he doesn't know if they received, financial support, logistical support, housing support, or support services. He doesn't know, he's speculated as to what's in the blanked out pages. In fact he doesn't know that the 28 pages have anything to do with links between the terrorists and the Saudi Government. All he knows is that the whitehouse lawyers blanked out 28 pages, and he's fucking guessing whats in them. It's utter fucking speculation.  

You're turning a speculative question, into a statement of fact. It's fucking tired worn  911 conspiraloonery bollocks.


----------



## EddyBlack (Oct 31, 2008)

8den said:


> He doesn't know, he's speculated as to what's in the blanked out pages. In fact he doesn't know that the 28 pages have anything to do with links between the terrorists and the Saudi Government. All he knows is that the whitehouse lawyers blanked out 28 pages, and he's fucking guessing whats in them. It's utter fucking speculation.



Senator Graham was the chairman of the committee investigating this. He knew excactly what was in those 28 pages.


----------



## STFC (Oct 31, 2008)

8den said:


> RKOWens4 has been a busy boy, he's a regular over at JREF forums.



I'd never heard of the JREF forums until relatively recently. There's loads of really interesting stuff on there.


----------



## 8den (Oct 31, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> Senator Graham was the chairman of the committee investigating this. He knew excactly what was in those 28 pages.



Now you're fucking annoying me conspiraloon. 

Lets actually look at more than your lying decietful motherfucking selective quoting. 



> (1) The President has prevented the release to the American
> public of 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence
> Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks
> of September 2001.
> ...



how fucking moronic is this? 

You're suggesting that the Saudi Government conspired to support the terrorists, then wanted this information released to the public only to be prevented by the President of the United States???

Thats idi-fucking-otic.


----------



## EddyBlack (Oct 31, 2008)

Are you still saying that Senator Graham, Chairman of the investigation, had no idea what was in those pages? Thats a pretty absurd claim 8den.

As for the Saudis saying they wanted those pages released, perhaps they had been given private assurances that they would definately be kept secret. It would have looked a bit suspicious if they had asked for them not to be released.


----------



## TomPaine (Oct 31, 2008)

*Boston*



> Where did they take off from?



Boston, Logan airport I believe.

TomPaine


----------



## 8den (Oct 31, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> Are you still saying that Senator Graham, Chairman of the investigation, had no idea what was in those pages? Thats a pretty absurd claim 8den.
> 
> As for the Saudis saying they wanted those pages released, perhaps they had been given private assurances that they would definately be kept secret. It would have looked a bit suspicious if they had asked for them not to be released.




OOHHHHH LOOOK MORE BLOODY SPECULATION. 


7 SODDING YEARS EDDY 7 FUCKING YEARS

You really think us a US Senator thought that the Saudi were behind 911 he wouldn't be screaming bloody murder????


7 fucking years EDDY

For the cretinous oafs in DA Truth movement to come up with a rational coherent alternative narrative to what happened and instead you've fucked about in black t-shirts and bullhorns and sold bullshit books and bullshit DVDs to each other. 

Just grow bloody you cretinous fucking child.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 31, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> As for the Saudis saying they wanted those pages released, perhaps they had been given private assurances that they would definately be kept secret. It would have looked a bit suspicious if they had asked for them not to be released.



So, their asking is in fact an elaborate double bluff? 

You're an idiot


----------



## EddyBlack (Oct 31, 2008)

8den said:


> OOHHHHH LOOOK MORE BLOODY SPECULATION.
> 
> 
> 7 SODDING YEARS EDDY 7 FUCKING YEARS
> ...



You jumped in here to heap some abuse on me, and in the process well and truly pwned yourself. 

I don't identify with the 'truth movement'. But this is unimportant as its just the last desperate scramblings of a silly man trying to save some face. 

Now then, I will ask you again. Are you still saying that the Chairman of the investigation had no idea of what was in his own report?


----------



## EddyBlack (Oct 31, 2008)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> So, their asking is in fact an elaborate double bluff?



I'm just trying to understand it in the context of what Senator Graham said was in those pages, and the fact that the White House saw fit to keep it from the public. You think the Saudis asking for it to be released is more important do you?


----------



## 8den (Oct 31, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> You jumped in here to heap some abuse on me, and in the process well and truly pwned yourself.
> 
> I don't identify with the 'truth movement'. But this is unimportant as its just the last desperate scramblings of a silly man trying to save some face.
> 
> Now then, I will ask you again. Are you still saying that the Chairman of the investigation had no idea of what was in his own report?




Oh shut up Eddy, I could easily wander through the archive and happily point out numerous posts where you post the usually truthr conspiraloonery gibberish, of course you haven't the balls to come out and say "I believe that there is a complex conspiracy theory, like Jazzz,  you just hold your hands up and say "Oh hey I'm just asking questions like" 




> Now then, I will ask you again. Are you still saying that the Chairman of the investigation had no idea of what was in his own report?



Yeah, hang on to one tenuous bit and make like you have a point. 

Do you think that a US senator would keep quite if he thought the Saudi government organised 911?


----------



## EddyBlack (Oct 31, 2008)

8den said:


> Oh shut up Eddy, I could easily wander through the archive and happily point out numerous posts where you post the usually truthr conspiraloonery gibberish, of course you haven't the balls to come out and say "I believe that there is a complex conspiracy theory, like Jazzz,  you just hold your hands up and say "Oh hey I'm just asking questions like"



Not really. I asked questions about building 7 and Norad in the ginormous thread from way back, then accepted the answers and thanked you guys for them. I also asked a few further questions towards the end which you cleared up, but in fact as I told you guys at the time I was referencing you (you seemed good at debunking them) because I was arguing _against _ truthers on another board which I gave you lot the details of at the time. 

Then when you gave me the links to where you where getting your answers from (i.e the 911 myths site) I thanked you again and left it alone, and went off to pwn some 'truthers'.

Since then I can't really recall bringing anything up or making any claims that would lump me in with the truthers. A strong sceptic with different views to yourself certainly, but I always make an effort to do a bit of research and use decent sources, and I always take the comments and analysis of other posters on board. If you want to find something 'on me' go ahead and do your worst. 



8den said:


> Yeah, hang on to one tenuous bit and make like you have a point.
> 
> Do you think that a US senator would keep quite if he thought the Saudi government organised 911?



He hasn't kept quiet insofar as he spent months investigating for a report which was then covered up by the White House. He then attempted in congress to repeal this, only to be bluntly refused as the transcript shows.

He could have defied the White House and the congress and gone to the press I suppose, but anyway his words about what was in those pages are clear enough. Here they are again in a bit more context:

'There is also an issue not of micro but of macro importance: This 
report makes a very compelling case, based on the information submitted 
by the agencies themselves, that there was a foreign government which 
was complicitous in the actions leading up to September 11, at least as 
it relates to some of the terrorists who were present in one part of 
the United States.
  There are two big questions yet to be answered. Why would this 
government have provided the level of assistance--financial, 
logistical, housing, support service--to some of the terrorists and not 
to all of the terrorists? We asked that question. There has been no 
response.
  My own hypothesis--and I will describe it as that--is that in fact 
similar assistance was being provided to all or at least most of the 
terrorists. The difference is that we happened, because of a set of 
circumstances which are contained in these 28 censored pages, to have 
an unusual window on a few of the terrorists. We did not have a similar 
window on others. Therefore, it will take more effort to determine if 
they were, in fact, receiving that assistance. That effort has, in my 
judgment, been grossly insufficiently pursued.'
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s102803.html


I would prefer to discuss this to be honest, I'm sure others would be more interested in sticking to this subject too. But if you want to 'wander through the archive and happily point out... truthr conspiraloonery gibberish' as you say and you think that this will be more interesting, then I've no objections. It would however spoil a potentially more interesting and relevant discussion. And it doesn't have anything to do with the transcript I linked to or the words of Senator Graham.


----------



## 8den (Oct 31, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> I would prefer to discuss this to be honest, I'm sure others would be more interested in sticking to this subject too.



Really Eddy? Really? You think there's a fucking hunger here on this site for yet another one of these interimable 911 bullshit discussions, wherein when someone tries to pin you and ask you what you really think happened, and what your theory is, you feign and run away with an oh innocent look on your face and say 'Oh mercy me, I don't know what I think about this whole 911 malarky, _I'm just asking questions_? Really Eddy you think people on urban want another one of those fucking threads again? 

You really are fucking deluded man. 

But no, I'm sure people here are just aching for another one of those 911 conspiraloonery threads.....





> It would however spoil a potentially more interesting and relevant discussion. And it doesn't have anything to do with the transcript I linked to or the words of Senator Graham.



BAHHHAAAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHH Interesting and Relevant two things one of these bullshit 911 threads never are.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 31, 2008)

No one will ever know for certain who is right here but i am always suspicious of those who go out of their way to defend a draconian govt like the Republicans...these are the same people that preach from the rooftops that Diana's death was an ACCIDENT


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 31, 2008)

> these are the same people that preach from the rooftops that Diana's death was an ACCIDENT



No seatbelt. If she'd had a seatbelt on she'd have been fine. Sorry to rain on your parade.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 31, 2008)

trevhagl said:


> .these are the same people that preach from the rooftops that Diana's death was an ACCIDENT



Oh god, please don't tell me you're a CT nutjob as well


----------



## 8den (Oct 31, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> No seatbelt. If she'd had a seatbelt on she'd have been fine. Sorry to rain on your parade.



I think she was killed by a seatbelt company to sell more seatbelts. 

And who's behind the seatbelt manufacturing industry? 

The jews.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 31, 2008)

and all the Tory Boy establishment loons queue up to have a go!

What i am saying is neither YOU nor i can be sure what happened but there are just too many things that scream "cover up" to make accident more likely


----------



## 8den (Oct 31, 2008)

trevhagl said:


> and all the Tory Boy establishment loons queue up to have a go!



Tory who and the what, and huh? Am I tory boy establishment loon?



> What i am saying is neither YOU nor i can be sure what happened



No we can, remember long inquiry? 

Drunk driver, speeding, lack of seatbelt. 




> but there are just too many things that scream "cover up" to make accident more likely



Things like....


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 31, 2008)

Well actually I _can_ be sure that she wasn't wearing a seatbelt, and I _can_ be sure that the only person who survived the crash was also wearing a seatbelt; indeed, I can be sure that this was the main reason she died using the data collected from 00000s of accidents globally and public saftey campaigns that demonstrate very, very clearly that wearing a seatbelt reduces the chances of dying in an accident, certainly of the kind Diana was involved in.

I assume you didn't bother to read the transcripts of the judicial investigation did you? Too much effort...


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 31, 2008)

trevhagl said:


> What i am saying is neither YOU nor i can be sure what happened but there are just too many things that scream "cover up" to make accident more likely



Oh for fucks sake 

You're a moron


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 31, 2008)

Despite hysterical articles in all the tabloids to the contrary (except the Express perhaps), most people really do believe there was something sinister in her death.
She was alleged to be pregnant, to a 'darkie' , which would be an insult to a racist family. 
CCTV cameras were pointing the wrong way. The powers that be have a history of "disappearing" troublemakers. Questions were asked about the post mortem. 
No, definately an accident and YOU can prove it i'm sure. The Sun told you so. Case closed!


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 31, 2008)

And what about David Kelly then? Said he'd be found murdered in the woods and hey presto, murdered in the woods


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 31, 2008)

trevhagl said:


> Despite hysterical articles in all the tabloids to the contrary (except the Express perhaps), most people really do believe there was something sinister in her death.
> She was alleged to be pregnant, to a 'darkie' , which would be an insult to a racist family.
> CCTV cameras were pointing the wrong way. The powers that be have a history of "disappearing" troublemakers. Questions were asked about the post mortem.
> No, definately an accident and YOU can prove it i'm sure. The Sun told you so. Case closed!



No, really, you're a moron.


----------



## EddyBlack (Oct 31, 2008)

8den said:


> Really Eddy? Really? You think there's a fucking hunger here on this site for yet another one of these interimable 911 bullshit discussions, wherein when someone tries to pin you and ask you what you really think happened, and what your theory is, you feign and run away with an oh innocent look on your face and say 'Oh mercy me, I don't know what I think about this whole 911 malarky, _I'm just asking questions_? Really Eddy you think people on urban want another one of those fucking threads again?
> 
> You really are fucking deluded man.
> 
> But no, I'm sure people here are just aching for another one of those 911 conspiraloonery threads.....


Well they always seem popular enough, not everyone has commented in the manner you have either.




8den said:


> BAHHHAAAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHH Interesting and Relevant two things one of these bullshit 911 threads never are.



I am certain that my link was interesting, something that hasn't been discussed here before and from a good source. Therefore it is well woth discussing. Its not like I started a new thread either, I put it in the right context I think. I'm getting sick of having to justify myself and deal with your unwarranted abuse. Why not reasonably discuss the subject matter at hand? After all it is only you who is coming in here with expletive filled posts. 

All I have done is quoted the author of the report. I think it is you who is deluded, how else could you triumphantly declare it all as bullshit in a post full of angry expletives, only to have completely gotten it wrong. And this didn't discourage your antics one bit. Imagine if it was the other way round.

Its clear then that you didn't even read the link before responding, and this was the chairman of an investigation committee into 911 we are talking about. You are not interested at all. You still haven't responded to his comments other than make weak arguments to try and get one over on me i.e. 'he would have said something' if he thought it was true. Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? I think its fair to say that you are the deluded one here. Well done on completely ruining this for anyone who might of wanted to discuss it.


----------



## TomPaine (Oct 31, 2008)

trev> To be honest I think it was a pissed up accident that could have been avoided had they been wearing seat belts, the driver hadn't been beered up, and the fucking paparazzi hadn't decided to drive like loons, thus meaning the driver of Dianas vehicle also ended up driving like a twat.
The only cover up here, is why haven't the press who where speeding and egging the situation on been done for dangerous driving.

TomPaine


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 31, 2008)

TomPaine said:


> trev> To be honest I think it was a pissed up accident that could have been avoided had they been wearing seat belts, the driver hadn't been beered up, and the fucking paparazzi hadn't decided to drive like loons, thus meaning the driver of Dianas vehicle also ended up driving like a twat.
> The only cover up here, is why haven't the press who where speeding and egging the situation on been done for dangerous driving.
> 
> TomPaine



Can't remember exactly but there was something about the driver's drinking habits that didn't add up, mind you like someof them on here i don't have a published copy of the enquiry to refer to.
I have a life!


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2008)

trevhagl said:


> ...these are the same people that preach from the rooftops that Diana's death was an ACCIDENT


LOL at the loonwit.


----------



## 8den (Oct 31, 2008)

trevhagl said:


> Despite hysterical articles in all the tabloids to the contrary (except the Express perhaps),



Yes the Express, the bastion of non hysterical, balanced measured rational tabloid journalism. 


> most people really do believe there was something sinister in her death.



Many people believe that eating a piece of waffer once a week will send them to heaven. 



> She was alleged to be pregnant, to a 'darkie' , which would be an insult to a racist family.



Blood tests in the postmortem showed she wasn't pregnant. 



> CCTV cameras were pointing the wrong way. The powers that be have a history of "disappearing" troublemakers. Questions were asked about the post mortem.
> No, definately an accident and YOU can prove it i'm sure. The Sun told you so. Case closed!



Could I just add to the chorus of "You're an moron."


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 31, 2008)

8den said:


> Yes the Express, the bastion of non hysterical, balanced measured rational tabloid journalism.
> 
> 
> Many people believe that eating a piece of waffer once a week will send them to heaven.
> ...




You will believe the moon is made of cheese if the tabloids tell you it is. Can't be arsed arguing anyway.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 31, 2008)

trevhagl said:


> You will believe the moon is made of cheese if the tabloids tell you it is. Can't be arsed arguing anyway.



So we've all got our opinion on the Diana accident from the tabloids, is that it trev?

Fuck me, you're stupid on a colossal scale.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 31, 2008)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> So we've all got our opinion on the Diana accident from the tabloids, is that it trev?
> 
> Fuck me, you're stupid on a colossal scale.



From all kinds of sources. How does it make me stupid to believe something that's more likely than not?


----------



## chico enrico (Oct 31, 2008)

trevhagl said:


> You will believe the moon is made of cheese if the tabloids tell you it is. Can't be arsed arguing anyway.



trev mate, really, it was an accident. drunk driver speeding...no seatbelt. classic case, open and shut. plus , really, if you think anyone was going to 'disappear' anyone they wouldnt choose a better time than when there's 30+ paparazzi in persuit? there's just no rhyme or reason to it mate.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 31, 2008)

trevhagl said:


> How does it make me stupid to believe something that's more likely than not?



Because anyone with even half a brain and a basic grasp of logic and reasoning can see that the most likely cause of her death was an accident.  The evidence to back this up is overwhelming.

Still I guess that would involve reading a few documents with big words in...


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 31, 2008)

chico enrico said:


> trev mate, really, it was an accident. drunk driver speeding...no seatbelt. classic case, open and shut. plus , really, if you think anyone was going to 'disappear' anyone they wouldnt choose a better time than when there's 30+ paparazzi in persuit? there's just no rhyme or reason to it mate.




It doesn't really affect me either way, it just seems SOOOO suspicious , the whole thing. BUt lets that be the end of it. We could argue all day.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Oct 31, 2008)

What do you think of the moon landings trev?


----------



## editor (Oct 31, 2008)

trevhagl said:


> It doesn't really affect me either way, it just seems SOOOO suspicious









Yeah but no but yeah but no like it was like sooooooo suspicious.


----------



## Techno303 (Oct 31, 2008)

trevhagl said:


> It doesn't really affect me either way, it just seems SOOOO suspicious , the whole thing. BUt lets that be the end of it. We could argue all day.



I always thought Henri Paul was a droid. I mean, look at those fucking eyes...


----------



## chico enrico (Oct 31, 2008)

what's Paul Ferris doing in the passanger seat???


----------



## 8den (Oct 31, 2008)

beesonthewhatnow said:


> What do you think of the moon landings trev?



Well blatant fake weren't it? Filmed it on a sound stage on Mars! My mate Kev's  cousin, met a boke down the pub what painted all the red rocks grey. Took him ages so it did.


----------



## STFC (Oct 31, 2008)

trevhagl said:


> It doesn't really affect me either way, it just seems SOOOO suspicious , the whole thing. BUt lets that be the end of it. We could argue all day.



It certainly does seem SOOOO suspicious. There are SOOOO many questions that need answering. And they have been.

The truth really is out there.


----------



## EddyBlack (Oct 31, 2008)




----------



## chico enrico (Oct 31, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


>



Is that Alan Partridge and Craig David dressed up as a shiek?


----------



## 8den (Oct 31, 2008)

trevhagl said:


> You will believe the moon is made of cheese if the tabloids tell you it is.



Apparently according to trev, anyone who disagrees with him is a tabloid reading tory boy. 

It must be nice living in a world devoid of nuance, subtly and logic. 



> Can't be arsed arguing anyway.



Brave Sir Robyn ran away, running away and chickening off.


----------



## EddyBlack (Oct 31, 2008)

It started with a kiss...


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 31, 2008)

That's that NotW repoerted, the fake shiekh!!!


----------



## 8den (Oct 31, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> It started with a kiss...



No really Eddy as the past dozen of posts show everyone is really interested in the relevant discussion you're having with no one.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 31, 2008)

Mazher Mahmood.


----------



## EddyBlack (Oct 31, 2008)

8den said:


> No really Eddy as the past dozen of posts show everyone is really interested in the relevant discussion you're having with no one.



I'm sure some people found it interesting. Its not my fault that you can't even admit the author of the report knew what was in it. His testimony clearly says that the intelligence reports he received showed Saudi involvement. For some reason you avoid aknowledging this simple fact.


----------



## 8den (Oct 31, 2008)

EddyBlack said:


> I'm sure some people found it interesting.




Eddy look at the pages of this thread you're fucking delusional if you think anyone gives a flying fuck at your truth movement's latest "smoking gun"



> Its not my fault that you can't even admit the author of the report knew what was in it. His testimony clearly says that the intelligence reports he received showed Saudi involvement. For some reason you avoid aknowledging this simple fact.



Fine, if you want to get petty, I got mixed up as to whether he was a congressman or a senator. 

The fact remains that  THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT WANT TO RELEASE THE DOCUMENT, THAT YOU CLAIM INCRIMINATES THEM IN FUNDING THE TERRORISTS. 

And you're forced into some wild bullshit speculation as to why they'd do this.


----------



## 8den (Oct 31, 2008)

Ah yes Eddy "Not a 911 Conspiracy theorist or truth' Black. 

Getting all excited about Alex Jones 
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=214591&highlight=Eddy+Black

Here. You're so fucking see through, and intellectually dishonest it simply beggars believe.


----------



## EddyBlack (Oct 31, 2008)

8den said:


> The fact remains that  THE SAUDI GOVERNMENT WANT TO RELEASE THE DOCUMENT, THAT YOU CLAIM INCRIMINATES THEM IN FUNDING THE TERRORISTS.
> 
> And you're forced into some wild bullshit speculation as to why they'd do this.



Oh well thats alright then. You seriously think that is enough to just dismiss what Senator Graham said? Really?

Given how close Bush is to the Saudi's, how important the relationship is economically, and the fact that the report was covered up, its hardly creating a far fetched theory to say they may have discussed it privately and were given assurances the report would be covered up. 

As for Jones, I must of listened to his show about 15-20 times in my life, and that comment is way old. I've found nearly everything he said (like 95%) to be wholly made up, completely twisted and exaggerated etc. You got me, well done. Now can we discuss the important topic, i.e. would you care to respond to my first paragraph and not just this one.


----------



## EddyBlack (Oct 31, 2008)

More evidence of a possible link with Saudi Arabia comes from the author Gerald Posner.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030908-480226,00.html

According to Posner, Abu Zubaydah, a key Al-Quaeda figure, was interrogated by the CIA and revealed that he was working with senior Saudi intelligence officials and provided convincing evidence for his claims.

There was a controversy last year when members of the 911 commission strongly criticized the CIA for withholding evidence from them and attempting to deliberately impede their investigation. It emerged that the CIA had in fact destroyed the taped recordings of Zubaydah’s interrogation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/washington/22intel.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&hp

A credible author, Posner’s claims were taken seriously by the 911 Commission, as this quote from a memo written by the 911 Commision Director Phillip Zelikow shows:

‘Late in its investigation, reacting to press allegations that Abu Zubaydah had referred to a Saudi prince in his interrogations, the Commission asked “what information does the CIA have” about whether such assertions were made in Zubaydah’s interrogations. We knew the CIA believed this was untrue but we asked the question formally to get any relevant information for the record. We cannot find a record of a CIA response.’

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20071222-INTEL-MEMO.pdf


----------



## EddyBlack (Nov 2, 2008)

Bob Graham wrote a book about the findings from the 911 congressional inquiry. There's an interview with him here:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/11/11_401.html

It seems he concurs with the general, ‘inter-agency lack of co-ordination, cold war mentality and missed opportunities with hindsight’ consensus. 

There are a few quotes however that pertain to his Saudi involvement claims:

‘MJ.com: How cooperative were President Bush and his administration with your inquiry? 

BG: They started out with a lot of representations of how helpful they would be, in the same way that they did to the citizens’ 9/11 Commission that followed us. But when you actually started to dig close to sensitive information -- the most sensitive being the role of the Saudis -- they began to erect barriers. 

MJ.com: Looking at the 9/11 Commission report that was completed after your inquiry, how did the findings of the two compare?

BG: In the main, it was very consistent. The basic intelligence failures that we found, and the recommendations to correct those failures, were largely adopted in the 9/11 report…

In the matter of findings, the biggest disagreement we had with the 9/11 Commission was on the role of Saudi Arabia. We found that there was compelling evidence that the Saudis played an active role in assisting two of the terrorists in Southern California, including being the means of substantial funding for those two terrorists. And this question of whether their support was limited to those two, or may have extended to others of the 17 terrorists, is still an unsolved mystery because the FBI did such an inept job of conducting that investigation. Whether we got it right or the 9/11’s softer evaluation of the role of the Saudis was right, we won’t know until after the administration makes available more information to the American people.’

Someone who has read the book told me that most of those 28 redacted pages have to do with the testimony of FBI agent Steve Butler. Butler was the handler of an informant that two alleged hijackers lived with. He was tracking money coming from the Saudi Government.


----------



## EddyBlack (Nov 3, 2008)

As I said, the FBI informant who was the landlord of two hijackers (Almihdhar and Alhazmi), was handled by FBI Agent Steve Butler. It is clear Senator Graham was referring to these hijackers with his claims of Saudi funding.  

‘Newsweek reports that hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar may have received money from Saudi Arabia’s royal family through two Saudis, Omar al-Bayoumi and Osama Basnan. Newsweek bases its report on information *leaked from the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry in October*.’
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a112202newsweek&scale=0#a112202newsweek

This Omar al-Bayoumi was receiving payments from Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, wife of the Saudi ambassador to the US. 

"Newsweek said, however, the FBI uncovered financial records showing payments to the family of al-Bayoumi from a Washington bank account held in the name of Princess Haifa Al-Faisal, wife of the Saudi ambassador to the United States and daughter of the late King Faisal."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,71273,00.html

The former ambassador who she is married to is Prince Bandar. He is a close friend of George W. Bush.

‘He is reportedly close to Bush, who calls him "Bandar Bush".’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/07/bae5

This must be the Saudi funding connection that the 28 redacted pages refer to.


----------

