Park Life

Sell gold buy monkey nuts!!!!11

...then there's that Oirish bloke going through big budget Hollywood with a wrecking ball of performances...

Troy was absolutely awful. Aside from wooden (Pitt, Bloom, Bana) and pantomine (Cox) acting, not including Peter O'Toole of course, the story of the Iliad was completely re-written to be Hollywood friendly. Aye when they killed Menalaus I was like WTF!!!! Turning Agamemnon into a pantomine villain and letting Paris escape (particularly galling as he was played by Orlando "can't act, won't act" Bloom) pissed me off more. Bloom just comes across as a girl. Tbf he can barely lift those swords.

That lead bloke who shouts a lot seems to have a lisp...That's put me off a bit already.

Goes missing a lot Jimbo. And only a matter of time before he breaks his wrists. Puts the ball in the back of the net a lot. Beardsley or Martins then

The trailer is cracking. Hope it lives upto it.

Goes missing a lot Jimbo. And only a matter of time before he breaks his wrists.

actually, that is spot on. And it is where Bellamy has a huge edge over him, but in that respect, Bellamy scores over most players, so - again I'm not knocking Martins as much as bigging up Bellamy. If I was pushed into a corner I'd have Bellamy (on the playing side of things).

When will we ever learn to stay out of Afghanistan.

I don't there really is a like for like comparison here..One is a creative forward and the other is striker who is only really there to score goals.

Based on all this readiness, do you think they will do it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6376639.stm "US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country's military infrastructure, the BBC has learned. It is understood that any such attack - if ordered - would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres." The US insists it is not planning to attack, and is trying to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment. And from last years New Yorker. Excellent writing as usual. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact "Current and forme American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The official say that President Bush is determined to deny th Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilo program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium" Madness obvioulsy and probably the same completey delusional planning that has seen the utter fuck up in Iraq.

Thats what you call plausible deniability. I thought plausible deniability was not letting the official spokesman in on the plot, so that their denials of knowledge appear genuine. They have nothing to hide because they know nothing. Its a catch all term and is usually applied to the president, not the spokesperson, in the west wing and shit like that (top source tbh).

Thats what you call plausible deniability. I thought plausible deniability was not letting the official spokesman in on the plot, so that their denials of knowledge appear genuine. They have nothing to hide because they know nothing. I'm off to see The Good Shepherd in a bit, I expect the truth will finally be revealed by Hollywood It's excellent btw and a good primer for the 'dark side' ramblings in this thread.

Thats what you call plausible deniability. Yes. And also I find it might strange that on both days...ie 7/7 and 9/11 there were exercises going on to prevent the very same type of attacks. Why? What are you suggesting? Who organised the training? Are they in on "it" too? P.S. Determined to get this thread into the top 10. Love it!

Thats what you call plausible deniability. Yes. And also I find it might strange that on both days...ie 7/7 and 9/11 there were exercises going on to prevent the very same type of attacks.

I'm not defending the official story vigourously, I'm merely providing answers to the apparent questions you have about the story, and posing reasonable questions about the events you allude happened instead, in the absence of any positive evidence for it. This is what any rational person does when confronted with questions about their rational beliefs. I for don't believe the story because the White House told me, I believe it because it makes sense in the absence of any credible alternatives, and fits with my normal understaing of physics, logic, reason and humanity. The questions I have about your alternative versions of events are just as valid as yours about the official story, but for some reason you imply one set of questions carries more weight because they go against the 'official story' I'd say no one has the real "official story". Probably to embarrasing to let any of it out with all the fuck ups an all. You propose events as having but one obvious cause, continually using the absence of something as proof, without any direct evidence. The CIA didn't stop the terrorists so they must have known about them, rather than they just didn't know about them. The US attacked Iraq after the Al-Qaeda attacks so they must have been complicit in the attacks, rather than Bush seeing an fortuitous opportunity for some unfinished business. There is no evidence of a plane (which there is) so there must not have been a plane. Doubt is not proof. Ok one last time. 1 You have failed to pick up on whether i agree with the facts surrounding the main events. 2, Questioning whether these buildings were rigged in case of an attack and finding it a plausible possibility has nothing to do with the attacks, others may try to link it, I havent. WT7 remains a mystery though. 3, The position i have taken is that there is one crucial debate; did the US know an attack of some sorts was imminent and was there a failure of intelligence or was it allowed to happen? There is no proof that either is the case. You, in the absence of any other evidence want to believe the US. I just find the whole thing too much of a coincidence and have learned in the last 3-4 years that the people responsible for US foreign policy are deceitful, murderous cunts, whose religious views put them in the 'clinically insane' bracket. Forgive me my cynicism. I knew you accepted the hijackers theory, but took the WTC7 opinions as indication of acceptance of the demolition/insurance theory. My mistake. The CIA plot we've been over, and my points above still stand. You are using association with other world events and the absence of evidence to allude to a specific alternative event. This is by nature an extremely difficult position to argue against, so basic are the premises used. [i]There was NO CIA plot.[/i] Infact the aftermath so Tenet losing his job and the CIA downsized. They aren't in the habit of doing this to themselves. Do you accept that the kind of plot you allude to could never be proved no matter how much official documentation was released? Do you concede that it could have been carried out purely on a verbal basis? Not sure what this question means please clarify. Accepting these ponts, then we are back to ground already well covered here, namely the number of agents involved in the plot, and their motivations w.r.t. possible gains weighed against morality. This event could have been managed by half a dozen agents/ ex-cia/ special forces. Could six people keep aiding the hijackers a secret...? What do you think? On this last quote :"people responsible for ... foreign policy are deceitful, murderous cunts, whose religious views put them in the 'clinically insane' bracket. Forgive me my cynicism." I would argue this has been the case in part around the world for time immemorial. It is a viewpoint that could be used to see conspiracy in any government action. The truest sentence in this thread. Cheers. There was NO CIA plot. Infact the aftermath so Tenet losing his job and the CIA downsized. They aren't in the habit of doing this to themselves. Well, this post was addressed to CG, who thinks there was, but thanks for the input . I have myself pointed out that the CIA were the least 'up for' a barney with Iraq and therefore the strategic gains therein This event could have been managed by half a dozen agents/ ex-cia/ special forces. Could six people keep aiding the hijackers a secret...? What do you think? OK, so based on the above statement, and (some) of your related posts (not all as they would conflict with this scenario), I have the following assumptions: There was no missile into the pentagon (requiring no elaborate camera subdifuge) There were real hijackers using real planes (rendering the mobile phone arguments and personel requiremens moot) to attack all 4 targets The final goal was some higher power play (not involving the CIA or Bush) and not money (i.e. not requiring subdifuge and extra manpower to collapse buildings and fool insurance companies) Accepting these assumptions, I have these concerns: Were these handlers Arabic? What were their stated goals to the hijackers? If they were western, how were they persuaded to go along with the plan? If the handlers were not being directed by the CIA, who was directing them, and for what purpose? Presumably there is an alleged group at the centre of power that does not change with change of government, but that are high enough to direct policy. What specifically did they then gain from orchestrating 9/11? They already presumably have the power to start wars and influence legislation, what else would they have lusted after? Enough to willingly murder 3,000 Americans (again, this was a low estimate). If, as predicted, the Democrats sweep to power, what of their gains due to 9/11? If Bush (and by extension, his cronies and hangers on) knew nothing of these conspirators, then why are a lot of the motivations and supposed benefits from the events post 9/11 attributed to Bush? Did the conspirators improve his lot out of kindness? Again, I really don't like just returning questions with questions, but you can see how such brief suppositions can't really be answered with concrete facts. I haven't forgotten you SSH will come back to this. This far more interesting for me infact as against what 'hit' what building...Which unless the authorities intervene or a whistleblower appears is impossible to prove either way in a satisfactory manner.

Fair point Gemma.

This CBS one is very interesting.... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/...ain589137.shtml "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002. "How is it possible we have a national security advisor coming out and saying we had no idea they could use planes as weapons when we had FBI records from 1991 stating that this is a possibility," said Kristen Breitweiser, one of four New Jersey widows who lobbied Congress and the president to appoint the commission. The widows want to know why various government agencies didn't connect the dots before Sept. 11, such as warnings from FBI offices in Minnesota and Arizona about suspicious student pilots. "If you were to tell me that two years after the murder of my husband that we wouldn't have one question answered, I wouldn't believe it," Breitweiser said. This one is probably hippy safe... http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analy...ries/index.html

Not quite lizards, but... rat haus reality, ratical branch is the electronic manifestation of rat haus reality press, dedicated to promulgating and promoting life-nurturing activities and awarenesses regarding this home we all share and are all responsible for, not simply for the seventh generation of humankind yet unborn, but for all life germinated and nourished by Gaia. http://www.ratical.org/rhrPress.html Nutters are interested in 9/11.....I think his links are good if you look at them. What's wrong with that? Maybe it just makes you look a nutter as well... Rubbish only the weak willed fear such things...

Not quite lizards, but... rat haus reality, ratical branch is the electronic manifestation of rat haus reality press, dedicated to promulgating and promoting life-nurturing activities and awarenesses regarding this home we all share and are all responsible for, not simply for the seventh generation of humankind yet unborn, but for all life germinated and nourished by Gaia. http://www.ratical.org/rhrPress.html Parky's credibility earlier today: That is the 'official story' I grant you.

Not quite lizards, but... rat haus reality, ratical branch is the electronic manifestation of rat haus reality press, dedicated to promulgating and promoting life-nurturing activities and awarenesses regarding this home we all share and are all responsible for, not simply for the seventh generation of humankind yet unborn, but for all life germinated and nourished by Gaia. http://www.ratical.org/rhrPress.html Nutters are interested in 9/11.....I think his links are good if you look at them. What's wrong with that?

...another nutter... Good stuff though.

My German girlfriend is a shoe in for that role.

I'm looking for it. Try and remain civil fella. Pardon me for doubting its credibility You'd be surprised how many official pages get deleted....Or overhauled.