Park Life

Haha, Parky getting arsey because he's been completely fucked over by everyone in this thread and hasn't got a leg to stand on with his silly conspiracy theories. By the way, where's the satire in asking how they managed to convince an airline to go along with their lies? What's satirical about wondering what happened to the passengers of a flight which seemingly now didn't crash at all? How did they make a missile look like an aeroplane on air traffic control radars? Is that satire or just a valid question? No satire Parky, just yet more questions that you haven't got a clue how to answer. Assumptions based on the usual nonsense. Saying it is doesn't make it so...If you would like I could embarass you? Go on then. You've embarrassed yourself for the last 14 pages of this thread, so if I can do anything to take the heat off, go for it. By the way, just so we set out the ground rules in advance, for you to embarrass me you're going to need to provide some serious evidence that a missile hit the Pentagon, that explosives brought down the towers, and answer all of the questions that I and others have raised in this thread about how that would be possible and what happened to the plane, the airline, the passengers, the mobile phone calls etc. etc. If you're going to post another link to some crackpot website, and then dodge any and all questions pointed in your direction then I'm afraid that's not going to do the trick. If you'd have bothered to read the link...The 'crackpot website' actually refutes the missile theory, that is why I put it up. Open minded you see. Try it sometime.

You tell me. It's you that thinks there is one. I'm well aware they hit the buildings, I also think they brought the buildings down. Naive of me, I know when you have internet evidence to prove otherwise Seriously, what the fuck are you on about? The planes and the explosives are now unrelated? A horrible coincidence though, don't you think? Or are you saying that a member of "they" just happened to be eating pancakes across from the towers when the planes hit, and was given the message to go and dump some explosives in the basement? Explosives which he'd taken to breakfast with him. As for "You can't refute this as there is no evidence either way is there", there are lots of things that can't be refuted, Parky, but that doesn't make them a plausible argument ffs. For simpletons......The people who laid the charges might have been totally unconnected to the hijackers..Is that rocket science in your book?

Who's the 'they'? Why would they planes be 'decoys' after all there is plenty of evidence they hit they buildings? You are making a silly linear argument out of the planes and the explosives....Why couldn't these two events be unconnected?If the building were weakened and a danger to those around...Why couldn't the charges been added to the basement later..I mean they could have been in place all along...You can't refute this as there is no evidence either way is there> Apart from the fact they CONVENIENTLY FELL IN THEIR OWN FOOTPRINTS. What a coincidence. Parky, I don't know who "they" are. I thought you did though? I have NO idea who THEY are. Otherwise I would have said. In saying that I'm sure Bush himself only had the vaguest of warnings as well.

Haha, Parky getting arsey because he's been completely fucked over by everyone in this thread and hasn't got a leg to stand on with his silly conspiracy theories. By the way, where's the satire in asking how they managed to convince an airline to go along with their lies? What's satirical about wondering what happened to the passengers of a flight which seemingly now didn't crash at all? How did they make a missile look like an aeroplane on air traffic control radars? Is that satire or just a valid question? No satire Parky, just yet more questions that you haven't got a clue how to answer. Assumptions based on the usual nonsense. Saying it is doesn't make it so...If you would like I could embarass you? Go on then. You've embarrassed yourself for the last 14 pages of this thread, so if I can do anything to take the heat off, go for it. By the way, just so we set out the ground rules in advance, for you to embarrass me you're going to need to provide some serious evidence that a missile hit the Pentagon, that explosives brought down the towers, and answer all of the questions that I and others have raised in this thread about how that would be possible and what happened to the plane, the airline, the passengers, the mobile phone calls etc. etc. If you're going to post another link to some crackpot website, and then dodge any and all questions pointed in your direction then I'm afraid that's not going to do the trick. No Gemma a plane hit the pentagon and completely dissappeared. Right.

Haha, Parky getting arsey because he's been completely fucked over by everyone in this thread and hasn't got a leg to stand on with his silly conspiracy theories. By the way, where's the satire in asking how they managed to convince an airline to go along with their lies? What's satirical about wondering what happened to the passengers of a flight which seemingly now didn't crash at all? How did they make a missile look like an aeroplane on air traffic control radars? Is that satire or just a valid question? No satire Parky, just yet more questions that you haven't got a clue how to answer. Assumptions based on the usual nonsense. Saying it is doesn't make it so...If you would like I could embarass you? Go on then. You've embarrassed yourself for the last 14 pages of this thread, so if I can do anything to take the heat off, go for it. By the way, just so we set out the ground rules in advance, for you to embarrass me you're going to need to provide some serious evidence that a missile hit the Pentagon, that explosives brought down the towers, and answer all of the questions that I and others have raised in this thread about how that would be possible and what happened to the plane, the airline, the passengers, the mobile phone calls etc. etc. If you're going to post another link to some crackpot website, and then dodge any and all questions pointed in your direction then I'm afraid that's not going to do the trick. Rubbish. There are thousands around the world who doubt the official story and many people in high places to boot. You accept the facts I don't. Why is that embarrassing? Pray tell?

Who's the 'they'? Why would they planes be 'decoys' after all there is plenty of evidence they hit they buildings? You are making a silly linear argument out of the planes and the explosives....Why couldn't these two events be unconnected? If the building were weakened and a danger to those around...Why couldn't the charges been added to the basement later..I mean they could have been in place all along...You can't refute this as there is no evidence either way is there> Apart from the fact they CONVENIENTLY FELL IN THEIR OWN FOOTPRINTS.

Don't forget the airline in all of this. They have to be complicit in the disappearance of the plane. They would also have had to mock up any air traffic control messages from the pilot as well. And presumably somehow they managed to make a missile look as big as a plane on the ATC radars. Oh, and it would have to travel as slowly as a plane as well. And on the original plane's flight path. And where are the passengers? Were they exterminated? I definitely think the conspiracy theorists have the upper hand in all of this. Why would it have been hard to put explosives in the WTC?

Haha, Parky getting arsey because he's been completely fucked over by everyone in this thread and hasn't got a leg to stand on with his silly conspiracy theories. By the way, where's the satire in asking how they managed to convince an airline to go along with their lies? What's satirical about wondering what happened to the passengers of a flight which seemingly now didn't crash at all? How did they make a missile look like an aeroplane on air traffic control radars? Is that satire or just a valid question? No satire Parky, just yet more questions that you haven't got a clue how to answer. Assumptions based on the usual nonsense. Saying it is doesn't make it so...If you would like I could embarass you?

.......clearly zero thought goes into Gemma's post at the best of times...But not realising he is out of his depth he reaches vainly for satire life raft.

You're right it does look like a jet fuel explosion.. One that would be consistent with a large passenger hitting a reinforced wall at 400 mph? Anyway Parky, are you going to answer any questions posed to you or is this asking too much? *Parky lights another huge cigar*

Not sure about him tbh, but I would imagine this is one of Blair's parting 'gifts' as it were, when he was probably one of the only people in the Parliamentary Labour Party who was in favour of the war (at just about any stage). It will be his legacy. I don't agree with that to be honest. Very few PMs seem to be defined by their foreign policy (bar Eden, but he only served for two years anyway). I think his legacy will mostly revolve around his first term; the constitutional change, devolution, a fairly decent economy, The Good Friday Agreement and (for better or worse) a new style of governance in the UK. Iraq will obviously play some part in it though. .....forgot about all that I wonder why?

Seeing as they didn't really approve the invasion, the U.S. is going to be on sticky ground with this. The U.N. needs to play some role, but personally I would like to see Muslim countries take a lead. I'm surprised Richard Branson hasn't submitted a tender.

You're right it does look like a jet fuel explosion..

Seeing as they didn't really approve the invasion, the U.S. is going to be on sticky ground with this. The U.N. needs to play some role, but personally I would like to see Muslim countries take a lead.

Not sure about him tbh, but I would imagine this is one of Blair's parting 'gifts' as it were, when he was probably one of the only people in the Parliamentary Labour Party who was in favour of the war (at just about any stage). It will be his legacy.

The conspiracy full timers: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=1033 Nutters go toe to toe: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=4084 Omissions: no eyewitness reports of explosions. No FDNY testimonies. No quotes from anchors. No mention of FAA records being destroyed. No sustained shots of the WTC1 & 2 'collapses' showing explosive force . No mention of debris hurled 400 feet sideways. No molten metal. No Thermite. No Steven Jones. No David Ray Griffin. No mention of 4,000,000 views of Loose Change. No 85 confiscated videos at Pentagon. No Minetta testimony. No skeptic eyewitnesses at pentagon or Shanksville. No no-planes. No DEWs. No free-fall speed. No clear clip of WTC7. No toxic dust. No dying responders. No big-names ( Bowman, Paul Craig Roberts, Von Buelow, Meacher, Sheen, Lynch etc etc). No polls. No BBC report that 5 of hijackers still alive. No UBL denial . No insider dealing . No Giuliani, No Silverstein No Marvin Bush. No 'Pull it' No Danny Jowenko. No Bush at Booker. No CIA funding of Al-Qaeda. No Northwoods. No power-downs at WTC. No sniffer dogs. No Willy Rodriguez. No Rick Siegel . No 911truth.org. Distortions: WTC7 shown four times in weakest shot (the one used for Berger CNN interview where 7 is half hidden). Impression of scientists v. isolated fanatical individuals. Alex Jones as cult-leader at quasi- evangelical 'rally'. Fetzer in close-up moving his head around a lot . Only Dylan held his cool and in one classic scene when interviewed about Wally Miller he exuded seething if controlled anger. Strawmen like '4,000 Jews' used to discredit whole range of 911 skepticism. Presented 'evidence' of UA93 crash as Bandana and Passport, then said , "In the face of ALL THIS,some still believe it was a conspiracy." Lies: "WTC 7 was a raging inferno"."Flight 11 took off that morning". OGCT presented as fact. X-files writer-"To think that the US government contains mass-murderers is preposterous". Popular Mechanics given credibility as ordinary down to-earth magazine. Ended by trying to boil down the whole movement to FBI's admission of failure to act on intelligence supplied to CIA. ''The American people were failed" . Concluding words of V/O: "The other conspiracy theories are just that - theories. The evidence doesn't support them. We were never shown that evidence."

The basic Boss one does me. Although I did have a Paul Smith one that lasted for ages.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,2017824,00.html Porbably best to get out before the Americans do and all hell breaks loose. "All British troops will be pulled out of Iraq by the end of 2008, starting with the withdrawal of 1,000 in the early summer, the Guardian has learned. Tony Blair is to announce the moves - the result of months of intense debate in Whitehall - within 24 hours, possibly later today, according to officials"

I know precisely sod-all about 9/11 and the arguments in this thread, but is it really out of the question that there's plenty of footage but they're deliberately not releasing it for security reasons? Waving a big flag and shouting "Look, terrorists, this is how little protection our major buildings have and how easily our defences are breached!" seems a little counterproductive somehow. Going back to Alex's point about the internet conspiracy theorists actually being useful to the US government by distracting people from some embarassing lapses in security that day, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they deliberately witheld conclusive video evidence. I seriously can't believe people are reading much into this and ignoring all the other evidence that points to a hijacked plane hitting the Pentagon. Namely: A plane went missing, reported hijacked. It was tracked heading to Pentagon where its radar signature disappeared. There is photographic evidence of the impact including, clearly, airoplane parts (people might deny these are from a 757 but I have no reason not to believe it). There are numerous eye witness accounts. There are numerous expert testimonies that agree the impact site is what would have been expected. Etc, etc, etc. Now, why won't Shearergol, Jimbo, or Parky comment on how it is possible for such an internation conspiracy to persist, when over 100 CIA staff were killed and are surely keen to get to the truth? So far, all my questions have been ignored. Honestly, it's like arguing with THREE LeazesMags! Perhaps cause they CIA knew very little about it...And infact have sufferred the most in the aftermath.

People suggesting that the most protected and surveillance heavy building on the planet didn't manage to capture footage of a big 200ft plane hitting it are bordering on delusional. Seriously.

Weather conditions looks similar yes. I don't see why we would need to look for a shadow, when that camera would show the plane in real time. How come that footage was confiscated? And no, I don't want to get into what you can and can't remember, as it seems it's an argument winner for you. You don't have to prove anything, as long as you remember it Please, just tell me the closing speed of the plane, the length of trajectory that would be visible from that camera angle, and the number of frames per second of that camera, and estimate how many missing frames of a plane there should be from that camera. I want you to do it, because I am happy to accept facts and evidence as an explanation of events, rather than take an absence of something as proof of something else. Technically, I'm talking about the camera which faces the impact site, which I thought you were too? It is extremely unlikely that a camera at this current angle would be able to show a missle hitting the pentagon at 350/400mph, granted. Hence why this is the one camera which had its footage released, eh So back to the point, where's the footage from the camera shown in the photo posted, which was confiscated? The absence of any photo or video evidence of a plane hitting is a huge decider in this, given the amount of footage the government are refusing to release. It's as clear as day, they can't afford to release any significant amount of footage.

Contradictions The official version is complex and contradicts itself, so read on carefully. To justify the absence of Boeing debris, the authorities explained that the aircraft was pulverized when it impacted with such a highly reinforced building as the Pentagon. To explain the disappearance of the aircraft's more resistant components, like the engines or brakes, we were told that the aircraft melted (with the exception of one landing light and its black boxes). To justify the absence of 100 tons of melted metal, experts attempted to show that the fire exceeded 2500 °C, leading to the evaporation of parts of the aircraft (but not of the building itself or, clearly, of the landing light or black boxes). To justify the presence of the hole, officials now state that it was caused by the nose of the aircraft, which, despite the rigors of the crash, continued careering through the three buildings. The aircraft thus disintegrated on contact with the Pentagon, melted inside the building, evaporated at 2500° C and still penetrated two other buildings via a hole 2 ½ yards in diameter. Questions need to be asked of Pentagon experts here. The official version has its own holes that need filling. The nose of an aircraft ? Let us imagine for a moment that we had not been told that the aircraft had disintegrated, melted and evaporated. The question then is: Is it possible for the nose of an airliner to penetrate three buildings and, as it leaves the third, produce a perfectly circular hole, 2 ½ yards wide ? The nose of an aircraft, the radome, contains its electronic navigation equipment. To enable the transmission of signals, the nose is not made of metal but carbon. Its shape has been designed to be aerodynamic but is not crash resistant. The inside casing, as well as its contents, are extremely fragile. The nose would crush on impact with an obstacle, not penetrate it."

......technically the blame lies with Renton..

Weather conditions looks similar yes. I don't see why we would need to look for a shadow, when that camera would show the plane in real time. How come that footage was confiscated? And no, I don't want to get into what you can and can't remember, as it seems it's an argument winner for you. You don't have to prove anything, as long as you remember it

Great. So I throw in an off the cuff comment and you use that as an excuse to avoid answering any of my questions. If you change your mind, here they are (not sure what your mobile phone comment is about btw): You believe the guy I saw on TV about two hours after the evenet was not an AA captain but a plant? What happened to the plane? Where are the passengers? Why would "they" not use the plane as a weapon? Why go to the extraordinary lengh and risks of using a missile? Presuming "they" are the ruling force in America, do you really think it is plausible they would fire a missile at the headquarters of their defence? If the motive was to invade Iraq, why were the patsies Saudi? Sorry, the mobile phone comment is just another hole in the whole theory. They've released so many of these mobile phone conversations from passengers on the plane, which are crystal clear. How come the airline have now gone to effort of installing systems which allow people to call from their mobile phones, if it was already possible to do 6 years ago anyway? ........not to mention the issue of cascading from transmitter to transmitter which would take networks out of action..