One for Parky

[Park Life 71]

Where is Vic though? Not that I miss him like

 

....he did keep threads moving though.

 

 

His ban on NO finishes soon I think....I'll have a look.

[Guest alex]

Where is Vic though? Not that I miss him like

....he did keep threads moving though.

 

 

His ban on NO finishes soon I think....I'll have a look.

Like a river of slurry tbh

[ChezGiven 0]

So, you've never heard about these Russian attacks and the stories behind them. I did say i would have a look.

 

I'm aware of the attacks. I'm also aware that any terrorist attack will attract Parky like questions. The pudding is in the proof as they say.

 

I'll collect your thoughts for you. You're basically asking whether i believe its possible that an act of terrorism was 'allowed' to happen by a govt, to further its economic policy. Yes on the basis of precedent, hence me asking the questions.

 

You honestly seem to be confused as to whether this plot was carried out by one or two agents, or a matter of policy. I will find it hard to continue if you can't settle on one position. If it's the policy route, please expand on the precedent you hold with one or two examples.

 

Did they know the scale of it beforehand? I doubt it.

 

Yet you attribute their lack of action to a conspiracy, rather than lack of intelligence.

 

As for the CIA links, they started the movement and have continued to use this relationship since its inception.

 

How has the CIA used this relationship in the past decade to their advantage? Is the rise of Islamic extremism one big CIA super plot to control the western world? Or is it a once usefull strategic partnership gone sour due to the changes in geo-politics?

 

Any known operative would have been under surveillance. It wasnt the first time they tried to blow up the towers, you do remember that?

 

Are you claiming the second bombing was allowed to happen, even though the links were in place. Are you claiming that this is a permanent relationship, where by the CIA lets certain attacks happen, arrests the perpetrators, but allows the instigators to continue?

 

Are you of the opinion that, rather than an instrument of protection, the CIA is an instrument of fear escalation? Do you accept the position that surveillance is not 100% unfallibe, possible or reliable. Do you accept the fact that this would have to be the case for the CIA to be able to prevent every single terrorist attempt?

 

Do you accept that the role of terrorism prevention is a boundless task, where your successes will never outweigh your failures? Do you accept that intelligence failures will happen, and do not necessarily point to alterior purposes, for the reasons just stated?

 

Your attempts at balancing the morality ...are...irrelevant.

 

I would disagree when the discusion centres around the actions of human beings. Do you think morality is not an issue here when weighing up, in the absence of hard evidence, the claims at hand?

 

 

Not your best post, just a load of waffle about whether i could concieve of a world where governments or officials allow terrorist acts to take place for political capital. You deny knowing anything about the Russian attacks and then say you knew about them all along after Rob posted up the story. Hmmm. That is the basic idea behind what i am saying. There. is. a. precedent.

 

Trying to find some inconsistency around 'numbers of CIA' operatives as some sort of official theory that i am signing up to is just shite tbh. It doesnt matter nor is it important. Nothing i have said is predicated on numbers of agents involved, their morality (still dont see the irrelevance of this point do you?), or the ability to prevent such attacks.

 

As for this 'boundless' task of preventing terrorist attacks, you seem to be confusing Birmingham in 2007 with New York in 2001. There were not 1000s of homegrown sleeper cells all over the eastern seaboard, all trying to blow themselves up. There were a few known operatives in the US at the time.

 

These are the facts tbh:

 

9/11, War on Terror, Axis of evil, Iraq. In that order numbnuts.

[Shearergol 0]

Can someone name me one other tower which has collapsed in its own footprint because of a fire please?

 

Also, how did a commercial airliner create so much damage to numerous rings in the pentagon, when the nose is designed to crumple on impact (which has happened in every single airliner crash)? Where are the engines?

 

Anyone mentioned the only passport found was that of a "terrorist?" How come it survived a crash which even the black box recorders didn't even survive?

 

I can't believe some people (mainly Gemmill) are so quick to label the "conspiracy theorists" as idiots, when all we/they are doing is asking questions of the hugely suspect evidence provided to us by the US.

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

So, you've never heard about these Russian attacks and the stories behind them. I did say i would have a look.

 

I'm aware of the attacks. I'm also aware that any terrorist attack will attract Parky like questions. The pudding is in the proof as they say.

 

I'll collect your thoughts for you. You're basically asking whether i believe its possible that an act of terrorism was 'allowed' to happen by a govt, to further its economic policy. Yes on the basis of precedent, hence me asking the questions.

 

You honestly seem to be confused as to whether this plot was carried out by one or two agents, or a matter of policy. I will find it hard to continue if you can't settle on one position. If it's the policy route, please expand on the precedent you hold with one or two examples.

 

Did they know the scale of it beforehand? I doubt it.

 

Yet you attribute their lack of action to a conspiracy, rather than lack of intelligence.

 

As for the CIA links, they started the movement and have continued to use this relationship since its inception.

 

How has the CIA used this relationship in the past decade to their advantage? Is the rise of Islamic extremism one big CIA super plot to control the western world? Or is it a once usefull strategic partnership gone sour due to the changes in geo-politics?

 

Any known operative would have been under surveillance. It wasnt the first time they tried to blow up the towers, you do remember that?

 

Are you claiming the second bombing was allowed to happen, even though the links were in place. Are you claiming that this is a permanent relationship, where by the CIA lets certain attacks happen, arrests the perpetrators, but allows the instigators to continue?

 

Are you of the opinion that, rather than an instrument of protection, the CIA is an instrument of fear escalation? Do you accept the position that surveillance is not 100% unfallibe, possible or reliable. Do you accept the fact that this would have to be the case for the CIA to be able to prevent every single terrorist attempt?

 

Do you accept that the role of terrorism prevention is a boundless task, where your successes will never outweigh your failures? Do you accept that intelligence failures will happen, and do not necessarily point to alterior purposes, for the reasons just stated?

 

Your attempts at balancing the morality ...are...irrelevant.

 

I would disagree when the discusion centres around the actions of human beings. Do you think morality is not an issue here when weighing up, in the absence of hard evidence, the claims at hand?

 

 

Not your best post, just a load of waffle about whether i could concieve of a world where governments or officials allow terrorist acts to take place for political capital.

 

Well, I was asking the question as it seems to fit the statements in that post. Have you yet to make you mind up on it, or is it to be left an open question?

 

You deny knowing anything about the Russian attacks and then say you knew about them all along after Rob posted up the story. Hmmm.

 

Renton: What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends?

You: E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya.

Me: What exactly did the Russian government do that constitutes conspiracy, rather than good old fashioned and obvious barbarism?

You: The Russians blew up their own citizens in Moscow

Me: Is this a proven conspiracy, or another theory?

 

That's what happened above. I didn't deny I knew of the attacks, I was unaware that the Russians were being blamed for them. I was asking if this was a proven conspiracy, in the same veign as Renton. I read the Independant comment you posted, it supports nothing more than the barbarous attacks I had already mentioned above. No mention is made of false flag terrorism operations, and even introduces doubt as to the ultimate power behind the attacks, be it rogue elements of the FSB or Putin himself. This relates to the issue of Bush's knowledge of the CIA plot. If I recall correctly as reported after the event, the CIA could not provide the intelligence to justify invasion, and it was other areas of the administration that were more 'up for it'

 

That is the basic idea behind what i am saying. There. is. a. precedent.

 

Evidently you're basing your precedent for a CIA mass-murder plot on an article in a newspaper. RobW didn't even make clear whether the men jailed for the building bombings were Russians or not, let alone who ordered it, merely another allegation of security service involvement based on another 'man in the know' . I haven't read Litvinenko's book so obviously I can't comment, suffice to say, one unfounded allegation does not reinforce another unrelated allegation, as either or both could be wrong.

 

Trying to find some inconsistency around 'numbers of CIA' operatives as some sort of official theory that i am signing up to is just shite tbh. It doesnt matter nor is it important. Nothing i have said is predicated on numbers of agents involved.

 

I haven't found it, it's there in in your posts, I merely pointed it out and asked for clarification. Like I say, I can hardly argue against a conspiracy where these beliefs are not fleshed out, much like I can't refute Parky's 9/11 theories if he offers none, only more questions. Given the points above about justification for invasion, and your line diagram below, it is more than relevant.

 

Nothing i have said is predicated on ... morality (still dont see the irrelevance of this point do you?),

 

I see it as a central point to the argument given the lack of evidence and the human element to such conspiracies and duality of purpose of so called instruments of state security; but I accept this is a dead end if you can't see that, I've put my point in as many ways as I can think of.

 

Nothing i have said is predicated on ... the ability to prevent such attacks.

 

You have continually attributated failings in planning, prediction, intelligence gathering and action, to some alterior motive, as if any failing of the CIA could never be down to the nature of their work, i.e. the waffle from me up there about surveilance etc

 

As for this 'boundless' task of preventing terrorist attacks, you seem to be confusing Birmingham in 2007 with New York in 2001.

 

Not boundless as in number of opponents, boundless as in ability to achieve complete success against every attack.

 

There were not 1000s of homegrown sleeper cells all over the eastern seaboard, all trying to blow themselves up.

 

Did I give that impression? That was not my intention.

 

There were a few known operatives in the US at the time.

 

Only one of the 9/11 hijackers was known to the CIA, and he was lost after entering the country. As for the masterminds, funders etc, you still haven't made it clear whether you believe the CIA are in collusion with them on an ongoing basis, given your statements about both WTC attacks

 

These are the facts tbh:

 

9/11, War on Terror, Axis of evil, Iraq. In that order numbnuts.

 

Thank you for breaking it down for me.

 

[Shearergol 0]

"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the MISSILE to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."

 

Donald Rumsfeld answering Parade Magazine reporter Lyric Wallwork Winik in Pentagon Press Conference Oct.12, 2001. (Posted on the Pentagon website)

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

Can someone name me one other tower which has collapsed in its own footprint because of a fire please?

 

Have you looked for one? What is the justification here? Can you find me any other instance where an 80 floor skyscraper with a 10 floor basement and steel ring core has been hit by a jet liner and fallen over on its side? (presuming that is what you are saying it is meant to do)

 

Also, how did a commercial airliner create so much damage to numerous rings in the pentagon ... Where are the engines?

 

I refer you to my earlier posts about the Pentagon. Have you any other cases where a jetliner has been flown into the side of a uniquely designed building like the Pentagon?

 

when the nose is designed to crumple on impact (which has happened in every single airliner crash)?

 

Are you sure that is the case?

 

Anyone mentioned the only passport found was that of a "terrorist?" How come it survived a crash which even the black box recorders didn't even survive?

 

No idea on this one. What is it meant to prove in your eyes?

 

I can't believe some people (mainly Gemmill) are so quick to label the "conspiracy theorists" as idiots, when all we/they are doing is asking questions of the hugely suspect evidence provided to us by the US.

 

All the 'theorists' do is ask questions, and then ignore the answers, or find new questions. Admittedly I have done it in this post, and it's quite fun, I can see the attraction. I wonder if you will have as much success finding answers to them.

 

[Park Life 71]

"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the MISSILE to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."

 

Donald Rumsfeld answering Parade Magazine reporter Lyric Wallwork Winik in Pentagon Press Conference Oct.12, 2001. (Posted on the Pentagon website)

 

 

....even Donnie can't remember what version of the story he is telling...

Edited February 20, 2007 by Parky

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the MISSILE to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."

 

Donald Rumsfeld answering Parade Magazine reporter Lyric Wallwork Winik in Pentagon Press Conference Oct.12, 2001. (Posted on the Pentagon website)

 

 

....even Donnie can't remember what version of the story he is telling...

 

Is it inconceivable that the word missile could be used to refer to an airliner being flown on a one way kamikaze course into a target? Or am I just way off here?

[Meenzer 15869]

"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the MISSILE to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."

 

Donald Rumsfeld answering Parade Magazine reporter Lyric Wallwork Winik in Pentagon Press Conference Oct.12, 2001. (Posted on the Pentagon website)

 

 

....even Donnie can't remember what version of the story he is telling...

 

Is it inconceivable that the word missile could be used to refer to an airliner being flown on a one way kamikaze course into a target? Or am I just way off here?

 

Absolutely, the word can refer to any projectile aimed with intent to damage. Of course I assume (i.e. hope) Parky was just being awkward there.

[Jimbo 175]

 

[Shearergol 0]

Can someone name me one other tower which has collapsed in its own footprint because of a fire please?

 

Have you looked for one? What is the justification here? Can you find me any other instance where an 80 floor skyscraper with a 10 floor basement and steel ring core has been hit by a jet liner and fallen over on its side? (presuming that is what you are saying it is meant to do)

 

Also, how did a commercial airliner create so much damage to numerous rings in the pentagon ... Where are the engines?

 

I refer you to my earlier posts about the Pentagon. Have you any other cases where a jetliner has been flown into the side of a uniquely designed building like the Pentagon?

 

when the nose is designed to crumple on impact (which has happened in every single airliner crash)?

 

Are you sure that is the case?

 

Anyone mentioned the only passport found was that of a "terrorist?" How come it survived a crash which even the black box recorders didn't even survive?

 

No idea on this one. What is it meant to prove in your eyes?

 

I can't believe some people (mainly Gemmill) are so quick to label the "conspiracy theorists" as idiots, when all we/they are doing is asking questions of the hugely suspect evidence provided to us by the US.

 

All the 'theorists' do is ask questions, and then ignore the answers, or find new questions. Admittedly I have done it in this post, and it's quite fun, I can see the attraction. I wonder if you will have as much success finding answers to them.

 

 

1. Yes, and there is no recorded evidence of a tower ever falling as the result of a fire. Even a fire in the world trade centre a few years before didn't cause a collapse. How come the second tower came down first, despite the first burning for 20 minutes longer? What actually burnt in the towers to sustain the heat required to completely eradicate the structure of the building?

 

2. Are you seriously saying that a plane fuselage passed through 6 concrete walls, and then vanished? How come neither of the planes which slammed into the two towers came out the other side, if this is what planes actually do?

 

3. Yes

 

4. The point is, how come none of the plane survived, or its passengers, but the US government managed to find a passport which had somehow flown out of the pocket of one of the "terrorists" and remained undamaged, only to be found lying on a road? Does that sound suspect?

 

5. I'm yet to see anything you've posted in this thread which has debunked any of the theories. The latest one, "maybe he meant a plane when he said missle" is the funniest tbh.

 

Seriously though, don't you doubt ANY of the information put forward by the US government to explain what happened?

[Shearergol 0]

"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the MISSILE to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."

 

Donald Rumsfeld answering Parade Magazine reporter Lyric Wallwork Winik in Pentagon Press Conference Oct.12, 2001. (Posted on the Pentagon website)

 

 

....even Donnie can't remember what version of the story he is telling...

 

Is it inconceivable that the word missile could be used to refer to an airliner being flown on a one way kamikaze course into a target? Or am I just way off here?

 

Absolutely, the word can refer to any projectile aimed with intent to damage. Of course I assume (i.e. hope) Parky was just being awkward there.

 

Do you think Rumsfeld would have said plane, if it was a plane? He seemed quite specific in the previous sentence. tbh, it's purely speculation, but wouldn't he actually have said:

 

"Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and then flying them into this building and the World Trade Center"

 

Doesn't that actually make a lot more sense?

 

I'll ask you the same question. Do you believe the story put to you by the US Government regarding 9/11?

[Shearergol 0]

 

 

There's a hell of a lot of fuel burning outside the tower there

 

EDIT: By the way, Tower 7 was a controlled demolision, because they couldn't contain the fire.

[spongebob toonpants 4183]

To me, the questions Chez raises (whilst not neccessarily without logical explanations) are much more pertinent ones than any crackpot theories espoused by some.

 

And could all be answered by the words "governmental incompetence". The security forces were caught with their pants down, as nothing like this had ever happened before, let alone on American soil. They are making sure they don't make the same mistake again though, that's for sure.

 

 

You seem very trusting Renty. The "governmental incompetence" hasnt adversely affected the ammount of money made or the concentration of power since 9/11

 

Not denying people have made monetary and political capital out of it, that doesn't mean there was a conspiracy to murder thousands of civilians in the process. Why did they not frame Iraq with WMD btw if they are capable of such fantastic plots televised live on TV to billions of people? Surely this would have suited them well?

 

They dont really need to frame Iraq, they have got what they were after

 

"They" presumably doesn't include Bush or the Republican party, I take it then?

 

 

"They" have the profit from multi billions spent on arms,to be spent on reconstruction contracts, have control of oil fields, and a puppet govt in Iraq. Everyones a winner

[ChezGiven 0]

So, you've never heard about these Russian attacks and the stories behind them. I did say i would have a look.

 

I'm aware of the attacks. I'm also aware that any terrorist attack will attract Parky like questions. The pudding is in the proof as they say.

 

I'll collect your thoughts for you. You're basically asking whether i believe its possible that an act of terrorism was 'allowed' to happen by a govt, to further its economic policy. Yes on the basis of precedent, hence me asking the questions.

 

You honestly seem to be confused as to whether this plot was carried out by one or two agents, or a matter of policy. I will find it hard to continue if you can't settle on one position. If it's the policy route, please expand on the precedent you hold with one or two examples.

 

Did they know the scale of it beforehand? I doubt it.

 

Yet you attribute their lack of action to a conspiracy, rather than lack of intelligence.

 

As for the CIA links, they started the movement and have continued to use this relationship since its inception.

 

How has the CIA used this relationship in the past decade to their advantage? Is the rise of Islamic extremism one big CIA super plot to control the western world? Or is it a once usefull strategic partnership gone sour due to the changes in geo-politics?

 

Any known operative would have been under surveillance. It wasnt the first time they tried to blow up the towers, you do remember that?

 

Are you claiming the second bombing was allowed to happen, even though the links were in place. Are you claiming that this is a permanent relationship, where by the CIA lets certain attacks happen, arrests the perpetrators, but allows the instigators to continue?

 

Are you of the opinion that, rather than an instrument of protection, the CIA is an instrument of fear escalation? Do you accept the position that surveillance is not 100% unfallibe, possible or reliable. Do you accept the fact that this would have to be the case for the CIA to be able to prevent every single terrorist attempt?

 

Do you accept that the role of terrorism prevention is a boundless task, where your successes will never outweigh your failures? Do you accept that intelligence failures will happen, and do not necessarily point to alterior purposes, for the reasons just stated?

 

Your attempts at balancing the morality ...are...irrelevant.

 

I would disagree when the discusion centres around the actions of human beings. Do you think morality is not an issue here when weighing up, in the absence of hard evidence, the claims at hand?

 

 

Not your best post, just a load of waffle about whether i could concieve of a world where governments or officials allow terrorist acts to take place for political capital.

 

Well, I was asking the question as it seems to fit the statements in that post. Have you yet to make you mind up on it, or is it to be left an open question?

 

You deny knowing anything about the Russian attacks and then say you knew about them all along after Rob posted up the story. Hmmm.

 

Renton: What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends?

You: E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya.

Me: What exactly did the Russian government do that constitutes conspiracy, rather than good old fashioned and obvious barbarism?

You: The Russians blew up their own citizens in Moscow

Me: Is this a proven conspiracy, or another theory?

 

That's what happened above. I didn't deny I knew of the attacks, I was unaware that the Russians were being blamed for them. I was asking if this was a proven conspiracy, in the same veign as Renton. I read the Independant comment you posted, it supports nothing more than the barbarous attacks I had already mentioned above. No mention is made of false flag terrorism operations, and even introduces doubt as to the ultimate power behind the attacks, be it rogue elements of the FSB or Putin himself. This relates to the issue of Bush's knowledge of the CIA plot. If I recall correctly as reported after the event, the CIA could not provide the intelligence to justify invasion, and it was other areas of the administration that were more 'up for it'

 

That is the basic idea behind what i am saying. There. is. a. precedent.

 

Evidently you're basing your precedent for a CIA mass-murder plot on an article in a newspaper. RobW didn't even make clear whether the men jailed for the building bombings were Russians or not, let alone who ordered it, merely another allegation of security service involvement based on another 'man in the know' . I haven't read Litvinenko's book so obviously I can't comment, suffice to say, one unfounded allegation does not reinforce another unrelated allegation, as either or both could be wrong.

 

Trying to find some inconsistency around 'numbers of CIA' operatives as some sort of official theory that i am signing up to is just shite tbh. It doesnt matter nor is it important. Nothing i have said is predicated on numbers of agents involved.

 

I haven't found it, it's there in in your posts, I merely pointed it out and asked for clarification. Like I say, I can hardly argue against a conspiracy where these beliefs are not fleshed out, much like I can't refute Parky's 9/11 theories if he offers none, only more questions. Given the points above about justification for invasion, and your line diagram below, it is more than relevant.

 

Nothing i have said is predicated on ... morality (still dont see the irrelevance of this point do you?),

 

I see it as a central point to the argument given the lack of evidence and the human element to such conspiracies and duality of purpose of so called instruments of state security; but I accept this is a dead end if you can't see that, I've put my point in as many ways as I can think of.

 

Nothing i have said is predicated on ... the ability to prevent such attacks.

 

You have continually attributated failings in planning, prediction, intelligence gathering and action, to some alterior motive, as if any failing of the CIA could never be down to the nature of their work, i.e. the waffle from me up there about surveilance etc

 

As for this 'boundless' task of preventing terrorist attacks, you seem to be confusing Birmingham in 2007 with New York in 2001.

 

Not boundless as in number of opponents, boundless as in ability to achieve complete success against every attack.

 

There were not 1000s of homegrown sleeper cells all over the eastern seaboard, all trying to blow themselves up.

 

Did I give that impression? That was not my intention.

 

There were a few known operatives in the US at the time.

 

Only one of the 9/11 hijackers was known to the CIA, and he was lost after entering the country. As for the masterminds, funders etc, you still haven't made it clear whether you believe the CIA are in collusion with them on an ongoing basis, given your statements about both WTC attacks

 

These are the facts tbh:

 

9/11, War on Terror, Axis of evil, Iraq. In that order numbnuts.

 

Thank you for breaking it down for me.

 

 

SSH such a well thought out post deserves a reply. I need to go out so will answer your first and last questions.

 

I can conceive of a world of false flag terrorism.

 

No, i dont believe the CIA planned it, i have my suspicions (and no more) that they could have let an attack go ahead, with one caveat. They didnt see the size of what was coming.

 

More musings on scenario planning by the WTC security team post the mid-90s attack later. Heres a taster...

 

(Question circa 1994 - "So if they manage to blow up WTC how do we prepare for the clean up operation and get NYC back on its feet the quickest?"

 

Answer - "Mr Silverstein, it would be best all round if we could get it to collapse in its own footprint" )

 

[Jimbo 175]

Anyone doubting the conspiracy theories would do well to give this a read.

 

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

 

exactly the excuse required to invade Iraq and Afganistan.

[ChezGiven 0]

 

 

 

There's a hell of a lot of fuel burning outside the tower there

 

EDIT: By the way, Tower 7 was a controlled demolision, because they couldn't contain the fire.

 

Pre-rigged with explosives then?

[Renton 22409]

Can someone name me one other tower which has collapsed in its own footprint because of a fire please?

 

Have you looked for one? What is the justification here? Can you find me any other instance where an 80 floor skyscraper with a 10 floor basement and steel ring core has been hit by a jet liner and fallen over on its side? (presuming that is what you are saying it is meant to do)

 

Also, how did a commercial airliner create so much damage to numerous rings in the pentagon ... Where are the engines?

 

I refer you to my earlier posts about the Pentagon. Have you any other cases where a jetliner has been flown into the side of a uniquely designed building like the Pentagon?

 

when the nose is designed to crumple on impact (which has happened in every single airliner crash)?

 

Are you sure that is the case?

 

Anyone mentioned the only passport found was that of a "terrorist?" How come it survived a crash which even the black box recorders didn't even survive?

 

No idea on this one. What is it meant to prove in your eyes?

 

I can't believe some people (mainly Gemmill) are so quick to label the "conspiracy theorists" as idiots, when all we/they are doing is asking questions of the hugely suspect evidence provided to us by the US.

 

All the 'theorists' do is ask questions, and then ignore the answers, or find new questions. Admittedly I have done it in this post, and it's quite fun, I can see the attraction. I wonder if you will have as much success finding answers to them.

 

 

1. Yes, and there is no recorded evidence of a tower ever falling as the result of a fire. Even a fire in the world trade centre a few years before didn't cause a collapse. How come the second tower came down first, despite the first burning for 20 minutes longer? What actually burnt in the towers to sustain the heat required to completely eradicate the structure of the building?

 

2. Are you seriously saying that a plane fuselage passed through 6 concrete walls, and then vanished? How come neither of the planes which slammed into the two towers came out the other side, if this is what planes actually do?

 

3. Yes

 

4. The point is, how come none of the plane survived, or its passengers, but the US government managed to find a passport which had somehow flown out of the pocket of one of the "terrorists" and remained undamaged, only to be found lying on a road? Does that sound suspect?

 

5. I'm yet to see anything you've posted in this thread which has debunked any of the theories. The latest one, "maybe he meant a plane when he said missle" is the funniest tbh.

 

Seriously though, don't you doubt ANY of the information put forward by the US government to explain what happened?

 

I've heard the answers to all these questions countless times before, what have you been doing for the past 5 years? As SSH says, conspiracy theorists never listen to the answers, do they? They just repeat the same questions over and over again.

 

Regarding the Pentagon attack, I was watching CNN a couple of hours after it happened and an off duty pilot who lived nearby reported excatly what happened, even got the model of plane and airline correct (being a professional in aviation). Are you telling me this guy was a plant? Do you think CNN and all the other networks like the BBC are in on it too?

 

I suppose you've read this (and ignored it), but here you go anyway.

 

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

[Tom 14021]

The US have false flagged before.

 

 

In Iran in the 1950's...

[Jimbo 175]

Can someone name me one other tower which has collapsed in its own footprint because of a fire please?

 

Have you looked for one? What is the justification here? Can you find me any other instance where an 80 floor skyscraper with a 10 floor basement and steel ring core has been hit by a jet liner and fallen over on its side? (presuming that is what you are saying it is meant to do)

 

Also, how did a commercial airliner create so much damage to numerous rings in the pentagon ... Where are the engines?

 

I refer you to my earlier posts about the Pentagon. Have you any other cases where a jetliner has been flown into the side of a uniquely designed building like the Pentagon?

 

when the nose is designed to crumple on impact (which has happened in every single airliner crash)?

 

Are you sure that is the case?

 

Anyone mentioned the only passport found was that of a "terrorist?" How come it survived a crash which even the black box recorders didn't even survive?

 

No idea on this one. What is it meant to prove in your eyes?

 

I can't believe some people (mainly Gemmill) are so quick to label the "conspiracy theorists" as idiots, when all we/they are doing is asking questions of the hugely suspect evidence provided to us by the US.

 

All the 'theorists' do is ask questions, and then ignore the answers, or find new questions. Admittedly I have done it in this post, and it's quite fun, I can see the attraction. I wonder if you will have as much success finding answers to them.

 

 

1. Yes, and there is no recorded evidence of a tower ever falling as the result of a fire. Even a fire in the world trade centre a few years before didn't cause a collapse. How come the second tower came down first, despite the first burning for 20 minutes longer? What actually burnt in the towers to sustain the heat required to completely eradicate the structure of the building?

 

2. Are you seriously saying that a plane fuselage passed through 6 concrete walls, and then vanished? How come neither of the planes which slammed into the two towers came out the other side, if this is what planes actually do?

 

3. Yes

 

4. The point is, how come none of the plane survived, or its passengers, but the US government managed to find a passport which had somehow flown out of the pocket of one of the "terrorists" and remained undamaged, only to be found lying on a road? Does that sound suspect?

 

5. I'm yet to see anything you've posted in this thread which has debunked any of the theories. The latest one, "maybe he meant a plane when he said missle" is the funniest tbh.

 

Seriously though, don't you doubt ANY of the information put forward by the US government to explain what happened?

 

I've heard the answers to all these questions countless times before, what have you been doing for the past 5 years? As SSH says, conspiracy theorists never listen to the answers, do they? They just repeat the same questions over and over again.

 

Regarding the Pentagon attack, I was watching CNN a couple of hours after it happened and an off duty pilot who lived nearby reported excatly what happened, even got the model of plane and airline correct (being a professional in aviation). Are you telling me this guy was a plant? Do you think CNN and all the other networks like the BBC are in on it too?

 

I suppose you've read this (and ignored it), but here you go anyway.

 

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

 

 

aahh snopes.com, the source of irifutable truth.

[Shearergol 0]

Can someone name me one other tower which has collapsed in its own footprint because of a fire please?

 

Have you looked for one? What is the justification here? Can you find me any other instance where an 80 floor skyscraper with a 10 floor basement and steel ring core has been hit by a jet liner and fallen over on its side? (presuming that is what you are saying it is meant to do)

 

Also, how did a commercial airliner create so much damage to numerous rings in the pentagon ... Where are the engines?

 

I refer you to my earlier posts about the Pentagon. Have you any other cases where a jetliner has been flown into the side of a uniquely designed building like the Pentagon?

 

when the nose is designed to crumple on impact (which has happened in every single airliner crash)?

 

Are you sure that is the case?

 

Anyone mentioned the only passport found was that of a "terrorist?" How come it survived a crash which even the black box recorders didn't even survive?

 

No idea on this one. What is it meant to prove in your eyes?

 

I can't believe some people (mainly Gemmill) are so quick to label the "conspiracy theorists" as idiots, when all we/they are doing is asking questions of the hugely suspect evidence provided to us by the US.

 

All the 'theorists' do is ask questions, and then ignore the answers, or find new questions. Admittedly I have done it in this post, and it's quite fun, I can see the attraction. I wonder if you will have as much success finding answers to them.

 

 

1. Yes, and there is no recorded evidence of a tower ever falling as the result of a fire. Even a fire in the world trade centre a few years before didn't cause a collapse. How come the second tower came down first, despite the first burning for 20 minutes longer? What actually burnt in the towers to sustain the heat required to completely eradicate the structure of the building?

 

2. Are you seriously saying that a plane fuselage passed through 6 concrete walls, and then vanished? How come neither of the planes which slammed into the two towers came out the other side, if this is what planes actually do?

 

3. Yes

 

4. The point is, how come none of the plane survived, or its passengers, but the US government managed to find a passport which had somehow flown out of the pocket of one of the "terrorists" and remained undamaged, only to be found lying on a road? Does that sound suspect?

 

5. I'm yet to see anything you've posted in this thread which has debunked any of the theories. The latest one, "maybe he meant a plane when he said missle" is the funniest tbh.

 

Seriously though, don't you doubt ANY of the information put forward by the US government to explain what happened?

 

I've heard the answers to all these questions countless times before, what have you been doing for the past 5 years? As SSH says, conspiracy theorists never listen to the answers, do they? They just repeat the same questions over and over again.

 

Regarding the Pentagon attack, I was watching CNN a couple of hours after it happened and an off duty pilot who lived nearby reported excatly what happened, even got the model of plane and airline correct (being a professional in aviation). Are you telling me this guy was a plant? Do you think CNN and all the other networks like the BBC are in on it too?

 

I suppose you've read this (and ignored it), but here you go anyway.

 

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

 

Perhaps the answers don't actually make sense?

 

So the engine punched the hole in the 3rd ring of the building, and then vanished? OK, it's an answer, but why are you so happy to believe it? Do you know what the engines are made out of, and what the melting point is?

 

There's plenty of things you've ignored too Renton, but that's ok isn't it. There are plenty of people (experts no less ) who said it wasn't a plane hitting the pentagon - are these a plant by the craaaaazy conspiracy theorists?

[Park Life 71]

 

 

 

There's a hell of a lot of fuel burning outside the tower there

 

EDIT: By the way, Tower 7 was a controlled demolision, because they couldn't contain the fire.

 

Pre-rigged with explosives then?

 

They probably all were, to cover for all eventualities and also to safeguard nearby buildings. But people go on as if this is Alice in Wonderland stuff.

[Shearergol 0]

 

 

 

There's a hell of a lot of fuel burning outside the tower there

 

EDIT: By the way, Tower 7 was a controlled demolision, because they couldn't contain the fire.

 

Pre-rigged with explosives then?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DoibU5njEM

[Shearergol 0]

 

 

 

There's a hell of a lot of fuel burning outside the tower there

 

EDIT: By the way, Tower 7 was a controlled demolision, because they couldn't contain the fire.

 

Pre-rigged with explosives then?

 

They probably all were, to cover for all eventualities and also to safeguard nearby buildings. But people go on as if this is Alice in Wonderland stuff.

 

[Renton]You're a fucking idiot, the US told you the answers 5 years ago.[/Renton]