One for Parky

[Guest alex]

And you're the naive ones Edited February 21, 2007 by alex

[Park Life 71]

.......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.

[Gemmill 47092]

.......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.

 

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.

[Park Life 71]

.......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.

 

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?

[Park Life 71]

Btw, how hard would it be for "them" to fake some footage? Harder than rigging the WTC with explosives unnoticed? Harder than arranging a massive cover up? Harder than hiding a 757 in some mysterious location? Harder than faking phone calls from terrified passengers to their loved ones, live? I'm dying to hear how they did the last one tbh.

 

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?

[Guest alex]

Btw, how hard would it be for "them" to fake some footage? Harder than rigging the WTC with explosives unnoticed? Harder than arranging a massive cover up? Harder than hiding a 757 in some mysterious location? Harder than faking phone calls from terrified passengers to their loved ones, live? I'm dying to hear how they did the last one tbh.

 

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?

Yes, that was the very essence of those last two posts.

[Park Life 71]

Just to clarify everything so far by the way, to make sure that I'm keeping up with the conspiracy theorists:

 

- They flew two planes into two buildings that they'd already wired with explosives and it was the explosives that brought the buildings down, not the planes which were merely a decoy.

- They fired a missile (possibly from a helicopter) at a third building and then claimed that an aeroplane had flown into it.

- They then made the people that would have been on this imaginary flight disappear.

 

Is this about right? Also, when I say "they" are we talking about the US government?

 

 

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.

[Gemmill 47092]

.......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.

 

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.

[Park Life 71]

.......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.

 

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?

[Park Life 71]

.......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.

 

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.

[Renton 22414]

Btw, how hard would it be for "them" to fake some footage? Harder than rigging the WTC with explosives unnoticed? Harder than arranging a massive cover up? Harder than hiding a 757 in some mysterious location? Harder than faking phone calls from terrified passengers to their loved ones, live? I'm dying to hear how they did the last one tbh.

 

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?

 

I would have thought the tennants and security firms in the WTC would have asked questions when "they" started drilling holes into the buildings and filling them with high explosives. At the very least I would have thought sombody would remember "them" doing it in retrospect, and the police would have picked up on the chemical traces of an explosion (unless they are also in on "it").

 

Why do you only ask questions? Why do you never answer them? If "they" really wanted to demolish the buildings, wouldn't "they" just make it look like a conventional terrorist bomb? Wouldn't that be a thousand times easier and much less likely to go wrong or be exposed?

[ChezGiven 0]

Does no one think that with the US itching to increase its strategic presence in middle east, to bolster its import heavy economy (via domestic product) and to finish the job started but not finished in Iraq, 9/11 was the most convenient thing that ever happened to neo-con foreign policy? Maybe i was too sc

 

Not one single suspicion that certain 'things' might have been allowed to happen?

 

Everything is as the official version of events? Not a hint of doubt anywhere across this 'water-tight' story?

 

Unbelievable tbh, i can see why anyone would be scathing of all the nonsense that is spoken about helicopter launched drones into the side of the 'Penthouse' © Renton, disappearing flights etc, but for the life of me i cant understand why the official story is defended so vigorously.

 

Is this what they mean by 'plausible deniability' that old WShitehouse chestnut?

[Guest alex]

I think Parky's taking the piss now tbh. At least I hope he is.

[Gemmill 47092]

Who's the 'they'?

 

You tell me. It's you that thinks there is one.

 

Why would they planes be 'decoys' after all there is plenty of evidence they hit they buildings?

 

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

 

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>

 

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.

[Renton 22414]

Just to clarify everything so far by the way, to make sure that I'm keeping up with the conspiracy theorists:

 

- They flew two planes into two buildings that they'd already wired with explosives and it was the explosives that brought the buildings down, not the planes which were merely a decoy.

- They fired a missile (possibly from a helicopter) at a third building and then claimed that an aeroplane had flown into it.

- They then made the people that would have been on this imaginary flight disappear.

 

Is this about right? Also, when I say "they" are we talking about the US government?

 

 

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?

[ChezGiven 0]

Btw, how hard would it be for "them" to fake some footage? Harder than rigging the WTC with explosives unnoticed? Harder than arranging a massive cover up? Harder than hiding a 757 in some mysterious location? Harder than faking phone calls from terrified passengers to their loved ones, live? I'm dying to hear how they did the last one tbh.

 

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?

 

I would have thought the tennants and security firms in the WTC would have asked questions when "they" started drilling holes into the buildings and filling them with high explosives. At the very least I would have thought sombody would remember "them" doing it in retrospect, and the police would have picked up on the chemical traces of an explosion (unless they are also in on "it").

 

Why do you only ask questions? Why do you never answer them? If "they" really wanted to demolish the buildings, wouldn't "they" just make it look like a conventional terrorist bomb? Wouldn't that be a thousand times easier and much less likely to go wrong or be exposed?

 

WT7 was pre-rigged with explosives, otherwise it wouldnt have fallen down. tbf.

 

EDIT - They didnt know it was going to be attacked but pre-rigging a building that is a terrorist target may have been a prudent move, give the difficulty of then trying to go into the WTC AFTER a plane attack and do the same job.

 

I dont reckon it was pre-planned but i can see that a very excellent idea, post the attack in the 90s, would be to prepare for another attack. I also think the obvuious thing to do would be to find a way of bring the building down if it was damaged beyond repair and too dangerous to enter after the attack. No conspiracy here, just sensible security policy. Like what they did with WT7.

Edited February 21, 2007 by ChezGiven

[Park Life 71]

Just to clarify everything so far by the way, to make sure that I'm keeping up with the conspiracy theorists:

 

- They flew two planes into two buildings that they'd already wired with explosives and it was the explosives that brought the buildings down, not the planes which were merely a decoy.

- They fired a missile (possibly from a helicopter) at a third building and then claimed that an aeroplane had flown into it.

- They then made the people that would have been on this imaginary flight disappear.

 

Is this about right? Also, when I say "they" are we talking about the US government?

 

 

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.

[Gemmill 47092]

I think Parky's taking the piss now tbh. At least I hope he is.

 

I'm not sure he is tbh. It would be nice if he was like, but his arsey comments about me earlier in the thread suggests to me that he's bristling at the fact that there are so many holes in his ridiculous theory and he's finding it hard to come to terms with.

[Park Life 71]

Who's the 'they'?

 

You tell me. It's you that thinks there is one.

 

Why would they planes be 'decoys' after all there is plenty of evidence they hit they buildings?

 

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

 

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>

 

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?

[Guest alex]

Does no one think that with the US itching to increase its strategic presence in middle east, to bolster its import heavy economy (via domestic product) and to finish the job started but not finished in Iraq, 9/11 was the most convenient thing that ever happened to neo-con foreign policy? Maybe i was too sc

 

Not one single suspicion that certain 'things' might have been allowed to happen?

 

Everything is as the official version of events? Not a hint of doubt anywhere across this 'water-tight' story?

 

Unbelievable tbh, i can see why anyone would be scathing of all the nonsense that is spoken about helicopter launched drones into the side of the 'Penthouse' © Renton, disappearing flights etc, but for the life of me i cant understand why the official story is defended so vigorously.

 

Is this what they mean by 'plausible deniability' that old WShitehouse chestnut?

I agree it's a bit fishy like. I think people are having a pop at the crackpot theories though aren't they? If you're sceptical about the official story then it makes no sense at all to accept them. I realise that isn't the case for you btw and I share your misgivings in particular about the Russia/Chechnya situation.

[Gemmill 47092]

Who's the 'they'?

 

You tell me. It's you that thinks there is one.

 

Why would they planes be 'decoys' after all there is plenty of evidence they hit they buildings?

 

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

 

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>

 

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?

 

Not rocket science, no, but bordering on science fiction.

[Park Life 71]

.......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.

 

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.

[Park Life 71]

Who's the 'they'?

 

You tell me. It's you that thinks there is one.

 

Why would they planes be 'decoys' after all there is plenty of evidence they hit they buildings?

 

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

 

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>

 

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?

 

Not rocket science, no, but bordering on science fiction.

 

Why?

[Guest alex]

Been watching too much telly tbh.

[Renton 22414]

Does no one think that with the US itching to increase its strategic presence in middle east, to bolster its import heavy economy (via domestic product) and to finish the job started but not finished in Iraq, 9/11 was the most convenient thing that ever happened to neo-con foreign policy? Maybe i was too sc

 

Not one single suspicion that certain 'things' might have been allowed to happen?

 

Everything is as the official version of events? Not a hint of doubt anywhere across this 'water-tight' story?

 

Unbelievable tbh, i can see why anyone would be scathing of all the nonsense that is spoken about helicopter launched drones into the side of the 'Penthouse' © Renton, disappearing flights etc, but for the life of me i cant understand why the official story is defended so vigorously.

 

Is this what they mean by 'plausible deniability' that old WShitehouse chestnut?

 

Oops, did I say Penthouse in this thread?

 

That's my credibility in shreds then.

 

All of the above is pure speculation CG, you haven't really shown a shred of evidence to back it up. Personally, I think it's pretty unlikely that any American authorities had fore knowledge of what was to come. You can speculate all you like, but leave me out of it.