One for Parky

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

Is the nose cone of a plane the only piece of the plane? Are people suggesting that the plane's nose hit the wall and crumpled, and the rest of the plane vanished, leaving nothing else that could punch a hole?

 

If it was a missile, where is the missile debris? Even some debris from a missile would be present after such a strike. If it is alleged that the CIA knew nothing of the attacks, I think they would be interested to find such debris, and where it came from.

 

Not necessarily not all missiles leave debris. There are some compound missiles which completely burn up.

 

What's a compound missile?

 

A missile made not of metal but a carbon compound. Laser guided can enter throu a window or ventilation shaft. Can carry a lot of explosive. Or a thermite charge.

 

What is it propelled by? Rocket motors have large metal parts. Cruise missiles have turbine blades. Laser guidance implies non carbon elements that would survive a crash.

 

Why would it need a thermite charge?

 

A large amount of explosive leaves a chemical trace, and a fireball different to the one seen on the video stills in this thread.

 

Not all missiles ar propelled by rockets.

 

Apart from rocket motors or turbines as in the cruise misslies, what other methods are used?

 

Laser guided doesnt always mean an on board laser.

 

I took that as read, I was refering to the onbaord equipment necessary for tracking a laser

 

And can you give proof to the different effect to the one seen on the video?

 

Only the numersous videos of missile impacts and jetliner crashes that I have seen. Do you have a source of a video of a missile impact that produces that effect?

 

As I have already stated, some types of incendary warheads might produce that blast (although still arguably look different), but they are not the same type as the warheads designed to penetrate 3 rings of the pentagon. The few combination designs that I am aware of would impliciltly mean the blast would occur after full penetration, and thus would manifest a blast further inside the pentagon rings.

 

I am of course presuming an off the shelf missile was used, i.e. a special one-off jetliner crash simulating one was not specially designed and built.

 

[Renton 22409]

I've come to the conclusion Parky is backtracking again and really doesn't have a clue what he believes, much like the AIDS discussion. The best bit though is he claims no-one else knows what they are talking about. It's all just a random mishmash of pseudofacts and misinformation, all with the common theme of mysterious and clandestine dark forces being responsible for the running of society. These are naturally not defined at all.

 

Obviously clinging onto some completely implausible theories just because they go against the official version is important to some people, I'd actually like to know why and suspect there is a psychological basis; I think the BBC (who are in on it) series may be going to look at this more fully.

[Super_Steve_Howey 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?

 

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'

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

 

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.

[Park Life 71]

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'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.

Edited February 22, 2007 by Parky

[Renton 22409]

I agree with Chez Given's sentiments regarding the American government too btw, I just think they were opportunistic in their response to the other nutters (Al Queda). I cannot see a single bit of evidence that suggests that what was reported as happening on that day is not what really happened. In fact, I can see quite a bit of evidence that contradicts a CIA conspiracy, such as the fact the terrorists were Saudi and not Iraqi, the CIA building itself was targetted, and finally the fact that no WMD were planted in Iraq.

[Park Life 71]

I agree with Chez Given's sentiments regarding the American government too btw, I just think they were opportunistic in their response to the other nutters (Al Queda). I cannot see a single bit of evidence that suggests that what was reported as happening on that day is not what really happened. In fact, I can see quite a bit of evidence that contradicts a CIA conspiracy, such as the fact the terrorists were Saudi and not Iraqi, the CIA building itself was targetted, and finally the fact that no WMD were planted in Iraq.

 

Agreed nothing to do with the CIA. Infact it was as much a side bonus that the CIA sufferred so heavily afterwards. The CIA under Tenet were actually one of the most moderate forces that had the ear of Dubya and strongly pushed for action in Afghanistan rather than Iraq. For this they weren't forgiven.............

Edited February 22, 2007 by Parky

[Renton 22409]

I agree with Chez Given's sentiments regarding the American government too btw, I just think they were opportunistic in their response to the other nutters (Al Queda). I cannot see a single bit of evidence that suggests that what was reported as happening on that day is not what really happened. In fact, I can see quite a bit of evidence that contradicts a CIA conspiracy, such as the fact the terrorists were Saudi and not Iraqi, the CIA building itself was targetted, and finally the fact that no WMD were planted in Iraq.

 

Agreed nothing to do with the CIA. Infact it was as much a side bonus that the CIA sufferred so heavily afterwards. The CIA under Tenet were actually one of the most moderate forces that had the ear of Dubya and strongly pushed for action in Afghanistan rather than Iraq. For this they weren't forgiven.............

 

Again, the mysterious dark forces at work, ones even more powerful than the most prominent counter terrorism organization on the planet. People so powerful they render the CIA impotent! Have you a single piece of evidence to suggest such an organization exists? If not, why not?

[Park Life 71]

I agree with Chez Given's sentiments regarding the American government too btw, I just think they were opportunistic in their response to the other nutters (Al Queda). I cannot see a single bit of evidence that suggests that what was reported as happening on that day is not what really happened. In fact, I can see quite a bit of evidence that contradicts a CIA conspiracy, such as the fact the terrorists were Saudi and not Iraqi, the CIA building itself was targetted, and finally the fact that no WMD were planted in Iraq.

 

Agreed nothing to do with the CIA. Infact it was as much a side bonus that the CIA sufferred so heavily afterwards. The CIA under Tenet were actually one of the most moderate forces that had the ear of Dubya and strongly pushed for action in Afghanistan rather than Iraq. For this they weren't forgiven.............

 

Again, the mysterious dark forces at work, ones even more powerful than the most prominent counter terrorism organization on the planet. People so powerful they render the CIA impotent! Have you a single piece of evidence to suggest such an organization exists? If not, why not?

 

 

......if I did they wouldn't be that powerful now would they?

[Renton 22409]

I agree with Chez Given's sentiments regarding the American government too btw, I just think they were opportunistic in their response to the other nutters (Al Queda). I cannot see a single bit of evidence that suggests that what was reported as happening on that day is not what really happened. In fact, I can see quite a bit of evidence that contradicts a CIA conspiracy, such as the fact the terrorists were Saudi and not Iraqi, the CIA building itself was targetted, and finally the fact that no WMD were planted in Iraq.

 

Agreed nothing to do with the CIA. Infact it was as much a side bonus that the CIA sufferred so heavily afterwards. The CIA under Tenet were actually one of the most moderate forces that had the ear of Dubya and strongly pushed for action in Afghanistan rather than Iraq. For this they weren't forgiven.............

 

Again, the mysterious dark forces at work, ones even more powerful than the most prominent counter terrorism organization on the planet. People so powerful they render the CIA impotent! Have you a single piece of evidence to suggest such an organization exists? If not, why not?

 

 

......if I did they wouldn't be that powerful now would they?

 

Is this what this entire thread boils down to? You believe in something in the absence of any real evidence to substantiate it, because it somehow suits your outlook? Is this just a variant on the science versus faith argument? Or are you seriously just taking the piss now? I really can't tell.

[Park Life 71]

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html

 

 

Happy reading.

 

 

Shielding Investigators From the Evidence

 

According to FEMA, more than 350,000 tons of steel were extracted from Ground Zero and barged or trucked to salvage yards where it was cut up for recycling. Four salvage yards were contracted to process the steel.

 

Hugo Nue Schnitzer at Fresh Kills (FK) Landfill, Staten Island, NJ

Hugo Nue Schnitzer's Claremont (CM) Terminal in Jersey City, NJ

Metal Management in Newark (NW), NJ

Blanford and Co. in Keasbey (KB), NJ

FEMA's BPAT, who wrote the WTC Building Performance Study, were not given access to Ground Zero. Apparently, they were not even allowed to collect steel samples from the salvage yards. According to Appendix D of the Study:

Collection and storage of steel members from the WTC site was not part of the BPS Team efforts sponsored by FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).

Fate of Some Steel Revealed Years Later

 

 

The base of one of the Twin Towers' massive core columns stored in a hanger at JFK Airport is shown in the film Up From Zero.

Given that the removal and recycling of World Trade Center seel continued over the objections of victims' families and others seeking a genuine investigation, revelations, years later, that some of Twin Towers' steel parts were preserved comes as something of a surprise. Many of the heaviest steel pieces from the Twin Towers are stored in an 80,000-square-foot hangar at John F. Kennedy International Airport. These include some of the base sections of the Towers' massive core columns and 13 of the 153 steel trees from the bases of the Towers' perimeter walls. 7 Some of these pieces are shown in the film Up From Zero.

 

The hangar, which reportedly holds one five-hundredth of the "total debris field", is off-limits to the public. 8 Scott Huston, president of the Graystone Society, is attempting to obtain three of the steel trees for the National Iron & Steel Heritage Museum in Coatesville, PA. 9 "

Edited February 22, 2007 by Parky

[Gemmill 47084]

What conclusions should I be drawing from this latest bombshell?

[Renton 22409]

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/official/fema.html

 

 

Happy reading.

 

 

Shielding Investigators From the Evidence

 

According to FEMA, more than 350,000 tons of steel were extracted from Ground Zero and barged or trucked to salvage yards where it was cut up for recycling. Four salvage yards were contracted to process the steel.

 

Hugo Nue Schnitzer at Fresh Kills (FK) Landfill, Staten Island, NJ

Hugo Nue Schnitzer's Claremont (CM) Terminal in Jersey City, NJ

Metal Management in Newark (NW), NJ

Blanford and Co. in Keasbey (KB), NJ

FEMA's BPAT, who wrote the WTC Building Performance Study, were not given access to Ground Zero. Apparently, they were not even allowed to collect steel samples from the salvage yards. According to Appendix D of the Study:

Collection and storage of steel members from the WTC site was not part of the BPS Team efforts sponsored by FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).

Fate of Some Steel Revealed Years Later

 

 

The base of one of the Twin Towers' massive core columns stored in a hanger at JFK Airport is shown in the film Up From Zero.

Given that the removal and recycling of World Trade Center seel continued over the objections of victims' families and others seeking a genuine investigation, revelations, years later, that some of Twin Towers' steel parts were preserved comes as something of a surprise. Many of the heaviest steel pieces from the Twin Towers are stored in an 80,000-square-foot hangar at John F. Kennedy International Airport. These include some of the base sections of the Towers' massive core columns and 13 of the 153 steel trees from the bases of the Towers' perimeter walls. 7 Some of these pieces are shown in the film Up From Zero.

 

The hangar, which reportedly holds one five-hundredth of the "total debris field", is off-limits to the public. 8 Scott Huston, president of the Graystone Society, is attempting to obtain three of the steel trees for the National Iron & Steel Heritage Museum in Coatesville, PA. 9 "

 

 

Is all that is worth. SSH had you sussed from the beginning, you're not interested in dialogue or debate; answering as well as asking questions (how many have you dodged now?). Getting a bit boring now tbh.

[Guest alex]

What conclusions should I be drawing from this latest bombshell?

And on that bombshell....

[Renton 22409]

What conclusions should I be drawing from this latest bombshell?

 

It reinforces some of my conclusions about Parky tbf.

[Park Life 71]

What conclusions should I be drawing from this latest bombshell?

 

 

Luque is a lazy, shit, Spanish olive munching money grabber.

[ChezGiven 0]

What conclusions should I be drawing from this latest bombshell?

 

It reinforces some of my conclusions about Parky tbf.

 

Now now, be nice to Parky you did start this thread as FAO Parky and the 9/11 research site is one of the better ones. The WT7 stuff on there is very 'thought-provoking'.

[Park Life 71]

What conclusions should I be drawing from this latest bombshell?

 

It reinforces some of my conclusions about Parky tbf.

 

 

You don't want to read anything really....All you seem to be interested in is pushing me into a corner...You big gay boy!

[spongebob toonpants 4183]

What conclusions should I be drawing from this latest bombshell?

 

It reinforces some of my conclusions about Parky tbf.

 

 

I think Parkie is playing quite a good devils advocate role myself.

[Renton 22409]

What conclusions should I be drawing from this latest bombshell?

 

It reinforces some of my conclusions about Parky tbf.

 

 

You don't want to read anything really....All you seem to be interested in is pushing me into a corner...You big gay boy!

 

 

I'm interested in a bit more information on the clandestine forces of darkness you are talking about. However, as even the CIA are unaware or unable to do anything about them, I can see how you and the internet loons () have a problem. In all serious though, can you indicate in the vaguest terms who and what "they" are, just in your opinion, rather than linking me to a site about scrap metal?

[ChezGiven 0]

What conclusions should I be drawing from this latest bombshell?

 

It reinforces some of my conclusions about Parky tbf.

 

 

I think Parkie is playing quite a good devils advocate role myself.

 

He is well practised at it tbf.

[Renton 22409]

What conclusions should I be drawing from this latest bombshell?

 

It reinforces some of my conclusions about Parky tbf.

 

 

I think Parkie is playing quite a good devils advocate role myself.

 

Meaning? Devil's advocate to what?

[Guest alex]

If there's a cover up, why keep some of the steel from the towers? Doesn't make sense to me.

[Gemmill 47084]

What conclusions should I be drawing from this latest bombshell?

 

It reinforces some of my conclusions about Parky tbf.

 

 

I think Parkie is playing quite a good devils advocate role myself.

 

If only he were playing Devil's Advocate though! He's the craziest man on Earth Shan. Geet mass shan.

[sweetleftpeg 0]

If there's a cover up, why keep some of the steel from the towers? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

Blatantly not the steel from the original Twin Towers. The real Twin Towers steel is hidden in a secret bunker under the Nevada Desert, watched over night and day by an elite force of government employed Martians. F.A.C.T

[spongebob toonpants 4183]

What conclusions should I be drawing from this latest bombshell?

 

It reinforces some of my conclusions about Parky tbf.

 

 

I think Parkie is playing quite a good devils advocate role myself.

 

Meaning? Devil's advocate to what?

 

One who argues against a cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply for the sake of argument or to determine the validity of the cause or position.