One for Parky

[sweetleftpeg 0]

Or, a shit stirrer.

[Tom 14021]

 

 

Aye that one

[Park Life 71]

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.

 

Aye.

[Park Life 71]

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.

 

...tbf Gemma also has a point..

[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!

 

 

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?

 

....there's plenty of time...I haven't really engaged with this thread yet you're right.

[Guest alex]

Just like Alan Robson on Night Owls really.

[ChezGiven 0]

Parky likes a 25 page introduction just to set the scene and whet the appetite.

[Guest alex]

I'm referring to him as The Flashing Blade from now on.

[sweetleftpeg 0]

GET TO THOSE PHONES!

[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'

 

I'd say no one has the real "official story". Probably to embarrasing to let any of it out with all the fuck ups an all.

 

You propose events as having but one obvious cause, continually using the absence of something as proof, without any direct evidence. The CIA didn't stop the terrorists so they must have known about them, rather than they just didn't know about them. The US attacked Iraq after the Al-Qaeda attacks so they must have been complicit in the attacks, rather than Bush seeing an fortuitous opportunity for some unfinished business. There is no evidence of a plane (which there is) so there must not have been a plane.

 

Doubt is not proof.

 

Ok one last time. 1 You have failed to pick up on whether i agree with the facts surrounding the main events. 2, Questioning whether these buildings were rigged in case of an attack and finding it a plausible possibility has nothing to do with the attacks, others may try to link it, I havent. WT7 remains a mystery though. 3, The position i have taken is that there is one crucial debate; did the US know an attack of some sorts was imminent and was there a failure of intelligence or was it allowed to happen? There is no proof that either is the case.

 

You, in the absence of any other evidence want to believe the US. I just find the whole thing too much of a coincidence and have learned in the last 3-4 years that the people responsible for US foreign policy are deceitful, murderous cunts, whose religious views put them in the 'clinically insane' bracket. Forgive me my cynicism.

 

 

I knew you accepted the hijackers theory, but took the WTC7 opinions as indication of acceptance of the demolition/insurance theory. My mistake.

 

 

The CIA plot we've been over, and my points above still stand. You are using association with other world events and the absence of evidence to allude to a specific alternative event. This is by nature an extremely difficult position to argue against, so basic are the premises used.

 

[i]There was NO CIA plot.[/i] Infact the aftermath so Tenet losing his job and the CIA downsized. They aren't in the habit of doing this to themselves.

 

Do you accept that the kind of plot you allude to could never be proved no matter how much official documentation was released? Do you concede that it could have been carried out purely on a verbal basis?

 

Not sure what this question means please clarify.

 

Accepting these ponts, then we are back to ground already well covered here, namely the number of agents involved in the plot, and their motivations w.r.t. possible gains weighed against morality.

 

This event could have been managed by half a dozen agents/ ex-cia/ special forces. Could six people keep aiding the hijackers a secret...? What do you think?

 

 

On this last quote :"people responsible for ... foreign policy are deceitful, murderous cunts, whose religious views put them in the 'clinically insane' bracket. Forgive me my cynicism." I would argue this has been the case in part around the world for time immemorial. It is a viewpoint that could be used to see conspiracy in any government action.

 

The truest sentence in this thread.

 

 

Cheers.

 

There was NO CIA plot. Infact the aftermath so Tenet losing his job and the CIA downsized. They aren't in the habit of doing this to themselves.

 

Well, this post was addressed to CG, who thinks there was, but thanks for the input . I have myself pointed out that the CIA were the least 'up for' a barney with Iraq and therefore the strategic gains therein

 

This event could have been managed by half a dozen agents/ ex-cia/ special forces. Could six people keep aiding the hijackers a secret...? What do you think?

 

 

OK, so based on the above statement, and (some) of your related posts (not all as they would conflict with this scenario), I have the following assumptions:

 

There was no missile into the pentagon (requiring no elaborate camera subdifuge)

 

There were real hijackers using real planes (rendering the mobile phone arguments and personel requiremens moot) to attack all 4 targets

 

The final goal was some higher power play (not involving the CIA or Bush) and not money (i.e. not requiring subdifuge and extra manpower to collapse buildings and fool insurance companies)

 

Accepting these assumptions, I have these concerns:

 

Were these handlers Arabic? What were their stated goals to the hijackers? If they were western, how were they persuaded to go along with the plan?

 

If the handlers were not being directed by the CIA, who was directing them, and for what purpose? Presumably there is an alleged group at the centre of power that does not change with change of government, but that are high enough to direct policy. What specifically did they then gain from orchestrating 9/11? They already presumably have the power to start wars and influence legislation, what else would they have lusted after? Enough to willingly murder 3,000 Americans (again, this was a low estimate). If, as predicted, the Democrats sweep to power, what of their gains due to 9/11?

 

If Bush (and by extension, his cronies and hangers on) knew nothing of these conspirators, then why are a lot of the motivations and supposed benefits from the events post 9/11 attributed to Bush? Did the conspirators improve his lot out of kindness?

 

 

Again, I really don't like just returning questions with questions, but you can see how such brief suppositions can't really be answered with concrete facts.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 4086]

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. Laser guided doesnt always mean an on board laser. And can you give proof to the different effect to the one seen on the video?

As with Parky earlier, I think the onus is on you to provide the proof for the crackpot theories here.

 

What crackpot theories would these be. I have not espoused any. i have just said I don't trust the official version and given reasons why.

Must have misunderstood you then, I thought you were suggesting missiles may have been fired at the Pentagon. Glad you aren't tbh

 

Can you read? Or are you in the Leazesmag school of misquoting here? What I said was there is very little evidence of a huge plane hitting this building. Which there isnt in the terms of wreckage and engines. I am also saying that it is entirely plausible that a missile could have caused the damage. Which it is. The American government doesn't have a good history of doing the right thing by it's people. For example having a war on terror at home while keeping major players in the cocaine trade in power in central / southern america. Or saying they fight for democracy whilst being very happy to deal with the most un democratic governments in the world. Or prolonging wars to the profit of big business.

[Gemmill 47092]

So which do you think it was, missile (twirls finger around temple) or plane?

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 4086]

So which do you think it was, missile (twirls finger around temple) or plane?

 

I don't know I don't like making assumptions. but a 757 is huge where are all the bits?

[Gemmill 47092]

I wasn't at the crash site so couldn't possibly comment on that.

[Renton 22414]

So which do you think it was, missile (twirls finger around temple) or plane?

I'll come out and say I am absolutely certain it was a plane, the same plane that was hijacked by fanatical islamic terrorists, the same plane that was tracked on radar and disappeared over the pentagon, the same plane terrified passengers made phone calls from to their loved ones, the same plane that was witnessed by dozens of eye witnesses flying low and hitting the pentagon, and the same plane whose fragments can clearly be seen in the penthouse.

 

No hedging from me there, shame about the conspiracists.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 4086]

So which do you think it was, missile (twirls finger around temple) or plane?

I'll come out and say I am absolutely certain it was a plane, the same plane that was hijacked by fanatical islamic terrorists, the same plane that was tracked on radar and disappeared over the pentagon, the same plane terrified passengers made phone calls from to their loved ones, the same plane that was witnessed by dozens of eye witnesses flying low and hitting the pentagon, and the same plane whose fragments can clearly be seen in the penthouse.

 

No hedging from me there, shame about the conspiracists.

 

 

I understand what you're saying and can see the thinking behind it. But my question still stands. In the pictures of the crash site where are all the bits of planes?

 

On the bit in bold. I believe that was the plane that crashed in pennsylvania. To my knowledge and I could be wrong there has been no communication released from this plane.

[Renton 22414]

So which do you think it was, missile (twirls finger around temple) or plane?

 

I don't know I don't like making assumptions. but a 757 is huge where are all the bits?

 

Not much left when a plane full of fuel hits a reinforced concrete wall at 400 mph. The aluminium would vapourise almost entirely, other parts were clearly identified. There was a clear hole in the wall where the left engine struck, and the black boxes were recovered. How much more evidence do you want, bearing in mind air traffic control, phone calls, etc?

[Renton 22414]

So which do you think it was, missile (twirls finger around temple) or plane?

I'll come out and say I am absolutely certain it was a plane, the same plane that was hijacked by fanatical islamic terrorists, the same plane that was tracked on radar and disappeared over the pentagon, the same plane terrified passengers made phone calls from to their loved ones, the same plane that was witnessed by dozens of eye witnesses flying low and hitting the pentagon, and the same plane whose fragments can clearly be seen in the penthouse.

 

No hedging from me there, shame about the conspiracists.

 

 

I understand what you're saying and can see the thinking behind it. But my question still stands. In the pictures of the crash site where are all the bits of planes?

 

On the bit in bold. I believe that was the plane that crashed in pennsylvania. To my knowledge and I could be wrong there has been no communication released from this plane.

 

I was under the impression there were communications from all 4 planes. What about air traffic control? Are they in on the conspiracy? And I'm not sure what photos you have seen, but I have seen fragments of a plane in AA colours. Were they planted?

[Gemmill 47092]

So which do you think it was, missile (twirls finger around temple) or plane?

I'll come out and say I am absolutely certain it was a plane, the same plane that was hijacked by fanatical islamic terrorists, the same plane that was tracked on radar and disappeared over the pentagon, the same plane terrified passengers made phone calls from to their loved ones, the same plane that was witnessed by dozens of eye witnesses flying low and hitting the pentagon, and the same plane whose fragments can clearly be seen in the penthouse.

 

No hedging from me there, shame about the conspiracists.

 

[Renton 22414]

So which do you think it was, missile (twirls finger around temple) or plane?

I'll come out and say I am absolutely certain it was a plane, the same plane that was hijacked by fanatical islamic terrorists, the same plane that was tracked on radar and disappeared over the pentagon, the same plane terrified passengers made phone calls from to their loved ones, the same plane that was witnessed by dozens of eye witnesses flying low and hitting the pentagon, and the same plane whose fragments can clearly be seen in the penthouse.

 

No hedging from me there, shame about the conspiracists.

 

 

 

Subliminal tbh. Credibility in tatters, again.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 4086]

So which do you think it was, missile (twirls finger around temple) or plane?

 

I don't know I don't like making assumptions. but a 757 is huge where are all the bits?

 

Not much left when a plane full of fuel hits a reinforced concrete wall at 400 mph. The aluminium would vapourise almost entirely, other parts were clearly identified. There was a clear hole in the wall where the left engine struck, and the black boxes were recovered. How much more evidence do you want, bearing in mind air traffic control, phone calls, etc?

 

Shite how much heat does it take to completely vapourise many tonnes of aluminium and plastic. Why have other crashes not done so?.

 

Which bits?

 

The plane took 40 minutes after the first plane hit the twin tower to hit the pentagon. They seem a little Laissez faire for me.

Edited February 23, 2007 by Kevin Carr's Gloves

[Renton 22414]

So which do you think it was, missile (twirls finger around temple) or plane?

 

I don't know I don't like making assumptions. but a 757 is huge where are all the bits?

 

Not much left when a plane full of fuel hits a reinforced concrete wall at 400 mph. The aluminium would vapourise almost entirely, other parts were clearly identified. There was a clear hole in the wall where the left engine struck, and the black boxes were recovered. How much more evidence do you want, bearing in mind air traffic control, phone calls, etc?

 

Shite how much heat does it take to completely vapourise many tonnes of aluminium and plastic. Why have other crashes not done so?.

 

Which bits?

 

The plane took 40 minutes after the first plane hit the twin tower to hit the pentagon. They seem a little Laissez faire for me.

 

I've seen photos with identifiable wreckage, for instance fragments in the AA livery. Plenty of planes disintegrate to almost nothing if they impact at great speed. Having said that, given the speed it was going, the structure it hit, and the fact it was full of fuel, I would say this must have been the most destructive civil aviation crash in the history of aviation. I notice you haven't bothered answering the point about air traffic control. For this to happen, they must have been in on it. And finally, why bother with the hassle and risk of using a special missile? Why not just use the plane? Why not answer some questions for a change? I've made the same point regarding the WTC towers, but no-one wants to answer.

[Gemmill 47092]

Aye the Air Traffic Control argument basically pwns all. They would either have to be in on it, or they would have had to somehow manage to make something appear on the radar screens a) as big as a plane, b ) initially on the same flightpath as the plane, c) have it veer off this flightpath and head for the pentagon d) make the original flight disappear from radar screens.

 

Not to mention the fact that the airline would have had to be complicit in all of this too. I don't even know how anyone can believe in this missile theory in the face of these very obvious points.

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

So which do you think it was, missile (twirls finger around temple) or plane?

 

I don't know I don't like making assumptions. but a 757 is huge where are all the bits?

 

Not much left when a plane full of fuel hits a reinforced concrete wall at 400 mph. The aluminium would vapourise almost entirely, other parts were clearly identified. There was a clear hole in the wall where the left engine struck, and the black boxes were recovered. How much more evidence do you want, bearing in mind air traffic control, phone calls, etc?

 

Shite how much heat does it take to completely vapourise many tonnes of aluminium and plastic. Why have other crashes not done so?.

 

Which bits?

 

The plane took 40 minutes after the first plane hit the twin tower to hit the pentagon. They seem a little Laissez faire for me.

 

 

At the sake of repeating my myself, you have no idea what happens in this situation. You cannot produce one example of a similar situation for proof there should be large pieces of wreckage visible. And finally, there are photographs of debris, inside the building, posted by me about 20 pages back.

 

 

What are you getting at with the 40 minutes bit?

[Rob W 0]

"The final goal was some higher power play (not involving the CIA or Bush) and not money"

 

he's blamong the Pope i reckon...................