Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
RE: AE911Truth
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
Blondie#2
Posts: 530
Joined: Sep. 14 2010
|
 RE: AE911Truth (in reply to Jim Opfer)
|
|
|
quote:
WTC7 was reported on the BBC news as having just collapsed and the tower can be seen still standing in the background through the news room window...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html
The other day I was watching BBC news 24 reporting on the horrific nightclub fire in Brazil. As events unfolded and information came in, the reportage was confused and contradictory in places. "We now know that at least *** people have died" said the reporter, whilst the figure quoted in the ticker tape text across the screen said something completely different and contradictory.
Happens all the time, Jim, it is the nature of lives news (I used to work at the BBC) and gosh, reporters sometimes make mistakes, more often now that we have 'real time' news.
When the whole world is watching, information is pouring in from dozens of sources, your producer is screaming instructions in your ear, and you are reporting from what is pretty much a war zone, it really is not a big surprise that when plenty of sources are telling you the building is 'about to collapse' or 'not sure if it has collapsed; that you report 'it has collapsed' by mistake.
The above blog reports in detail events on the day, I won't bother repeating it. Conspiracy theorists will never be satisfied because of the way their mind works - simple explanations, coincidences and human f*** ups are just not as sexy and are seen as 'part of the cover up', you cannot win.
If there was the slightest truth in the BBC 'predicting' the collapse, and therefore having insider information, journalists would be all over it like a swarm of bees, including BBC journos, just like they are with the Jimmy Saville scandal.
This is how conspiracies work Jim - you can connect anything you like to it and make it bigger if you really want to. If I wanted to I would look up what the Royal family were doing on that day and find something 'suspicious' that links them to the conspiracy too. Soon that would be round the internet.
If you could 'go on' you need to do a lot better than that.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 31 2013 8:36:40
 |
|
XXX
Posts: 4400
Joined: Apr. 14 2005
|
|
RE: AE911Truth (in reply to brandoscostumes)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: brandoscostumes
are you aware of the unimaginable quantities of money european countries, mainly france and germany, the loudest opponents of the war, made by selling saddam hussein weapons all the way until 2003 despite the sanctions? that is the real untold story of the war. this is what bush was talking about when he said you are with us or with the terrorists -- if youre not part of the solution you are part of the problem.
europe has always been a complete joke in terms of fighting terrorism even within the country of afghanistan where 99% of the 'coalition' fighting and deaths are from americans, brits, and canadians. for a known terrorist in the 80s and 90s the safest place to be was london. nonchalant attitudes about terrorism from europeans are based on sheer ignorance and resentment about being under US protection and generally incapable and unwilling to act militarily at decisive moments even in their own backyard.
in any case the official position of the US had been to remove saddam hussein since the clinton years. they didnt need 9/11 as a justification and indeed the biggest hole in the truther theory is bush's failure to conclusively connect hussein to the attack, much easier to manufacture than the conspiracy itself.
The definition of a person or group as terrorists depends on whether they are acting in your against your interests. Countries have no problems to collaborate with islamic extremists if those extremists are fighting against a regime that said countries consider their enemy (ie Syria, Lybia, etc etc). In other cases islamic extremists are considered the enemy itself (ie Afghanistan) so they get called terrorists. Saddam Hussein was an ally of the west himself, but then he fell from grace with Quwait and suddenly he becomes an evil person? "Terrorist" my ass... not to mention that Hussein was defending his state AGAINST islamic extremists, same as Gaddafi.
_____________________________
Фламенко
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 31 2013 9:08:32
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: AE911Truth (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lenador
quote:
I guess turbines are of aluminium too then?
I dont get it, they found the turbines.....I posted a picture earlier......
From inside the building, right? Stephen was implying that they would had been rejected ( thus the originally small hole ) and should consequently have been found outside the building.
How do you make sense of the alleged debris of an airliner and the initial size of the hole in the wall?
Maybe the terrorists prepared the plane with grease ... or with soapsuds ... Could that work? :O|
Or maybe the slick terrorists started the plane from the basement ...
... Hey, that could be a new likelihood to consider!
Blondie,
It is not just pimply teenagers who find too many details excluding each other.
You as someone who has worked in the information branch could have heard of the apparatus that is there to exactly prevent that some notorious fanatics and simple-minded dilettants, who on top had been observed and announced by European intelligence, to prepare a desaster in the USA. ( After all GB comes in second with most dense observation after the USA I think, so you might have heard sometime of corresponding efforts taken.)
I suppose you have come accross the unbelievable number of US tracking organisations, havn´t you.
And you may have noticed that towers held by remarkably solid steel cradle were colliding at rate of fall.
You believe a planes burning fuel together with what? ... 2, 5, 10, 15, 20% of load increase through impacting floors make a skyscraper dissolve in such ways. Wait, even two, no, three buildings all wrinkling that very same way?
And leaving liquid steel beams glowing still three weeks after the incident?
All conventional incidence through what kerosin and battery acid?
Up from how many bizarre coincidences will you start thinking of something else than ordinary live news contradictions?
Would under 1001 plain oddities do?
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 31 2013 9:39:16
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: AE911Truth (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
Conspiracy theorists are nothing new. There is a certain type of person for whom no rational explanation, no amount of evidence, and no reasoned argument based on the evidence will suffice.
There are people today who genuinely believe that the earth is flat, and there is actually a Flat Earth Society to accommodate them. Evidence through the ages from the ancient Greeks to modern science, proving that the earth is spherical, does not sway them because it would disturb there congenitally-imprinted narrative that the earth is flat.
There were then, and still are, people who do not believe man walked on the moon in 1969. Against all evidence, they believe, among other alternatives, that the successful moon mission was all cooked up by the US Government, and what everyone saw on TV was actually filmed at a desert landscape with a meteor crater in Northern Arizona. No amount of evidence will convince them otherwise because it would disturb their narrative of the event as they want to believe it.
Although I facetiously referred to it in an earlier posting, there are people today who actually do believe that there is a secretive conspiratorial society at large in the world known as the Illuminati. According to those who believe in this conspiracy theory, the Illuminati are preparing to rule the world, and in some respects already influence us.
There are Right-Wing militia nuts in the US who believe that the US Government is the enemy, and by the way, so is the United Nations. They believe the UN is preparing to take over the US, with the connivance of the US Government, and they are always sighting "Black Helicopters" as evidence.
So the AE911Truth "Truther" conspiracy theorists are nothing new. They and their followers are just another in a long line of groups and individuals who reject rational thought and evidenced-based reasoning, and instead opt for what they consider more "sexy" explanations for events and phenomena. One could pile on as much evidence as possible and it still would not deter them from pursuing their dreams of conspiratorial activity. In fact, and here is the final irony, the more you provide reasoned argument and evidence-based conclusions that undermine their precious conspiracy theories, the more convinced they become that you yourself are part of the conspiracy. For if you were not part of the conspiracy, why would you argue against it if not to conceal and protect it from exposure?
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 31 2013 10:58:27
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: AE911Truth (in reply to Blondie#2)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH
quote:
For which invasion he had received *approval beforehand in a phone call with Bush senior.
Another assertion that bears no resemblance to reality. Where do you get this stuff?
Bill
quote:
ORIGINAL:me
according to DER SPIEGEL of that time, who should had been sued the living hell out of if they hadnt had prove at hand to back up the report.
Not that it escapes your blinkers again.
I don not wonder what you would do if you found my statement correct and that the paper was never sued to revoke. ( = not apologize) ... And that countless of such lowly items have been reported over the decades of which the very least were picked up by any other media anywhere, but mysteriously quietly left to faint away by an international press that according to you would be all so eager to follow whatever they feel to.
( Yeah, often times I would call up friends to tell them of appaling things so freaking to them that I had to name them edition and site so that they could read up themselves. Some, formerly just as neglecting as Joe average, became critical minds over the course of so many years with yours truely pointing to the untold.
- And correspondingly accidentally the papers slogan used to be: "Spiegelleser wissen mehr" = "Our readers know more". Which was just as simple as it used to be true as long as reading was only regular and attentive.)
The truth is that there usually is distinct preselection of what can be medially pursued and published and what not. And what is so phenomenal about it is how strictly the media control actually works in firm degrees throughout nations, international formations or sometimes worldwide, depending on the subject and quality of action.
Just like that OK of Bush for Saddam´s invasion in Kuwait.
Other than in the SPIEGEL it - like other thelike dispatches - was never heard of it anywhere. Where only have been those sensational colleagues in the world that would had quoted this remarkable note? And if it would had been merely to question or ridicule it?
Maybe they had some dilpomatic staff like Bill around who might have informed them that such sinister levels were simply impossible under the sincerity of the White House. 
While he is trying to pontificate and ridicule about conspiracy theorists, his stand presents the most odd, with that Alice in Wonderland coloring of sheer incredibly inhumane policies, crime and destruction.
Trying to refurbish conditions that at least for their basics scale are known to the worlds common sense, including even of the apathetic majority.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Blondie#2
I think you might be pointing to failures in intelligence to spot and prevent the attack, if that's the case I would agree.
Worse, unfortunately.
I claim that such "failure" was absolutely impossible.
First of all for the sheer giant apparatus that these awkward amateurs would have had to slip through, and moreover and at the latest for the fact that numerous European intelligent services had announced the crossing over assassins to the CIA.
What more could you be needing? A soap bubbling elephant in a bathtub that you would be overlooking while reading your readers digest on the loo?
Somewhere there ought to be a cognitive sensation for limits of plausibility, or may wishing for an ideal world justify any degree of polishing turds?
Can on principle there be what shouldn´t, or can it not?
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 31 2013 13:01:55
|
|
BarkellWH
Posts: 3458
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
|
|
RE: AE911Truth (in reply to Jim Opfer)
|
|
|
quote:
I'm sorry to have to say your hole in the wall belief is false. The press and TV made big play on the later collapse and that was broadcast everywhere. That established the base for the story a plane hit the Pentagon. It's a bit like learning bad technique playing guitar, the longer one persists, the harder it is to remedy.
If you look at those photos after the collapse of the facade, you'll see a computer monitor and papers pinned on walls. When you compare this to the fire ball that's meant to have destroyed the towers, it's clear it was not a plane crash. Unless you can clarify otherwise?
Easy one, Jim. The Pentagon is located in an area where major roads pass by, and there were motorists on the road who saw the plane come in low and hit the Pentagon. They provided their stories to news programs at the time. Not only that, as has been noted above by me and others, the force of the impact and burning aviation fuel not only caused the structural damage that led to the collapse of that side of the Pentagon, it also led to the virtual disintegration of the plane itself, although there were sufficient parts left to identify it as an aircraft.
One of the "Truther's" favorite theories is that a missile destroyed the side of the Pentagon, and, of course, that leads them to believe that the US military launched the missile and then blamed it on the plane. I guess the "Truthers" believe that those identifiable elements of an aircraft found at the site were "planted" there the night before, and that the motorists who claimed to have seen the plane come in low and hit the Pentagon were part of the conspiracy as well. And, of course, none of this even begins to explain why the "Truthers" think the military would want to destroy their own headquarters.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East."
--Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 31 2013 13:25:56
|
|
Ruphus
Posts: 3782
Joined: Nov. 18 2010
|
|
RE: AE911Truth (in reply to BarkellWH)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH
One of the "Truther's" favorite theories is that a missile destroyed the side of the Pentagon, and, of course, that leads them to believe that the US military launched the missile and then blamed it on the plane.
That is why they fabricated that photo with that small hole.
But we ain´t dumb and will look at the one Stephen provided with nicely square entrance of an airplane that hit the building at an angle.
One more time physics being so much more flexible than I used to thik. Should I ever be about to crash into a halting car, I only hope to bounce off the street square instead.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BarkellWH
And, of course, none of this even begins to explain why the "Truthers" think the military would want to destroy their own headquarters.
Cheers,
Bill
Of course. Not their own!
Whose? Of US tax payers?
In a world that has never seen any routines of draining states budgets into private caskets through produced demands of overblown bids for construction projects. Naturally no; not ever.
And such standards of draining off wouldn´t be international common ways of proceeding anyway. Would they.
Just what a coincidence that this kind of casting off budgets through large-scale projects ( like of the Brandenburg airport e.g.) just of late has become a topic even in main stream media in Germany.
But hey peanuts of how many insurance and rebuidling billions for ground zero and pentagon are not worth first grade instigations, are they. Let alone far outshining economical aspects of pursued strategies for an unindependent Near East and rivaling Asia as discussed by folks like Zbigniew Brzezinski.
For in Joe average´s and Bill´s perception the pentagon is the strategists´ "own" and thus already paradoxical to demolish / rebuild of. Ain´t things nicely plain. What a fabulous and lucid world that is.
What have paranoids been spinning conspiracy on Iran-Contra affairs alike tempers. How could they ever fancy so foolishly. tsk, tsk, tsk 
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jan. 31 2013 14:31:35
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.109375 secs.
|
Printable Version
