9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom

< no text>

Ignatz wrote:< no text>

A "rope of light"? WTF???

chipmunk stew wrote:

Ignatz wrote:< no text>

A "rope of light"? WTF???

Tell me about it.

If the black helicopters are here, can the alien shape-shifting lizards be far behind?

Bushwacker wrote:If the black helicopters are here, can the alien shape-shifting lizards be far behind?

Wrong, Bushie, wrong. Pay attention now ...

heleicpoters

Your puny aliens lizards will be crushed by the heleicpoters !!

bwahahahahahhahaaaa

ROFL I hadn't noticed that incredible spelling!

Ignatz wrote:

Bushwacker wrote:If the black helicopters are here, can the alien shape-shifting lizards be far behind?

Wrong, Bushie, wrong. Pay attention now ...

heleicpoters

Your puny aliens lizards will be crushed by the heleicpoters !!

bwahahahahahhahaaaa

But the lizards have cloned Godzilla who will snatch the mysterious heleicpoters ropes of light and pull them from the sky!

Bushwacker wrote:

Ignatz wrote:

Bushwacker wrote:If the black helicopters are here, can the alien shape-shifting lizards be far behind?

Wrong, Bushie, wrong. Pay attention now ...

heleicpoters

Your puny aliens lizards will be crushed by the heleicpoters !!

bwahahahahahhahaaaa

But the lizards have cloned Godzilla who will snatch the mysterious heleicpoters ropes of light and pull them from the sky!

Bah ! bring 'em on

It's a tad disingenuous to present that quote from prole art's post as though it was his/her own opinion when prole is clearly listing different theories.

JimB wrote:It's a tad disingenuous to present that quote from prole art's post as though it was his/her own opinion when prole is clearly listing different theories.

Read the thread again, Jim:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5768

He's theorizing that all of them are true. That the perps used many different methods by design, to create infighting among citizen investigators.

It's quite clearly his own opinion (or at least his own speculation).

Conspiracists do not like to disbelieve any conspiracy theory, so will defend multiple conflicting theories. Prole Fart has found the perfect rationale for believing them all, it involves the conspirators making the unlikely prediction that "truthseekers" would emerge who would not accept their fiendishly cunning plan to blame 19 Arabs for it, but plausibility long ago was dismissed by truthshirkers as an outdated concept.

Bushwacker wrote:Conspiracists do not like to disbelieve any conspiracy theory, so will defend multiple conflicting theories. Prole Fart has found the perfect rationale for believing them all, it involves the conspirators making the unlikely prediction that "truthseekers" would emerge who would not accept their fiendishly cunning plan to blame 19 Arabs for it, but plausibility long ago was dismissed by truthshirkers as an outdated concept.

the point was'nt that those theorys were true, he was just pointing out that it could be possible if a conspiracy has taken place that it could be a mixture of some of the theorys. that dosnt mean all of them either. nothing is balck and white, there is nothing that says it can only be one way. example what if you critics are right apart from one of the plane imapcts, lets say flight 93 for example. what if the hijackers did hijack all the planes and crash them into buildings apart from flight 93, that was shot down to make the effect better in order to get better support for war, and that the adminstration had planned this before hand because they had proir knowledge of 9/11. now none of that is proberbly true but it just points out what the point was with proles post. it might not just be one theory.

chipmunk stew wrote:Read the thread again, Jim:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=5768

He's theorizing that all of them are true. That the perps used many different methods by design, to create infighting among citizen investigators.

It's quite clearly his own opinion (or at least his own speculation).

Thanks for the correction, I did misread Prole's post. Must've been the lack of caffeine.

shills shill shill in the hills shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shi shill shill shill shill shill shill shillll shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shillll shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shilll shill shill sshill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill Shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill ssshill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill sssshill shill shill shill shill shill shill shillll shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill ssshill Shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shilly shill shill shillll shill shill Shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill ssshill shill shill shill shill shill shill shillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill Shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill sshill shilllll shill shill shill shill Shill shill shill shill shill ssshill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill.


SHILLS

Gosh, Patrick, that's one heck of a convincing argument. Did you find that sticking your fingers in your ears to block out unpleasant truths and shouting a lot won many arguments in the playground?

Bushwacker wrote:Gosh, Patrick, that's one heck of a convincing argument. Did you find that sticking your fingers in your ears to block out unpleasant truths and shouting a lot won many arguments in the playground?

If you guys want to talk-up each others A-holes then that's fine by me. Just remember that you're not fouling anybody but yourselves.

Patrick Brown wrote:shills shill shill in the hills shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shi shill shill shill shill shill shill shillll shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shillll shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shilll shill shill sshill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill Shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill ssshill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill sssshill shill shill shill shill shill shill shillll shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill ssshill Shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shilly shill shill shillll shill shill Shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill ssshill shill shill shill shill shill shill shillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill Shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill sshill shilllll shill shill shill shill Shill shill shill shill shill ssshill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill shill.


SHILLS

It's a nonsense job though, Patrick.
The cheque is always "in the post"

Ignatz wrote:It's a nonsense job though, Patrick.
The cheque is always "in the post"

Yeah I heard it's a sh*t job.
Just be careful you don't step in anything and enjoy your sperlunking.

Hey is that your foot in BS's arse?

Wouldn't you rather sniff mine?

Bushwacker wrote:plausibility long ago was dismissed by truthshirkers as an outdated concept.

Come now Bushwacker: did I not plausably demonstrate to you the methodology by which the 9/11 plot could be kept secret? Never a word in reply from yourself there, despite your admission that the towers collapse seemed "highly unlikely" and the main factor in you doubting the "inside Job" position was the unfeasablity of orchestrating the plot and cover-up succesfully: so its seems plausability is of zero interest to critics when it undermines their argument

The truth is, Coincidence Theorists and Conspiracy Theorists alike display the same behaviour, simply with different preferences, and that's humans with ego's for you

So do we take the piss out of spelling as a form of constructive argument now?

John White wrote:

Bushwacker wrote:plausibility long ago was dismissed by truthshirkers as an outdated concept.

Come now Bushwacker: did I not plausably demonstrate to you the methodology by which the 9/11 plot could be kept secret? Never a word in reply from yourself there, despite your admission that the towers collapse seemed "highly unlikely" and the main factor in you doubting the "inside Job" position was the unfeasablity of orchestrating the plot and cover-up succesfully: so its seems plausability is of zero interest to critics when it undermines their argument

The truth is, Coincidence Theorists and Conspiracy Theorists alike display the same behaviour, simply with different preferences, and that's humans with ego's for you

Sorry, I must have missed it, I have had a rummage back and I take it you mean this:

"Controlling an Investigation

Here in blighty we are a cynical lot, becuase we have a long exposed history of, for want of a better way of putting it, the State fitting people up. Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, etc etc etc, literally hundreds of examples of gross miscarriages of Justice. But hundreds of people worked on those cases, policemen, forensic scientists, expert witnesses, lawyers, barristers, judges, politicians gave speeches, journalists wrote stories, and so on and so on. Course, when it comes to judges we'd believe anything about that bunch (lol), but can we seriously consider that all those personages knowingly stitched up those poor buggers and banged them in the slammer for two decades? Of course not: but they all played their part with a clean conscience. To control an investigation, all one does is have a handful (perhaps even just a single) of people who decide what is and isnt relevant to be investigated. This is exactly what we see with the exposed Whitewash of the 9/11 commission with Zelicow sat at the top of the tree as executive director

The scientist working for NIST (or whoever) isnt involved in strategic decisions about the course of the investigation. Even if he had quibles, he's got that powerful consensus trance keeping him from taking the risk of expressing his doubts. Hes asked to "test this", "analysis that", "run this experiment", and thats all he's required to do: he runs the results, writes the numbers down, passes the report up the chain, takes his labcoat off, and drives home to dinner with his wife and kids. And thats ALL he does. Its the bare handful who set the direction of the investigation and decide what to include in the final report who are the only ones required to be willing to do a job. And there are no end of cover stories those people can be sold to make them conform to supporting the Lie: again with a clean conscience

Try this one (just off the top of my head):

"Mr Bloggs. What I am about to say is a matter of utmost National Security. Al-Queda managed to penetrate security far more than the government has been able to let the public know, in order to avoid mass panic. They were able to place bombs in the buildings and use them to bring the towers down. On going investigations at the highest level will lead to the capture of those responsible. However, it is vital for the public interest that your report does not give propoganda to the enemy by revealing to the public how effective these terrorist scum really were"

"Yes sir, I'll do my part Sir!"

And you see, although my example is purely speculative (and I could come you with ten or so no problem), the FACT that high level cover up's DO occur is simply not disputable. What then would we expect to see?

Well, we might expect to see a handful of key personal work on both the NIST and the FEMA reports who had a history of investigating these kinds of incidents before and producing reports that ignored massive evidance to the contary...and that is exactly what we DO see...

OKC Murrah building report authors:
Gene Corley
Charles Thornton
Paul Miaker
Mete Sozen"



I am afraid that I do not find that scenario very plausible at all. The scientists who are asked to "test this", "analysis that", "run this experiment" would be very strange if they did not also read the report produced, and spot where its conclusions differed from their tests. Those directing them, even if they bought into the cover story at the time, would hardly be doing so five years later. Remember also that the main point of conducting the research is to be able to improve the design of future buildings, by producing a false report these researchers are hindering, not helping that process, which is the whole point of their work. The report itself is studied by the world's structural engineers who would pick up on flaws, accidental or deliberate, the peer review process, conducted after publication.

I cannot find where I said the towers' collapse seemed highly unlikely, but if I did I must have meant before the event. Like many things that happen, it was not thought likely, not forecast at all, but was understandable after it happened. The factors causing me to doubt the "inside job" position are not only the feasibility of orchestrating the plot and cover-up, but the technical problems, and the unliklihood of Bush, even if himself paranoid enough, carrying sufficient others along with him.

What I can find that I said was:

"You find the collapse of WTC after a 45 minute fire implausible, an impossibility in fact.

Against that I would cite the design of the towers, with large clear floor areas, requiring long floor trusses with their vulnerability, the extensive damage they had already suffered and the opinions of experts, including those of the towers engineers that are still alive.

I find it implausible that three huge occupied buildings were set up for demolition without anyone noticing, that demolition charges and detonators survived the impacts and fires, that WTC7 was included, since it added nothing to the spectacle and might not have been damaged by debris, giving no excuse for demolition, that "they" could have arranged for the planes to be flown into the buildings, and that enough conspirators could be found and persuaded to keep quiet.

Trying to judge between the two sets of implausibilities, the 45 minute collapse due to fire and damage, sounds very quick, admittedly, but I am not an engineer.

The other set seems to me to form a quite insuperable barrier." (although I wrote 'quiet' for 'quite' at the time)

I am sorry if that gave the impression that I thought the collapse of any building implausible. When I talked of two sets of implausibilities, I meant what you found implausible and what I did, which were, and are, obviously not the same. Of what you found implausible, I said that it "sounds very quick, admittedly, but I am not an engineer. "

Well Bushwacker, at least you have found it worth your while to address my scenario somewhat: I believe you are expecting rather a lot of an individual scientist, and really havnt come close to addressing the meat of the POV:

Here in blighty we are a cynical lot, becuase we have a long exposed history of, for want of a better way of putting it, the State fitting people up. Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, etc etc etc, literally hundreds of examples of gross miscarriages of Justice. But hundreds of people worked on those cases, policemen, forensic scientists, expert witnesses, lawyers, barristers, judges, politicians gave speeches, journalists wrote stories, and so on and so on. Course, when it comes to judges we'd believe anything about that bunch (lol), but can we seriously consider that all those personages knowingly stitched up those poor buggers and banged them in the slammer for two decades? Of course not: but they all played their part with a clean conscience. To control an investigation, all one does is have a handful (perhaps even just a single) of people who decide what is and isnt relevant to be investigated. This is exactly what we see with the exposed Whitewash of the 9/11 commission with Zelicow sat at the top of the tree as executive director

But that's alright, becuase you and I both know you cant credibly deny coverups happen and there must be a mechanism by which they happen without requiring the majority of people's contributions knowingly being part of the coverup, just as we both know you will always come back with "yes, but you cant prove that's the case with 9/11", and we can complete our circuit by coming back to "and thats why we are campaigning for a new investigation" and all be home in time for tea

However, I would say that its completely unnessacary to do all therse scientific tests to learn how to make skyscrapers that will stand up after Plane impacts:

We would meerly have to rebuild the towers as they were, becuase ALL the evidence says those buildings were always up to that task, and I'm not the one smeering the good name of the designers and the construction labours who laboured so hard to make them a wonder of the world and a symbol of the height of the american civilisation

Not that your actions make you lose sleep at night, of course, but it would be refreshing if critics could credibly demonstrate the flaws in the orignal construction and design, and I shall continue to hold the view that human nature is vastly more pliable than steel

PS: If your thinking "Yes but coverups get exposed", I believe I speak for the whole campaign when I say:

YES. WE KNOW

John White wrote:Well Bushwacker, at least you have found it worth your while to address my scenario somewhat: I believe you are expecting rather a lot of an individual scientist, and really havnt come close to addressing the meat of the POV:

Here in blighty we are a cynical lot, becuase we have a long exposed history of, for want of a better way of putting it, the State fitting people up. Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, etc etc etc, literally hundreds of examples of gross miscarriages of Justice. But hundreds of people worked on those cases, policemen, forensic scientists, expert witnesses, lawyers, barristers, judges, politicians gave speeches, journalists wrote stories, and so on and so on. Course, when it comes to judges we'd believe anything about that bunch (lol), but can we seriously consider that all those personages knowingly stitched up those poor buggers and banged them in the slammer for two decades? Of course not: but they all played their part with a clean conscience. To control an investigation, all one does is have a handful (perhaps even just a single) of people who decide what is and isnt relevant to be investigated. This is exactly what we see with the exposed Whitewash of the 9/11 commission with Zelicow sat at the top of the tree as executive director

But that's alright, becuase you and I both know you cant credibly deny coverups happen and there must be a mechanism by which they happen without requiring the majority of people's contributions knowingly being part of the coverup, just as we both know you will always come back with "yes, but you cant prove that's the case with 9/11", and we can complete our circuit by coming back to "and thats why we are campaigning for a new investigation" and all be home in time for tea

However, I would say that its completely unnessacary to do all therse scientific tests to learn how to make skyscrapers that will stand up after Plane impacts:

We would meerly have to rebuild the towers as they were, becuase ALL the evidence says those buildings were always up to that task, and I'm not the one smeering the good name of the designers and the construction labours who laboured so hard to make them a wonder of the world and a symbol of the height of the american civilisation

Not that your actions make you lose sleep at night, of course, but it would be refreshing if critics could credibly demonstrate the flaws in the orignal construction and design, and I shall continue to hold the view that human nature is vastly more pliable than steel

PS: If your thinking "Yes but coverups get exposed", I believe I speak for the whole campaign when I say:

YES. WE KNOW

The examples you give are not of the State, as such, fitting people up, but the police, certainly an organ of the State, but not acting under State control in those actions. The police came under great pressure in those high profile cases to get results, and the innocent suffered in the process. In all probability the police were not intentionally fitting up innocents, in most cases they were convinced they have the right suspects but the evidence was not there, so they manufactured it. The rest of the criminal justice system took the evidence at face value. This whole sequence of events is very different from deliberately covering up mass murder.

To maintain that the towers could not be improved upon is frankly not a tenable position to take. Building codes constantly evolve and buildings improve, it would be very strange if they did not. To say that is not to denigrate the work of previous builders and designers in any way. Let us take one example that does not depend on the collapse mechanism. Most people above the level of the plane impacts were unable to get down passed the floors affected and were trapped. Better protected stairwells might have saved them. The fire protection systems in the towers as originally built came to be regarded as inadequte in their lifetime, sprinklers were installed and spray-on fire protection increased. This was not a criticism of the original builders, who applied what was required at the time they were built. No one is suggesting the towers were a fundamentally flawed design, but they were not beyond improvement in detail.

Here is a summary of NIST's recommendations.