Should we know and do we care?

[aintforever]

The idea that an American military plane fired a missile into the Pentagon in broad daylight is just way to bizzare to believe. It would just take one Japanese tourist with a camera to blow the whole thing wide open. Anyone who believes it was anything other than a passenger plane is an idiot.

 

There is not enough precedent for planes being flown purposely into large buildings to say the hole doesn't look right etc.

 

IMO the ONLY possible way 9/11 could have been done by the Americans was if a small group of agents infiltrated the terrorists and were flying the planes. If someone comes up with the passenger lists including names of known Israeli flight trained agents on then I might believe in a conspiracy.

 

Rigging the twin towers with dynamite, shooting missles at buildings - all way to unbelievable and impossibly risky.

Edited 16 September, 2011 by aintforever

[pap]

i'm not sure what this means. Are you saying there is no evidence of 757 plane wreckage?

 

Oh, and still want to know who you think did it if not Al Qaeda. Go on - have a stab (so to speak).

 

I was merely pointing out that if you want to debunk the 'no 757' theory, the best strategy would be to show a 757 flying into the Pentagon. The footage that was posted did not show this.

[Verbal]

I was merely pointing out that if you want to debunk the 'no 757' theory, the best strategy would be to show a 757 flying into the Pentagon. The footage that was posted did not show this.

 

A bit silly, don't you think? Unless Al Qaeda sent out a press release, I doubt CNN had time to set up their cameras. So we're left with what little footage there is (security cams etc)

 

But are you also saying there is no evidence that a 757 flew into the Pentagon?

[keithd]

Look what a military plane dropped outside the pentagon after the CIA threw a bomb/missile into it!!

 

[pap]

A bit silly, don't you think? Unless Al Qaeda sent out a press release, I doubt CNN had time to set up their cameras. So we're left with what little footage there is (security cams etc)

 

But are you also saying there is no evidence that a 757 flew into the Pentagon?

 

No, I'm not. I'm saying that the evidence that exists is highly disputed, and that the videos do nothing to back it up.

 

You make an interesting point about cameras. I am surprised that there isn't more footage of this event. This is one of the key questions. 99% of my skepticism would disappear if there was conclusive proof that this definitely was a 757.

[pap]

Look what a military plane dropped outside the pentagon after the CIA threw a bomb/missile into it!!

 

 

Yup. They could have put some scorch marks on it or something.

[Verbal]

No, I'm not. I'm saying that the evidence that exists is highly disputed, and that the videos do nothing to back it up.

 

You make an interesting point about cameras. I am surprised that there isn't more footage of this event. This is one of the key questions. 99% of my skepticism would disappear if there was conclusive proof that this definitely was a 757.

 

But how hard do you really have to look for conclusive proof - honestly? Try this test. Give yourself 30 seconds to find it. That's really all you need.

 

Maybe even start here (although there are so many places to look)

 

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

 

And while it may be true to say the evidence is 'highly disputed', it's only true in the sense that the events at the Pentagon are disputed by the groaning weight of 'truther' websites claiming (a) there's no wreckage, and then (b) changing their story to say that the wreckage that's there is planted. It's like arguing with religious fundamentalists, in that no evidence actually counts against their cause. So it becomes a bit pointless. Rebutting John Smith, for example, is a waste of time; no one could possible dislodge his self-satisfying fantasies, and you're just left feeling (very) slightly sorry for him.

 

Oh, and before you shoot back with some claim that anyone who says the overwhelming and obvious evidence is that these attacks were carried out by Al Qaeda is in some way swallowing the 'official version' whole, just remember that most of what's in the public domain today, and published in reputable papers and journals, has been put together by journalists and writers independently investigating the incidents. Only a small amount of what they write is derived from 'official' sources. If you seriously doubt this, check out what is still the finest book, in my opinion, written on 9/11 and the events leading up to it, Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower. I simply couldn't imagine anyone, after reading it, still thinking that 9/11 was carried out by some amalgam of the Bush administration, some Matrix-like masters of a parallel universe, or the Mysterons.

[Verbal]

Yup. They could have put some scorch marks on it or something.

 

Why should it have scorch marks?

[buctootim]

Yup. They could have put some scorch marks on it or something.

 

But then you'd be able to say "its all burnt, it looks like part of the missile"

[pap]

Had a look through all of those photos you linked. Many of the videos on the subject use the same photos to prove the opposite case. Power to you if you consider that conclusive.

 

Do you not find some of the coincidences fascinating though? Like the drills that were happening on 9/11 that were simulating terrorist attacks using jet planes as weapons? Or the drills on 7/7, which Peter Power, chairman of Visor security, sheepishly admitted that his firm were doing a drill that day which was simulating a multiple bomb terrorist attack in London using the exact same targets?

 

[Verbal]

Had a look through all of those photos you linked. Many of the videos on the subject use the same photos to prove the opposite case. Power to you if you consider that conclusive.

 

Do you not find some of the coincidences fascinating though? Like the drills that were happening on 9/11 that were simulating terrorist attacks using jet planes as weapons? Or the drills on 7/7, which Peter Power, chairman of Visor security, sheepishly admitted that his firm were doing a drill that day which was simulating a multiple bomb terrorist attack in London using the exact same targets?

 

Fascinating why? What meaning do you attach to them? Do you think the British government blew up the London Underground on 7/7? Do you believe the Bush adminsitration sent a missile into its own defence headquarters?

[pap]

Fascinating why? What meaning do you attach to them? Do you think the British government blew up the London Underground on 7/7? Do you believe the Bush adminsitration sent a missile into its own defence headquarters?

 

That's certainly what some contest.

 

But it's not about beliefs, is it? It's about explanations. There are too many things around these events that have not been properly explained or investigated. C'mon, Verbal - what's your explanation for these drills happening at the times that they did?

[buctootim]

I wonder why the Head of Britain's intelligence service would criticise Government for using terror attacks as a justification for introducing legislation which restricts individual rights? After all she was complicit in 9/11 and organised 7/7 surely Pap?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/former-head-of-mi5-says-42day-detention-plan-is-unworkable-862947.html

[Verbal]

That's certainly what some contest.

 

But it's not about beliefs, is it? It's about explanations. There are too many things around these events that have not been properly explained or investigated. C'mon, Verbal - what's your explanation for these drills happening at the times that they did?

 

It's not about beliefs in the strictest sense. It's about plausibility and sense. No data or information exists in a vacuum. An investigator into an unexplained death must work with the information to hand - forensic, physical - and a plausible, non-ridiculous explanation for that data. You can't have one without the other, otherwise it's just meaningless. So, once again, do you think it plausible that the UK government blew up the underground on 7/7 and that the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11, including blowing itself up?

[pap]

I think it's possible, yes.

 

I've answered your question. Now, what explanation are you going to provide for the drills?

[Verbal]

I think it's possible, yes.

 

I've answered your question. Now, what explanation are you going to provide for the drills?

 

The drills? Which ones? There were drills in the Underground and drills before 9/11. I would be amazed if there weren't. But what's to explain?

 

And thanks, finally, for at least part of an answer - that you think the UK government killed its own citizens. What motive can you think of for this extraordinary act?

Edited 16 September, 2011 by Verbal

[buctootim]

For many years my uncle organised security for the major government buildings and oil installations in the middle east. He was responsible for the ground up anti terrosrist and anti bugging design of the OPEC building. He knew everybody in the security services both in the UK and abroad. In his office he had a satellite photograph of Putin taking a **** against a tree. My brother in law managed the maintenance of the UK Trident nuclear warheads programme. Because, not despite, their jobs they are passionate about avoiding political intereference, the importance of proper public accountability and of only acting in the public interest. They both find it absolutely inconceivable that such plots as you and John Smith espouse are possible - the security services are full of people who wouldnt act for politicians against the national interest and would capsize and expose any such attempts. Thats more than good enough for me.

Edited 16 September, 2011 by buctootim

[pap]

The drills? Which ones? There were drills in the Underground and drills before 9/11. I would be amazed if there weren't. But what's to explain?

 

And thanks, finally, for at least part of an answer - that you think the UK government killed its own citizens. What motive can you think of for this extraordinary act?

 

Don't put words in my mouth. Anyone who reads my (unedited) post can see that I said "I thought it was possible". Anyone with a basic grasp of the English language would appreciate the distinction between "I think it's possible" and "this is what I believe".

 

Do you have to pay to be a member of the Cretin Club, or have they given you an honorary position on the basis of lifetime achievement?

[Verbal]

Don't put words in my mouth. Anyone who reads my (unedited) post can see that I said "I thought it was possible". Anyone with a basic grasp of the English language would appreciate the distinction between "I think it's possible" and "this is what I believe".

 

Do you have to pay to be a member of the Cretin Club, or have they given you an honorary position on the basis of lifetime achievement?

 

So if you think it's possible, what motive can you think of for such an extraordinary act? Obviously you have SOMETHING in mind, otherwise you wouldn't 'think it's possible'.

[View From The Top]

Pap, I always had you down as a sensible sort of chap. It turns out that you are, in fact, a 'kin loon.

[pap]

Ah, don't be like that, VFTT - I also think it's possible that everything went down exactly as described.

 

I do think there are questions to be answered though.

[Verbal]

Ah, don't be like that, VFTT - I also think it's possible that everything went down exactly as described.

 

I do think there are questions to be answered though.

 

It's only 'possible' that Mohammad Siddique Khan and his idiotic chums carried out the 7/7 bombings? Is that what you're saying? Really? No more than possible?

 

Of course, I realise why you're so snippy - it's because when your conspiracy theory is held up to daylight it's really hard not to laugh.

[pap]

It's only 'possible' that Mohammad Siddique Khan and his idiotic chums carried out the 7/7 bombings? Is that what you're saying? Really? No more than possible?

 

Of course, I realise why you're so snippy - it's because when your conspiracy theory is held up to daylight it's really hard not to laugh.

 

I think I've been very careful not to construct an elaborate theory on here, despite your repeated attempts at fishing for one.

 

One possibility that has obviously escaped your attention is that Siddique Khan and friends could have been unwittingly directed by others.

[Verbal]

I think I've been very careful not to construct an elaborate theory on here, despite your repeated attempts at fishing for one.

 

One possibility that has obviously escaped your attention is that Siddique Khan and friends could have been unwittingly directed by others.

 

In what way 'unwittingly directed'? And by whom? What plausible circumstances could possibly explain this little hypothesis of yours.

 

And if the 7/7 attackers were 'directed', surely the buffoons on 21/7 were also 'directed'. But if so, wouldn't we know by now, since they are all not only alive but doing 40 years each at HM's pleasure. Don't you think it might have come up, at least in mitigation, at their trial, that they were really foot soldiers for John Prescott or whomever?

[pap]

Siddique Khan and his cohorts were terrorists. Terrorists normally operate in decentralized cell networks, with minimal contact between the cells. If they were operating under orders, how would they know whether their handler was a genuine jihadist or an operative?

 

As to your second question, how do you even make that link? 7/7 and 21/7 are two separate events. And as I've made clear in my first point, they might not have even known they were being directed.

 

You don't have to be in on the plan to be part of the plan.

[pap]

I wonder why the Head of Britain's intelligence service would criticise Government for using terror attacks as a justification for introducing legislation which restricts individual rights? After all she was complicit in 9/11 and organised 7/7 surely Pap?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/former-head-of-mi5-says-42day-detention-plan-is-unworkable-862947.html

 

Er? Wha?

 

Where did I ascribe blame? Or even commit to a viewpoint one way or the other.

 

Where have I said "this is how it went down"?

 

I've pointed to groups like Architects and Engineers for 911 truth, linked one of their vids. I don't endorse every point they make, but I think it adds something to the debate. Isn't that what it is all about?

 

I've read your posts, and while I don't agree with them, I'm trying my best to remain respectful and realise that you have your opinion too.

 

If you want to construct your own theory that the head of MI5 organised 7/7, you're free to do so - but don't pass it off as mine.

[Verbal]

Siddique Khan and his cohorts were terrorists. Terrorists normally operate in decentralized cell networks, with minimal contact between the cells. If they were operating under orders, how would they know whether their handler was a genuine jihadist or an operative?

 

As to your second question, how do you even make that link? 7/7 and 21/7 are two separate events. And as I've made clear in my first point, they might not have even known they were being directed.

 

You don't have to be in on the plan to be part of the plan.

 

So the plot thickens...as it always does when theorists head off in this direction. You're now saying that despite Khan's extensive training in Pakistan, and residence at a now-known AQ safe house, it's 'possible' (see? I'm being careful!) that actually the plot was discovered and then taken over by...who exactly? And WHY? We come back to the same tiny problem: that you end up saying how 'possible' it is that the Labour Party (or MI5, or WI, etc) blew up the Underground. Doesn't that sound funny to you?

 

No offence, but I suspect part of the problem is that like JS you're poorly read. And I mean poorly read around serious writers who really do know their stuff. Read The Looming Tower and then tell us about your 'possibilities'.

Edited 16 September, 2011 by Verbal

[pap]

So the plot thickens...as it always does when theorists head off in this direction. You're now saying that despite Khan's extensive training in Pakistan, and residence at a now-known AQ safe house, it's 'possible' (see? I'm being careful!) that actually the plot was discovered and then taken over by...who exactly? And WHY? We come back to the same tiny problem: that you end up saying how 'possible' it is that the Labour Party (or MI5, or WI, etc) blew up the Underground. Doesn't that sound funny to you?

 

No offence, but I suspect part of the problem is that like JS you're poorly read. And I mean poorly read around serious writers who really do know their stuff. Read The Looming Tower and then tell us about your 'possibilities'.

 

Don't follow.

 

What bearing does Khan's training in Pakistan have on anything? Are you saying that because he was in Pakistan and underwent extensive training, that he could not have been manipulated in some way?

 

Same thing with the Al Qaeda safehouse. How does that exclude the possibility of manipulation?

 

Spell it out for me please, although don't use big words. I'm not very well read.

[aintforever]

Don't follow.

 

What bearing does Khan's training in Pakistan have on anything? Are you saying that because he was in Pakistan and underwent extensive training, that he could not have been manipulated in some way?

 

Same thing with the Al Qaeda safehouse. How does that exclude the possibility of manipulation?

 

Spell it out for me please, although don't use big words. I'm not very well read.

 

What evidence do you have that they were manipulated?

[Thedelldays]

What evidence do yo have that they were manipulated?

is there any that says they was not...?

[aintforever]

is there any that says they was not...?

 

Is there any to say it wasn't aliens?

[Thedelldays]

Is there any to say it wasn't aliens?

nope...

[buctootim]

Er? Wha?

 

Where did I ascribe blame? Or even commit to a viewpoint one way or the other.

 

Where have I said "this is how it went down"? If you want to construct your own theory that the head of MI5 organised 7/7, you're free to do so - but don't pass it off as mine.

 

But surely if you think its possible that the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks were orchestrated by government then the security services must have at least known about it and probably organised the attack - or do think its possible MI5 wouldnt know if there was a conspiracy within government to attack London and kill UK citizens?

[Verbal]

Don't follow.

 

What bearing does Khan's training in Pakistan have on anything? Are you saying that because he was in Pakistan and underwent extensive training, that he could not have been manipulated in some way?

 

Same thing with the Al Qaeda safehouse. How does that exclude the possibility of manipulation?

 

Spell it out for me please, although don't use big words. I'm not very well read.

 

As I say, I'm only trying to help. Being so poorly read is hindering you, I can tell. Seriously - read The Looming Tower. It's the Verbal Book Club Book of the Month.

 

And what does Khan's training have to do with anything? I imagine that the training in bomb-making, for example, had some bearing on events on 7/7, wouldn't you say? Or are you saying it's 'possible' he was actually trained by John Prescott (or some equally shadowy British figure) in a turban?

 

You're relying on a kind of reductio ad absurdam with this 'how does that exclude...' guff. ANYTHING is 'possible' in the sense that physics doesn't deny it. Common sense and practicalities on the other hand...

Edited 16 September, 2011 by Verbal

[pap]

But surely if you think its possible that the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks were orchestrated by government then the security services must have at least known about it and probably organised the attack - or do think its possible MI5 wouldnt know if there was a conspiracy within government to attack London and kill UK citizens?

 

Who said it was MI5? Only you as far as I can tell.

[Verbal]

Who said it was MI5? Only you as far as I can tell.

 

Yes, but that's only because you think you're being 'cute' by refusing to spell out the mountainously bizarre consequences of your 'possibilities'.

[pap]

As I say, I'm only trying to help. Being so poorly read is hindering you, I can tell. Seriously - read The Looming Tower. It's the Verbal Book Club Book of the Month.

 

And what does Khan's training have to do with anything? I imagine that the training in bomb-making, for example, had some bearing on events on 7/7, wouldn't you say? Or are you saying it's 'possible' he was actually trained by John Prescott (or some equally shadowy British figure) in a turban?

 

You're relying on a kind of reductio ad absurdam with this 'how does that exclude...' guff. ANYTHING is 'possible' in the sense that physics doesn't deny it. Common sense and practicalities on the other hand...

 

1) Why does training in Pakistan exclude the possibility of manipulation?

2) How does the Al Qaeda safehouse exclude the possibility of manipulation?

 

You've dodged one question too many.

[buctootim]

MI5 are responsible for UK domestic intelligence and counter terrorism. So you dont think they did it. Did they know about it?

[buctootim]

1) Why does training in Pakistan exclude the possibility of manipulation?

2) How does the Al Qaeda safehouse exclude the possibility of manipulation?

 

You've dodged one question too many.

 

But it you dodging the questions. Who and why? Who would arrange for Britain to deliberately stab itself in the eye and why. And why would no-one charged with protecting the UK do a single thing to stop it.

[Thedelldays]

MI5 are responsible for UK domestic intelligence and counter terrorism. So you dont think they did it. Did they know about it?

 

they have 4 objectives

 

counter terrorism

counter proliferation

counter espionage

protection of the national infrastructure

 

they are a "disruptive" service

[Verbal]

1) Why does training in Pakistan exclude the possibility of manipulation?

2) How does the Al Qaeda safehouse exclude the possibility of manipulation?

 

You've dodged one question too many.

 

I'm not dodging them at all - it's just that I'm having trouble engaging with the conspiratorial mindset.

 

1. What 'manipulation' do you mean? By whom?

 

2. And you're saying it's possible/plausible that MI5 (or who exactly for f*** sake?!) were really in control of the safe house in Rawalpindi. Why? To what end? And is there the slightest evidence of this, however improbable?

 

Sad thing is, pap, I don't think you get how incomprehensible you really are.

Edited 16 September, 2011 by Verbal

[Verbal]

they have 4 objectives

 

counter terrorism

counter proliferation

counter espionage

protection of the national infrastructure

 

they are a "disruptive" service

 

You missed one: blowing up the Underground.

[aintforever]

The government had zero motive for 7/7, we were already in Iraq and Afganistan. Anyone who thinks they are behind it is a nutjob.

[pap]

MI5 are responsible for UK domestic intelligence and counter terrorism. So you dont think they did it. Did they know about it?

 

Thanks. For a moment, I thought MI5 were a cheap furniture shop. Learn something new, etc.

 

I honestly don't know who orchestrated either set of attacks, so if that's true, then I don't know if they, whoever they might be, knew about it. Whatever we were talking about.

 

I do think that these events have shaped our world, and not in a good way. Don't you think that if there is anything dodgy about the official account, that it should be pursued?

[pap]

I'm not dodging them at all - it's just that I'm having trouble engaging with the conspiratorial mindset.

 

1. What 'manipulation' do you mean? By whom?

 

2. And you're saying it's possible/plausible that MI5 (or who exactly for f*** sake?!) were really in control of the safe house in Rawalpindi. Why? To what end? And is there the slightest evidence of this, however improbable?

 

Sad thing is, pap, I don't think you get how incomprehensible you really are.

 

So, Al Qaeda never been a teensy bit compromised? Never?

[pap]

I'm not dodging them at all - it's just that I'm having trouble engaging with the conspiratorial mindset.

 

1. What 'manipulation' do you mean? By whom?

 

2. And you're saying it's possible/plausible that MI5 (or who exactly for f*** sake?!) were really in control of the safe house in Rawalpindi. Why? To what end? And is there the slightest evidence of this, however improbable?

 

Sad thing is, pap, I don't think you get how incomprehensible you really are.

 

Re-reading this, you still haven't answered my question? Real simple. Yes or no.

 

Could Khan and his fellow terrorists have been manipulated without their knowledge?

[buctootim]

Yes Im sure US and other western security services have placed moles in Al Qaeda. Does the fact that a courier / supplier to an Al Qaeda cell somewhere occasionally sells information to the CIA mean that the CIA bombed New York and Washington? erm no.

Edited 16 September, 2011 by buctootim

[View From The Top]

Pap, no one is saying that they couldn't have been manipulated but the truthers are never able to say by whom and for what ends. The old adage that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one appears to be correct regardung 7/7.

[Verbal]

Re-reading this, you still haven't answered my question? Real simple. Yes or no.

 

Could Khan and his fellow terrorists have been manipulated without their knowledge?

 

Yes or no to what? Your question first needs to make sense. Manipulated by whom? Tell me by whom and I'll give you an answer.

[Verbal]

So, Al Qaeda never been a teensy bit compromised? Never?

 

You've gone off-piste yet again. Where have I said this?

 

You're also conflating two quite distinct 'possibilities'. They could well have been 'compromised' by any number of people/organisations/security services/Bruce Forsyth. But does that mean therefore that Khan was 'manipulated' by Forsyth et al into committing the Underground bombings? And if so, WHY?!!