Hello from nineeleven.co.uk [Archive]

View Full Version : Hello from nineeleven.co.uk

timmyg

5th November 2006, 08:31 AM

Hello. I've been reading a few posts on here. There seems to be a fair bit of discussion relating to the british 9/11 truth movement forum, and someone said that 'we' should be coming over here to discuss matters. After all many of you visit nineeleven.co.uk regularly, it would be rude not to return the gesture. So I am here. hello.

First i'd like to say I not here to attack anyone. I don't hold personal grudges against people who have insulted me or others on the forum. I'd also like to say I am personally dissappointed with the attitudes of many of the regular non-critics (perhaps even the majority) who post on 'our' forum. I think there is a lack of rational debate and a few people are very paranoid and jump to conclusions too quickly. Not so long ago Jon Ronson came to the forum to discuss issues brought up on a thread which concerned himself. Instead of trying to develop a calm and rational dialogue with Ronson, most of the posters on our forum just insulted him. Some called him a 'shill'/insider, which I feel was completely unneccessary and based on basically no real evidence. This is one example of unconstructive behaviour on the forum which I'm not happy about.

There is a general lack of awareness of the perception of people outside of the forum on nineeleven.co.uk, and I feel this is detrimental to the agenda of the '9/11 truth movement' (which should be to get the unanswered questions answered and find out what the truth is).

Basically I'm concerned that all people who have doubts about the official story of 9/11 are being tarred with the same brush and much of the evidence that suggests it was much more than an isolated terrorist attack is being dismissed (or atleast viewed in a poor light) because of this.

At the same time I have to say that several of the critics who initally came to nineeleven.co.uk, introduced themselves with immediate insults and attacks at the regular members. Some of them made it quite apparent that were not interested in rationally debating specific theories, they had made their minds up on what the truth is and anything to the contrary was quickly dismissed and followed up by more insults. However several critics (stateofgrace, chipmunk stew are 2 I can think of) did attempt to discuss things democratically and raised totally reasonable points/ presented evidence etc. It's people like this i'd like to debate with.

I'd like to debate things here as you all claim to be criticial, independent thinkers. If you really are then you should be able to help me get closer to what the truth is. If the 'truth movement' presents a claim and you guys have a rational explanation for why that claim is false, we should consider it. I'd also like to pinpoint the pyschological divide between the truth movement and its critics. Is there room for co-operation in a common quest for truth? Or do you think it has already been found and anyone who doesn't agree with the official story is bonkers?

uk_dave

5th November 2006, 09:01 AM

Welcome timmyg

It's good that you came here, and that your opening post was so well considered.

I believe it may have been me who suggested that the CT'ers needed to come to us and not us come to them. To me that would be similar to going to a religious forum and trying to convince people that there is no god. It serves little purpose and just gets everyone's backs up.

But here we consider conspiracy theories and the evidence or lack of evidence for them.

I am relatively new to this forum, so I won't claim to have anything like as much knowledge on these issues as some who post here, but I do think you'll find some lively debate..... so long as you stear clear of concrete cores, kinetic energy calcs which prove a knife cannot slice through butter, and buddhism.

:D

WildCat

5th November 2006, 09:06 AM

Basically I'm concerned that all people who have doubts about the official story of 9/11 are being tarred with the same brush and much of the evidence that suggests it was much more than an isolated terrorist attack is being dismissed (or atleast viewed in a poor light) because of this.
First of all, welcome to the forum

Secondly, what is your evidence? This is the part every member of the CT movement has trouble with, maybe you have the evidence all those before you have failed to provide?

twinstead

5th November 2006, 09:13 AM

Welcome timmyg.

I think we will find, no matter how polite and rational the participants are on either side of this debate, that it will all boil down to a diametrically opposed view of what constitutes compelling evidence.

While most in your camp believe there is compelling evidence of an 'inside' job, most here believe that your evidence is baseless conjecture and hearsay for the most part and not backed up by sound science.

I do look forward to calm, rational debates on the subject; I always learn a lot from them.

I'm dubious anybody is going to change anybody's mind though.

stateofgrace

5th November 2006, 09:26 AM

Welcome to the forum timmyg.

I mean this with all sincerity. You have come here and been honest in your opening post by stating your reasons for being here.

Like yourself I bear no malice and actually respect the fact you have formulated your own opinions on this matter. I would like to go further and start with a clean slate here. With this in mind you should be aware that this forum is very different from the British 911 forum, this forum is populated with many learned people and many people who hold very strong views on this issue.

You will not be insulted here, you will not be labelled here, you will be allowed your opinion but you will be asked to back your opinions with hard evidence. Many people here, myself included do not simply accept opinions, no matter how well founded without a bedrock of facts.

So Timmy, welcome to the forum. I would advise you maybe read through some of the treads here and I look forward to your input.

stateofgrace

Anti-sophist

5th November 2006, 09:33 AM

Also, you'll find people here have very short tolerances for aimless subject changing.

CptColumbo

5th November 2006, 09:41 AM

Welcome timmyg,

Unfortunately, both sides of this issue have their "hotheads" and "trolls." Just view some of the threads here and you will find some fine examples of both.

Before you start posting questions here, I suggest you read Gravy's guide to Loose Change and some of the threads at the top of the CT sub-forum page. This is to avoid you asking any questions that may have been answered before (ad nauseum in some cases). We will try to answer any reasonable question you may have, and hope you will return answers to our questions in kind.

To avoid making any generalizations about who we are, I also suggest you look at other parts of the forum. We come from many walks of life and areas of expertise, we have very diiferent political views and ways of looking at the world, and we are willing to accept any theory if there is verifiable objective evidence to back it up.

MEB-SG

timmyg

5th November 2006, 10:20 AM

thanks for the welcome everyone

Secondly, what is your evidence? This is the part every member of the CT movement has trouble with, maybe you have the evidence all those before you have failed to provide?

If you're looking for a signed statement from dick cheney saying that elements of the administration were responsible for 9/11 then I'm afraid I don't have one.
Basically I think 9/11 was most probably organised by a small element of the US government, with many others either turning a blind eye or refusing to believe that such a thing could be possible. Possibly members of PNAC were involved. I don't have direct proof of this as I don't have access to classified documents and I don't have the authority to question the people who I think could be involved...

But I find there to be too many co-incidences in the official story for it to be as simple as an isolated terrorist attack organised by bin laden. I think the PNAC rebuilding americas defence document carries weight in establishing that the neo-cons had a motive. And the fact that an independent inquiry was only established due to pressure from the victims families, suspect individuals were appointed to head the enquiry (henry kissinger, Phillip D. Zelikow), much evidence has been blocked or dismissed by the commission (in some cases destroyed by the pentagon.. ie. able danger) and that the self admitted purpose of the investigation was "not to assign blame to individuals for 9/11"... are a remarkable set of co-incidences if no one in the establishment had a hand in causing the events to happen. If people in the establishment did cause them to happen in some way, it makes perfect sense.

The weight of these co-incidences is backed up by another set of unusual events on the day which for me includes the incredible collapse of WTC7, the Pakistani ISI wire transfer, the NORAD standdown and contridictory blackbox/video data concerning flight 77, the passport falling out of the plane onto the street intact and handed to a police officer by an 'anonomous 30 year old male in a suit', curt weldons testimony that the able danger group had information on the hijackers that was deliberately isolated from other agencies, the death of John O'Neil at the WTC on 9/11, the put options linked to Buzzy Crongards firm, Bush's erie 'Let us not tolerate conspiracy theories concerning the events of 9/11' speech and the record number of terror drills taking place that day(some involving hijacked jets) which caused confusion and slowed response times . If all these events are innocent co-incidences then it really is the greatest most amazing series of co-incidences in history.

I'm guessing you guys feel that this is inconclusive, and perhaps it is. It is my opinion and is probably influenced by my political thoughts and feelings on human rights and what I think the globalists are capable of. i'm not going to demand that you subscribe to my own beleifs. But I have to say that I think the belief that 9/11 was an isolated alkaeda attack, carried out with no foreknoweldge is one based on very weak evidence. I also think that to defend the position that 9/11 needs no further investigation is a decision of poor judgement, or corrupt intentions.

Pardalis

5th November 2006, 10:36 AM

Regnad Kcin

5th November 2006, 10:37 AM

Basically I think 9/11 was most probably organised by a small element of the US government, with many others either turning a blind eye or refusing to believe that such a thing could be possible. Possibly members of PNAC were involved...Considering what "inside job" conjecturists propose would be the largest undertaking of its kind in history -- not only to plan/coordinate, finance, execute, and cover-up for the rest of time -- proof should be dripping from the trees. That it isn't might suggest something.

Welcome to the forum.

Anti-sophist

5th November 2006, 10:41 AM

There are alot of potential avenues for discussion, so you are going to get overwhelmed by people wantings to talk about particular issues. When you get around to wanting to discuss the "contridictory blackbox/video data concerning flight 77" let me know. I'll go ahead and make this statement, and you can disagree accordingly: "There are no inconsitencies with the Flight Data Recorder data and the official story". The videos of interest have all been released or are scheduled to be released.

Pardalis

5th November 2006, 10:45 AM

There is a general lack of awareness of the perception of people outside of the forum on nineeleven.co.uk, and I feel this is detrimental to the agenda of the '9/11 truth movement' (which should be to get the unanswered questions answered and find out what the truth is).

So their goal is to get the answers? I always thought their goal was only to ask questions...

What has your organ-ization done to get the answers they seek? Have they asked the real authotities, real engeneers and scientists?

I'd also like to pinpoint the pyschological divide between the truth movement and its critics.

Easy

Truth movement = cult of believers

Skeptics = rational critical thinkers

Larry O'Hara

5th November 2006, 11:13 AM

I am well aware of the nature of personnel/debates on the nineelevendotcodotuk forum--it was personal experience of such that led me and others to set the www911cultwatchdotorgdotuk web-site.

The 'discussion' ongoing on nineelevendotcodotuk forum about Jon Ronson's Jewishness/Zionism tells me, and any others interested, just what the predominant themes in the 9/11 cult UK discourse actually are.

timmyg

5th November 2006, 11:14 AM

Do you mean al Qaeda didn't have a motive?

i didn't say that. I believe Alkaeda also had a motive. But I'm yet to see evidence that an established network of terrorists all under the command of osama bin laden even exists. Sure there are many small groups of islamic extremists that would want to hurt america, but I'm not sure if they are as connected as the whitehouse would like to have us think they are, and i'm not sure they are capable of such a feat on their own.

What is a "co-incidence"? Is it the same as "coincidence"?
yes. my typing is often bad. i'm sorry.

I don't see it that way. But let's take these one by one shall we?

How can you say the Commission was establishes ONLY due to the pressure of the families?
well from what I understand there was no independent investigation, bush announced publically that he didn't want one because it would take away valueable resources from attacking countries in the middle east, but the families were understandably dissatisfied and demanded that one be set up. I am anticipating a response indicating that video documentaries are somehow usually flawed here.. but i've got to say watch '911 press for truth'.

How are these individuals suspect?

What evidence has been blocked, dismissed or destroyed?
Testimony from Cult weldon and military personal who believe that the pentagon had information on the hijackers before 9/11 was dismissed. pretty much all the evidence Sibel Edmonds is trying to get acknoweldged is being blocked. Several terabytes of information on the able danger unit was destroyed at the pentagon.

How can you say that? Have you researched all coincidences that happen at every major historical event? How do you quantify the amount of coincidences in a given event? What is a legitimate amount of coincidences?

What is a coincidence to you?

All I see is that you are anomaly hunting, you are looking for these coincidences. I'm afraid coincidences happen at every second of our lives, we only see them when we look for them.

hmm. fair point. I think that coincidences which involve a party with a motive in a crime, being reluctant to have evidence relating to said crime investigated is reason for concern.

Who are these "globalists"? Do you have any proof of their existence?
Again. I have to speculate to some extent in this case as i am not in the social position to meet with these people or the people surrounding them..
but anyone in a high position of power who has an interest in controlling global events. ie. david rockerfeller, henry kissinger, other members of the bilderberg group.

How very polite!. You basically accuse anyone who don't doubt the Official Story of being corrupt....
I didn't do that atall. I said to defend the position that further investigation into 9/11 is a decision of poor judgement or corrupt intent.

Garb

5th November 2006, 11:17 AM

I didn't do that atall. I said to defend the position that further investigation into 9/11 is a decision of poor judgement or corrupt intent.

What makes it poor judgement when from the evidence they see there is no other explanation?

timmyg

5th November 2006, 11:23 AM

So their goal is to get the answers? I always thought their goal was only to ask questions...

What has your organ-ization done to get the answers they seek? Have they asked the real authotities, real engeneers and scientists?

Easy

Truth movement = cult of believers

Skeptics = rational critical thinkers

ok. I've come on this forum as an individual with my own quarms about nineeleven.co.uk and its climate of opinions, and have tried to approach you guys as politely as possible. I feel your reaction, pardalis, is slightly gungho.

I said the objective of the nineeleven truth movement 'should be to get the unanswered questions answered and find out what the truth is'. Perhaps it isn't. But i personally think it should be.

I am aware of the cult like image the movement has developed and it's very unfortunate. I believe in my initial post on here I have outlined my awareness of this and my frustration at the way speculative views have been put across.

stateofgrace

5th November 2006, 11:26 AM

I'm guessing you guys feel that this is inconclusive, and perhaps it is. It is my opinion and is probably influenced by my political thoughts and feelings on human rights and what I think the globalists are capable of. i'm not going to demand that you subscribe to my own beleifs. But I have to say that I think the belief that 9/11 was an isolated alkaeda attack, carried out with no foreknoweldge is one based on very weak evidence. I also think that to defend the position that 9/11 needs no further investigation is a decision of poor judgement, or corrupt intentions.

I don't think that many people here believe that this an isolated Al Quada attack at all.

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/033104.pdf (http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/033104.pdf)

I'm also sure that many people are fully aware of the prewarnings giving to the US by foreign intelligence agencies. They were missed, ignored, got lost the maze of bureaucracy, simply overlooked, and not deemed important enough.

There is actually quite overwhelming evidence that Al Quada have planned and carried out many terrorists attacks prior to 911 and after 911.

To believe that Al Quada just sprung up a few days before 911 and are an ideal scapegoat is somewhat lacking in credibility.

If you could offer up something to suggest that the warnings are part of a cover up and that Al Quada is not responsible please do.

timmyg

5th November 2006, 11:32 AM

What makes it poor judgement when from the evidence they see there is no other explanation?

then they haven't looked at all the evidence. The 911 commssion hasn't investigated the link between the pakistani ISI and Mohammed Atta. An organisation that is well known to support terrorists. This is one thing that needs investigating further.

Pardalis

5th November 2006, 11:35 AM

i didn't say that. I believe Alkaeda also had a motive. But I'm yet to see evidence that an established network of terrorists all under the command of osama bin laden even exists.

Say what?

Sure there are many small groups of islamic extremists that would want to hurt america, but I'm not sure if they are as connected as the whitehouse would like to have us think they are, and i'm not sure they are capable of such a feat on their own.

Argument from personal incredulity.

well from what I understand there was no independent investigation

It was a federal investigation.

bush announced publically that he didn't want one because it would take away valueable resources from attacking countries in the middle east, but the families were understandably dissatisfied and demanded that one be set up. I am anticipating a response indicating that video documentaries are somehow usually flawed here.. but i've got to say watch '911 press for truth'.

I've seen it. Not impressed.

Testimony from Cult weldon and military personal who believe that the pentagon had information on the hijackers before 9/11 was dismissed. pretty much all the evidence Sibel Edmonds is trying to get acknoweldged is being blocked. Several terabytes of information on the able danger unit was destroyed at the pentagon.

I admit I'm not well aware of these.

hmm. fair point. I think that coincidences which involve a party with a motive in a crime, being reluctant to have evidence relating to said crime investigated is reason for concern.

?

I didn't do that atall. I said to defend the position that further investigation into 9/11 is a decision of poor judgement or corrupt intent.

You're implying both. Both are insulting.

timmyg

5th November 2006, 11:38 AM

I'm also sure that many people are fully aware of the prewarnings giving to the US by foreign intelligence agencies. They were missed, ignored, got lost the maze of bureaucracy, simply overlooked, and not deemed important enough.

There is actually quite overwhelming evidence that Al Quada have planned and carried out many terrorists attacks prior to 911 and after 911.

To believe that Al Quada just sprung up a few days before 911 and are an ideal scapegoat is somewhat lacking in credibility.

If you could offer up something to suggest that the warnings are part of a cover up and that Al Quada is not responsible please do.

this debate depends on your definition of what is 'alkeada' i guess. Is alkeada the CIA/ISI supported mujahadeen of the 1980s, of which members are still in operation operating an organised network headed by bin laden? Or is it more of an idea in the world of muslim extremists who look up to the actions of bin laden? personally I don't really know. But there is evidence to suggest that it is the latter.

I find it completely reasonable that the hijackers were muslim extremists who affiliated themselves with 'alkaeda'. I just think they needed some help to pull the whole thing off.

Garb

5th November 2006, 11:39 AM

then they haven't looked at all the evidence. The 911 commssion hasn't investigated the link between the pakistani ISI and Mohammed Atta. An organisation that is well known to support terrorists. This is one thing that needs investigating further.

Well if you can give me scientific proof of the claims (no speculation) then I'm all ears. That hasn't happened yet so obviously I must not be able to see the obvious to you or maybe I am correct in my assumptions.

Garb

5th November 2006, 11:40 AM

twinstead

5th November 2006, 11:41 AM

this debate depends on your definition of what is 'alkeada' i guess.

Sir, like I said before, this debate depends on your definition of what 'evidence' is. Nothing more or less.

Pardalis

5th November 2006, 11:50 AM

ok. I've come on this forum as an individual with my own quarms about nineeleven.co.uk and its climate of opinions, and have tried to approach you guys as politely as possible. I feel your reaction, pardalis, is slightly gungho.

Sorry about that, but I've seen alot of "truthers" post here, quite a few of them were polite when they came, and turned out to be abusive like all the others.

The problem with people from that movement, is that they are believers. Nothing will change their minds. I hope you are not another one of them.

ETA: Please note that I only speak for myself, and that I do not represent the people here. Please stick around because you will find most people here are very polite and courteous.

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same of myself, I for one am starting to really get aggravated by the "truth movement".

T.A.M.

5th November 2006, 11:54 AM

Welcome to the forum timmyg. You will find that all opinions here are tolerated, but if the opinions are simply that, just opinion, and nothing more, your views will be considered weak. If, however, you bring solid evidence to support your ideas, most here will take an honest look at it.

That said, here are my thoughts, on your thoughts...

thanks for the welcome everyone

If you're looking for a signed statement from dick cheney saying that elements of the administration were responsible for 9/11 then I'm afraid I don't have one.

Noone expects a signed statement from the perpetrator. It would be nice, and a bombshell, but since most here do not believe PNAC et all did the 9/1 attack, Noone here expects anything close.

Basically I think 9/11 was most probably organised by a small element of the US government, with many others either turning a blind eye or refusing to believe that such a thing could be possible. Possibly members of PNAC were involved. I don't have direct proof of this as I don't have access to classified documents and I don't have the authority to question the people who I think could be involved...

The PNAC paper is a paper about moving the defense of America into the 21st Century. This paper is often quoted for its infamous "Pearl Harbour" quote. The trouble with the quote, wrt 9/11 and the wars that have come since, is that the paper is quoted out of context.

The "Pearl Harbour" reference is relates to an event the PNAC group felt would be the only way that America would be open to a huge investiment into new and advanced Intelligent Defence Technologies. If you actually read the pages of the document that surround the quote you will see this. It was not referring to getting America into a war where they would simply produce thousands of the same old, cheap, unintelligent weapons, like they did in all other wars. This would be far from a great money making venture, compared to getting the american public behind Billions of investiments in NEW TECHNOLOGIES. If anything, the Afghan and Iraq Wars have hurt PNAC, as these battles are the biggest factor behind what will surely be the removal of the REPs as the majority in Congress and Senate, and in 2008 it will be the cause of the removal of BUSH/CHENEY/RUMSFELD from office.

But I find there to be too many co-incidences in the official story for it to be as simple as an isolated terrorist attack organised by bin laden.

This is a common argument I hear. If it were a single bombing involving a couple of rogue terrorists, using a single car bomb, at a single site, I would say, ya, maybe there are too many co-incidences. However, the more complex the event, in terms of multiple attacks at multiple locations, the more co-incidences one can expect to find. For this reason, I do not find the number of coincidences wrt 9/11 to be too many. Perhaps if you were to list off the specific "coincidences" that bother you, we could discuss them.

I think the PNAC rebuilding americas defence document carries weight in establishing that the neo-cons had a motive.

See above.

And the fact that an independent inquiry was only established due to pressure from the victims families, suspect individuals were appointed to head the enquiry (henry kissinger, Phillip D. Zelikow),

I always assumed that given the USG found out quickly who was responsible, and knew how it happened through swift immediate investigation, that they found no need to go into it further. You forget that most of the families, who wanted an investigation, did not want it because they suspected foul play on the behalf of the USG, but because (a) they wanted to know where the safety stops failed, where the building design failed, where the USG govts failed to protect.

Yes I agree, once it became apparent that there were "screw ups" within elements of the USG, like any govt, they clammed up, and resisted investigation. Is this a sign of covering up an inside job...far from it.

much evidence has been blocked or dismissed by the commission (in some cases destroyed by the pentagon.. ie. able danger) and that the self admitted purpose of the investigation was "not to assign blame to individuals for 9/11"... are a remarkable set of co-incidences if no one in the establishment had a hand in causing the events to happen.

You are working backwards from your assumption that there was an inside job, which is a flawed approach.

Look at the state of the nation when the committee was formed. Look at the reasons (as I listed above) that the families wanted the events investigated.

At the time that the committee was put together, it was to answer questions around safety concerns and possible failures of organizations of the USG. The purpose at that time was not to satisfy the questions or concerns of Conspiracy theorists. There was no outcry of foul play by anyone of significance, not the victim families, not the Democrats, noone. The mandate of the commission was based on the calls that were made for its set-up...end of story.

If people in the establishment did cause them to happen in some way, it makes perfect sense.

once again, if you back to the day, rather than taking in a 2006 conspiracy mindset, you will see the committee was set up for legitimate reasons, and fulfilled its mandate appropriately.

The weight of these co-incidences is backed up by another set of unusual events on the day which for me includes:

One at a time....

the incredible collapse of WTC7

So you think the hundreds of civil and structural engineers who work for NIST, and studied the WTC7 collapse are idiots, or wrong? The draft of their paper, which will be out soon, mentions a collapse mechanism that is explained completely by the event sof that day as the majority know them...debris, fires, and a unique building construct.

the Pakistani ISI wire transfer

ALL Reports of this, ALL, were based on one ANONYMOUS Indian intelligence report, that was then written about in the "Times of India". All other reports of this, including the WALL STREET JOURNAL report, were based on the "Times of India" report. To say that the "Times of India" and Indian Intelligence, would be a little bias, is a gross understatement. The report has never been independently corroborated.

the NORAD standdown

This is just foolsihness. The original story was exaggerated or misspoken of to make the military look good. The final story, based on the tapes, indicates there was never an opportunity to bring down the planes, due to poor communications and the mayhem of the days events. I could go into exacts, but I will leave that for a set debate on that one point.

and contridictory blackbox/video data concerning flight 77,

There is no proof of contradictory data from the blackbox. JohnDoeX's Calculations etc..are flawed, as has been proven here, if you have a mind to look for it in one of the threads.

the passport falling out of the plane onto the street intact and handed to a police officer by an 'anonomous 30 year old male in a suit',

Well given it was found outside the immediate investigation perimeter, that would make sense. Why don't you ask Abby Scott about the papers etc.. that fell that day, and made the sky look like a ticker tape parade. You think that this evidence could not have survived? Prove it could not have survived.

curt weldons testimony that the able danger group had information on the hijackers that was deliberately isolated from other agencies,

No argument here about the antagonism between FBI and CIA, and others. Proves nothing but bad intelligence agencies.

the death of John O'Neil at the WTC on 9/11,

He started his job there 3 weeks before 9/11. Thousands of other people were in the buildings at the same time and survived. He was not one of the lucky ones...that is all.

the put options linked to Buzzy Crongards firm,

Show me the reference (I say this because I know it has been debunked but I cant remember the exact source right now)

Two other occasions in 2001 the put options were higher than they were in the days prior to 9/11, yet there was no attack then...why?

Bush's erie 'Let us not tolerate conspiracy theories concerning the events of 9/11' speech.

Using this, you are just embarrassing yourself. This was a speech from the president to the nation, trying to tell his people not to listen to the rediculous Shaite that was being spued by some.

and the record number of terror drills taking place that day(some involving hijacked jets) which caused confusion and slowed response times.

Wargames, yes there were. (1) Prove that it was a "record" number as you have stated. Also, show me stats that say that the number of games was unusual. How many time per year do each of the organizations who ran the drills do so (give me numbers for each organization that had such drills).

If all these events are innocent co-incidences then it really is the greatest most amazing series of co-incidences in history.

Just like the 9/11 attack was one of the most amazing, and tragic, events in history, yes timmyg, most of what you have spelled out are either just coincidences, or in most cases, simply misunderstood, misinterpreted, or just false.

I'm guessing you guys feel that this is inconclusive, and perhaps it is. It is my opinion and is probably influenced by my political thoughts and feelings on human rights and what I think the globalists are capable of. i'm not going to demand that you subscribe to my own beleifs. But I have to say that I think the belief that 9/11 was an isolated alkaeda attack, carried out with no foreknoweldge is one based on very weak evidence. I also think that to defend the position that 9/11 needs no further investigation is a decision of poor judgement, or corrupt intentions.

Now you are being a little personal. My intentions are not corrupt, nor are they poor in judgement. I have more proof, evidence, and expert opinion behind my views than any CT can claim.

As for foreknowledge, I believe the USG had knowledge that "an attack" was coming, and soon, but they did not know where or how. They were either too stupid, or too arrogant to heed the warnings, or the warnings were too vague to have anything done about them.

I hope I have helped clarify my thoughts on your thoughts.

TAM

PerryLogan

5th November 2006, 01:08 PM

I don't believe coincidences and foreknowledge point toward a conspiracy. On the contrary, the existence of many weird coincidences and many forewarnings argue strongly against a conspiracy.

Conspirators would tend to eliminate weird anomalies and coincidences from their cover story. It is highly unlikely that the perps would toss in a story about a passport being found. When you're crafting your cover story, you work very hard to eliminate too many weird coincidences.

Likewise with "prior knowledge." If you're planning a caper, you tend to engineer out too much prior knowledge and forewarnings. You don't want your own people warning you about the job you yourself are trying to pull.

So lots of "prior knowledge" and forewarnings suggest incompetence, not conspiracy.

uk_dave

5th November 2006, 01:27 PM

Ahhh but what if it's a double or triple bluff?

The conspirator knows that alot of coincidences will catch the eye of the conspiracy buff but that Perry Logan will point out that coincidences mean the conspiracy doesn't exist so to make Perry believe this the conspirator will deliberately instigate coincidences which the CT buff will spot, perry will debunk, but then I will spot, leading to another debunking which I will debunk before the conspirator can....erm...hang on.....

Housefly

5th November 2006, 01:34 PM

Perry, you've clearly missed Killtown's analyisis of the recent Lidle crash in New York. The conspirators intentionally put all sorts of smoking guns and red flags and all the rest into their plan. This includes the numerology aspect- 911 is the American emergency services, and 11 looks like the twin towers, etc. They do this for two reasons:
1- to rub it in the faces of the people who work out the conspiracy. Flipping them the bird, as it were.
2- to make idiots like Killtown look like idiots when they point out all these smoking guns and have them debunked by people who aren't idiots.

Honestly, to me it sounds like the government just doesn't have enough to do. Maybe they should have joined NaNoWriMo or something.

uk_dave

5th November 2006, 01:39 PM

So you think it was a conspiracy of boredom?

Sounds plausible to me.

gmanontario

5th November 2006, 01:42 PM

I also think that to defend the position that 9/11 needs no further investigation is a decision of poor judgement, or corrupt intentions

I don't post very much in these discussions but statements like this, a false dichotomy, make me crazy. To me it shows that the CT whackos have an ingrained feeling of superiority over anyone else. The fact that they are sure their fantasies are "THE TRVTH", the inability to accept evidence that does not support their fantasies, the misinterpretation and/or out-of-context pictures and quotes and refusing to accept the fact that not all people think like whackjobs really speaks volumes on their intelligence level and attitude.

Carry on with the usual yadda yadda yadda CT crap. :jaw-dropp
<lurk mode=ON>

gumboot

5th November 2006, 01:50 PM

timmy,

Welcome to the forums, and a well-presented first post. :)

In brief response to your later posts, I believe your list of coincidences are a collection of coincidences and false information. Seen in the light of day, they are less impressive.

I would suggest, to keep things logical, that you select a point which interests you the most, and create an independent thread on that topic. :) That would avoid an enormous and clumsy thread.

I would be more than happy to demonstrate to you that NORAD did not stand down, that, indeed, despite the impossibility of the task before them, they did very well.

-Gumboot

beachnut

5th November 2006, 01:59 PM

this debate depends on your definition of what is 'alkeada' i guess. Is alkeada the CIA/ISI supported mujahadeen of the 1980s, of which members are still in operation operating an organised network headed by bin laden? Or is it more of an idea in the world of muslim extremists who look up to the actions of bin laden? personally I don't really know. But there is evidence to suggest that it is the latter.

I find it completely reasonable that the hijackers were muslim extremists who affiliated themselves with 'alkaeda'. I just think they needed some help to pull the whole thing off.

help to cut throats? not needed

help to fly aircraft? not needed, no training is required to ram building with jet - I am a pilot - an experts at flying - ran training program for over 70 crew members in upgrade programs - flying a 757/767 is too easy

What help do you think they needed that they could not get from themselves

What great break through ideas were demonstrated on 9/11?

cutting throats
killing people
flying the easiest jets in the world to just plain fly, and not having to do the hard work

I do not know a single thing they thought up as an original thought. ZIP

but then these low tech terrorist beat us, beat you, until we knew the rules

after we knew the rules the terrorist failed!!!!!!!!!!!! IE flight 93

thank you flight 93 93

Elizabeth I

5th November 2006, 02:21 PM

If anything, the Afghan and Iraq Wars have hurt PNAC, as these battles are the biggest factor behind what will surely be the removal of the REPs as the majority in Congress and Senate, and in 2008 it will be the cause of the removal of BUSH/CHENEY/RUMSFELD from office.

<NITPICK> Actually, the cause of the removal of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld from office in 2008 will be that Bush's two terms will be up and he can't run for re-election.

Unless, of course, one subscribes to the conspiracy theory that all of 9-11 was a ruse to cow the U.S. electorate into allowing Bush to declare martial law and assume the post of President-for-Life or some such claptrap.

Oh, yes...welcome to the forum, timmyg.

beachnut

5th November 2006, 02:23 PM

WAIT

do not tell the CT world or the world that bush has term limits!!!

they have to believe it was them who did the bush in, in 2008

Pardalis

5th November 2006, 02:25 PM

The Globalists are immortal, trans-generational entities.

They do not succomb to term limits, or any such earthly limitations.

:hypnotize

T.A.M.

5th November 2006, 02:32 PM

<NITPICK> Actually, the cause of the removal of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld from office in 2008 will be that Bush's two terms will be up and he can't run for re-election.

Unless, of course, one subscribes to the conspiracy theory that all of 9-11 was a ruse to cow the U.S. electorate into allowing Bush to declare martial law and assume the post of President-for-Life or some such claptrap.

Oh, yes...welcome to the forum, timmyg.

While I am not overly familiar with American political rules, I believe the two term rule only refers to the president.

my point, was that the wars will cause the REPs to fall wrt Pres/Vice Pres/SOS/SOD, etc....

but thanks for the reminder, that no matter what, BUSH himself is out in less than 2.

TAM;)

Arkan_Wolfshade

5th November 2006, 02:34 PM

timmyg,

I'll be brief.

If you'd like to set up a structured debate, I'd suggest reading this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64465).
If you have verifiable, objective evidence of explosives being used in WTC 1,2 or 7; please post it here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67462).
If you have verifiable, objective evidence that Flight 93 was shot down; please post it here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67502).

Elizabeth I

5th November 2006, 02:42 PM

While I am not overly familiar with American political rules, I believe the two term rule only refers to the president.

You are right, of course. However (at the risk of being accused of posing a false dichotomy), if a Democrat wins the White House, I think it's unlikely that Cheney will be his/her running mate, or that he/she will appoint Rumsfeld or Rice to his/her cabinet.

And I don't think the neocons can win the Presidency again, and I don't think any of the Republicans who might have a chance of winning (McCain, for instance) would appoint them either.

My own nightmare is that the race will be Bill Frist vs. Hillary Clinton and I will have to emigrate. :aaa!

NOTE TO ADMINISTRATORS: Sorry, I didn't mean to derail into something that should be on the "Politics" forum and I promise not to do it again.

T.A.M.

5th November 2006, 02:44 PM

lol:

Thanks for the input. I agree. I think the best potential candidate for pres right now, is Barack Obama. If I were American, I would vote for him.

TAM

Cylinder

5th November 2006, 03:20 PM

...the NORAD standdown...

On what evidence do you support this cliam?

steve s

5th November 2006, 03:29 PM

I just think they needed some help to pull the whole thing off.

I agree with Beachnut. What's so difficult about hijacking some planes. CTists seem to think that no planes were ever hijacked prior to 9/11. Most previous hijackings were done with fewer people than al-qeada used. D.B. Cooper managed to hijack a plane all by himself. He had no weapon and used the threat of a bomb to gain control, just like the al-qeada guys did (and they had knives.)

The only difference between 9/11 and all the hijackings that came before is that once Atta and his goons had control of the planes they decided to crash them into some buildings. How complicated is that?

Now compare that to the CTists wet dreams. Thousands of Americans were involved in a conspiracy to kill thousands of their fellow citizens. Not one of them refused the pay-off money, and not one of them has had a guilty conscience. How likely is that?

Steve S.

steve s

5th November 2006, 04:20 PM

Gravy

5th November 2006, 05:06 PM

The weight of these co-incidences is backed up by another set of unusual events on the day which for me includes the incredible collapse of WTC7, the Pakistani ISI wire transfer, the NORAD standdown and contridictory blackbox/video data concerning flight 77, the passport falling out of the plane onto the street intact and handed to a police officer by an 'anonomous 30 year old male in a suit', curt weldons testimony that the able danger group had information on the hijackers that was deliberately isolated from other agencies, the death of John O'Neil at the WTC on 9/11, the put options linked to Buzzy Crongards firm, Bush's erie 'Let us not tolerate conspiracy theories concerning the events of 9/11' speech and the record number of terror drills taking place that day(some involving hijacked jets) which caused confusion and slowed response times . If all these events are innocent co-incidences then it really is the greatest most amazing series of co-incidences in history.Welcome, timmyg.

Almost every thing in that paragraph is completely wrong, as has been explained – with evidence – time and again to members of the UK forum.

twinstead

5th November 2006, 05:15 PM

OK, Timmyg.

You should now be familiar with the general consensus of this board.

We expect one who accuses folks of mass murder to have some substance to their accusations.

Do you?

Crungy

5th November 2006, 05:45 PM

As for coincidences go, most of them don't even rise to the level of coincidence. Take for example the Loosers claim that someone in the military (forgot his name) canceled a flight that was scheduled for Sept. 11 and that this proves he had foreknowledge of the attacks. What they don't realize is that on any given day you can always find someone, somewhere in the government that canceled a flight to somewhere. So if the attacks had happened on Sept. 8th the truthers would be saying "Look, Jane Doe from the Commerce Department canceled a flight to Chicago. That must prove she was in on it."

I wouldn't even call these coincidences. I would call them "inevitabilities." It's inevitable that such things will occur regardless of what day the attacks happened. But the troofers just add them to their list of "coincidences."

Steve S.

Easily the most suspicious "coincidence" in the 9/11 attacks is the following.

http://www.answers.com/topic/american-airlines-flight-11

Seth MacFarlane, creator of Family Guy, was booked on Flight 11, but due to a mix up, missed the plane. His travel agent told him the flight departed at 8:15 instead of 7:45, and he arrived just after the plane had boarded. [11]

Were the 9/11 attacks planned by Stewie hatas?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c4/Stewiefamilyguy.gif

CptColumbo

5th November 2006, 08:43 PM

Was this started today because it's the fifth of November?

LashL

5th November 2006, 08:48 PM

Housefly

5th November 2006, 08:51 PM

There's a comedian called Stewart Lee who did a bit about 9/11. He referred to it throughout as "the 9th of November- reclaim the calendar!"
"The next day, 9/12, the 9th of December... do the math... s..."

Funny guy but he takes a while to build up to the really funny parts.

LashL

5th November 2006, 09:19 PM

So, this Thursday should be a big day for the U.K."nineeleven" site, then, no?

tsig

5th November 2006, 09:52 PM

thanks for the welcome everyone

If you're looking for a signed statement from dick cheney saying that elements of the administration were responsible for 9/11 then I'm afraid I don't have one.
Basically I think 9/11 was most probably organised by a small element of the US government, with many others either turning a blind eye or refusing to believe that such a thing could be possible. Possibly members of PNAC were involved. I don't have direct proof of this as I don't have access to classified documents and I don't have the authority to question the people who I think could be involved...

But I find there to be too many co-incidences in the official story for it to be as simple as an isolated terrorist attack organised by bin laden. I think the PNAC rebuilding americas defence document carries weight in establishing that the neo-cons had a motive. And the fact that an independent inquiry was only established due to pressure from the victims families, suspect individuals were appointed to head the enquiry (henry kissinger, Phillip D. Zelikow), much evidence has been blocked or dismissed by the commission (in some cases destroyed by the pentagon.. ie. able danger) and that the self admitted purpose of the investigation was "not to assign blame to individuals for 9/11"... are a remarkable set of co-incidences if no one in the establishment had a hand in causing the events to happen. If people in the establishment did cause them to happen in some way, it makes perfect sense.

The weight of these co-incidences is backed up by another set of unusual events on the day which for me includes the incredible collapse of WTC7, the Pakistani ISI wire transfer, the NORAD standdown and contridictory blackbox/video data concerning flight 77, the passport falling out of the plane onto the street intact and handed to a police officer by an 'anonomous 30 year old male in a suit', curt weldons testimony that the able danger group had information on the hijackers that was deliberately isolated from other agencies, the death of John O'Neil at the WTC on 9/11, the put options linked to Buzzy Crongards firm, Bush's erie 'Let us not tolerate conspiracy theories concerning the events of 9/11' speech and the record number of terror drills taking place that day(some involving hijacked jets) which caused confusion and slowed response times . If all these events are innocent co-incidences then it really is the greatest most amazing series of co-incidences in history.

I'm guessing you guys feel that this is inconclusive, and perhaps it is. It is my opinion and is probably influenced by my political thoughts and feelings on human rights and what I think the globalists are capable of. i'm not going to demand that you subscribe to my own beleifs. But I have to say that I think the belief that 9/11 was an isolated alkaeda attack, carried out with no foreknoweldge is one based on very weak evidence. I also think that to defend the position that 9/11 needs no further investigation is a decision of poor judgement, or corrupt intentions.

On every day many things happen.

tsig

5th November 2006, 09:55 PM

tsig

5th November 2006, 10:13 PM

I don't post very much in these discussions but statements like this, a false dichotomy, make me crazy. To me it shows that the CT whackos have an ingrained feeling of superiority over anyone else. The fact that they are sure their fantasies are "THE TRVTH", the inability to accept evidence that does not support their fantasies, the misinterpretation and/or out-of-context pictures and quotes and refusing to accept the fact that not all people think like whackjobs really speaks volumes on their intelligence level and attitude.

Carry on with the usual yadda yadda yadda CT crap. :jaw-dropp
<lurk mode=ON>

Having secret knowlege gives you power exept you can't use it without giving away the secret.

Qubit

5th November 2006, 10:15 PM

On every day many things happen.

I think this is a point many people take for granted. When CTers speak in this context they always point to the "odds of X happening." They usually make X to be some exhuberantly large number whereby they have no explanation of how they reached that number. Nonetheless, what they don't understand is that events with low probability in a small number of trials actually have a high probability in a large number of trial (Law of Large Numbers). If you can fathom how many events happen in a single day, you will see that things that appear improbable are actually quite natural.

Larry O'Hara

6th November 2006, 02:19 AM

Why is the conspiracy site called "nineeleven" in the U.K. anyway? Wouldn't it more appropriately be called "elevennine" there? Or is the fact that it's called "nineeleven" - contrary to the usual U.K. method of assigning numerical quantities to dates - just another part of the conspiracy?

Inquiring minds want to know.

:D

Speaking as a non-suppporter of that site, I nonetheless think 9/11 has universally crept into the language this side of the pond because 9/11 was such a momentous event--to impose, after the fact, our own terminology would be insensitive. The predominance power-wise of the US might have something to do with it too of course...

Had the London bombings of 7/7/05 taken place on say, the 8th of July, we would retain the UK terminology by calling them 8/7--an indication this would be so is found by universal (UK) reference to the second rouind of (failed) bombings on 21st July as 21/7, not 7/21, as your terminology would have it.

Hope that explains it all.

Next post: cricket's inherent superiority vis a vis baseball......(only joking!)

Housefly

6th November 2006, 06:11 AM

By the way,I find it completely reasonable that the hijackers were muslim extremists who affiliated themselves with 'alkaeda'. I just think they needed some help to pull the whole thing off. I don't believe anyone's ever said that the 19 hijackers were the only people involved in the plot. If they were trained and had their flight schools paid for by "alkaeda" wouldn't that count as "help"?

timmyg

7th November 2006, 03:01 AM

Firestone

7th November 2006, 03:26 AM

JanH

7th November 2006, 03:34 AM

I'm suprised that many of you feel that 9/11 needs no further investigation. Surely all of you agree that it does? WTC7 has only got as far as a hypothesis and many other issues such as the Pakistani ISI link have not been investigated to the extent of any real conclusion.

Timmy, I don't think many here believe that. NIST is as we speak investigating WTC 7, and they have some of the most clever and educated people on the job doing just that. I for one am content to wait a few months to see what they come up with, and we can take it from there. Nothing has convinced me that anyone in the troofer crowd would be able to find the right way to sit on a toilet seat, far less contribute to an investigation of a complex disaster.

As for investigating the Pakistani ISI, there are some nasty geopolitical realities concerned. They are widely considered a rat-nest of radical extremists held at bay by some slightly-less-extreme voices of, comparatively speaking, sanity. It is a sad fact of affairs that the world may well be one bomb or bullet away from seeing al-Qaeda, or someone like them, with access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

There is asking questions, and there are asking complex questions. One example of the latter is "have you stopped beating your wife", an example of a question that dishonestly presumes a claim that is, unless you are El Hadji Diouf, both insulting and false. And this is the kind of "questions" the troofers incessantly ask, again and again. They present a list of long-debunked, ludicrous assertions far removed from reality, and based on these, they "ask questions." It is dishonest. They don't want answers, they want conspiracies and confirmation of preconceived ideas. That is precisely why when someone answers the questions, like the editors of Popular Mechanics did, they are accused of being "shills".

timmyg

7th November 2006, 04:13 AM

Timmy, I don't think many here believe that. NIST is as we speak investigating WTC 7, and they have some of the most clever and educated people on the job doing just that. I for one am content to wait a few months to see what they come up with, and we can take it from there. Nothing has convinced me that anyone in the troofer crowd would be able to find the right way to sit on a toilet seat, far less contribute to an investigation of a complex disaster.

As for investigating the Pakistani ISI, there are some nasty geopolitical realities concerned. They are widely considered a rat-nest of radical extremists held at bay by some slightly-less-extreme voices of, comparatively speaking, sanity. It is a sad fact of affairs that the world may well be one bomb or bullet away from seeing al-Qaeda, or someone like them, with access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

There is asking questions, and there are asking complex questions. One example of the latter is "have you stopped beating your wife", an example of a question that dishonestly presumes a claim that is, unless you are El Hadji Diouf, both insulting and false. And this is the kind of "questions" the troofers incessantly ask, again and again. They present a list of long-debunked, ludicrous assertions far removed from reality, and based on these, they "ask questions." It is dishonest. They don't want answers, they want conspiracies and confirmation of preconceived ideas. That is precisely why when someone answers the questions, like the editors of Popular Mechanics did, they are accused of being "shills".I said that i thought to defend the position that 9/11 needs no further investigation is a decision of poor judgement or corrupt intentions, and this was met by comments from several people telling me that I am insulting them personally.. indicating that they do feel that 9/11 needs no further investagtion. I am genuniely suprised this is the case.

I agree with you on PM, I don't think people should be calling them 'shills' (I do however wonder why they refuse to acknoweldge the size of the whole in the pentagon being much smaller before a section of the wall fell down).

I sometimes feel like critics are telling us we are wrong to be asking any questions.

Parsman

7th November 2006, 04:26 AM

I don't think anyone here thinks people shouldn't ask questions, I think the problem is when people don't listen to the answers, or will only accept answers which support their pre-conceptions. And that seems to be the way the minds of most of the 9/11 "Truth" movement seem to work.

gumboot

7th November 2006, 04:27 AM

I agree with you on PM, I don't think people should be calling them 'shills' (I do however wonder why they refuse to acknoweldge the size of the whole in the pentagon being much smaller before a section of the wall fell down).

Probably because it wasn't.

My suggestion was probably lost in the thread, so I'll make it again. To aide clarity, I suggest you create a thread about a particular aspect of 9/11 that you find especially important/unanswered/suspicious etc... Then people can discuss this particular topic with you, and prevent the discussion diverting into off-topic subjects. It helps to make things concise and easier to follow.

-Gumboot

twinstead

7th November 2006, 04:38 AM

My suggestion was probably lost in the thread, so I'll make it again. To aide clarity, I suggest you create a thread about a particular aspect of 9/11 that you find especially important/unanswered/suspicious etc... Then people can discuss this particular topic with you, and prevent the discussion diverting into off-topic subjects. It helps to make things concise and easier to follow.

Are suggesting that we sometimes careen wildly off topic sometimes? :eye-poppi

The nerve!

gumboot

7th November 2006, 04:40 AM

Are suggesting that we sometimes careen wildly off topic sometimes? :eye-poppi

The nerve!

Actually it's more to lock the Troofers down so they can't careen wildly off topic..., but if I went out and actually said it like that they'd never heed my advice...

Game of wack-a-mole anyone?

-Gumboot

maccy

7th November 2006, 04:43 AM

theres a lot of points to discuss here and i'm not going to be able to debate them all at once. I might attempt to debate them one at a time with you guys in the near future (i'd be interested to know why johndoexs calculations are wrong but i will check the other threads on here for that).

This is the thread you need to check for thr FDR stuff: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66047

also:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65369
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65819

Also, this thread offers some perspective on box-cutters:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59410

This on ISI and Atta:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66863
http://911myths.com/html/pakistan_s_isi_link_to_9_11_fu.html

A NORAD timeline:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61752

also, to give you an idea of the volume of air traffic in the US:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67952

Able Danger:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66189

On PNAC:

http://911myths.com/html/new_pearl_harbour.html

Edited to add: I'm posting these links here so you can reasearch some of the arguments already put forward - I'm not expecting you to talk about them in this thread. I think Gumboot's suggestion of starting a new thread for something that particularly interests you and keeping that thread on topic is an excellent one. Alternatively, you could post new questions in one of the threads above.

twinstead

7th November 2006, 04:45 AM

Game of wack-a-mole anyone?

That actually brings up a good point for new members who support a 911 CT.

Probably the worst thing a troother can do when he or she comes on this board is start a thread with a baseless accusation or piece of evidence, and then start another thread without answering the rebuttals of the first thread.

It's annoying.

Larry O'Hara

7th November 2006, 04:47 AM

Brainster

7th November 2006, 08:17 AM

But I find there to be too many co-incidences in the official story for it to be as simple as an isolated terrorist attack organised by bin laden. I think the PNAC rebuilding americas defence document carries weight in establishing that the neo-cons had a motive. And the fact that an independent inquiry was only established due to pressure from the victims families, suspect individuals were appointed to head the enquiry (henry kissinger, Phillip D. Zelikow), much evidence has been blocked or dismissed by the commission (in some cases destroyed by the pentagon.. ie. able danger) and that the self admitted purpose of the investigation was "not to assign blame to individuals for 9/11"... are a remarkable set of co-incidences if no one in the establishment had a hand in causing the events to happen. If people in the establishment did cause them to happen in some way, it makes perfect sense.

I don't think you quite understand what a coincidence is; you need two somewhat unlikely but highly related events together to make a coincidence. Is it unlikely that the administration would resist a commission to place blame on individuals for failing to stop 9-11? Is it unlikely that when forced to create a commission by public pressure that the government would put people it trusted on that commission?

Able Danger appears to be a bunch of hooey; I read the report and you would have to believe in the most unlikely events in order to believe that it had identified Atta. For example, one man claims to have had a chart with photos of Able Danger-identified men including Atta on his office wall for several years and often showed it to people, post-9-11. And yet he could come up with no people who recalled seeing Atta. Is that likely, considering that Atta's face is probably one of the most recognized in America today? He also claimed that when he tried to take down the chart to move to a new office, that the chart "disintegrated". Is that likely for a chart made of (say) 5-year-old paper?

The weight of these co-incidences is backed up by another set of unusual events on the day which for me includes the incredible collapse of WTC7, the Pakistani ISI wire transfer, the NORAD standdown and contridictory blackbox/video data concerning flight 77, the passport falling out of the plane onto the street intact and handed to a police officer by an 'anonomous 30 year old male in a suit', curt weldons testimony that the able danger group had information on the hijackers that was deliberately isolated from other agencies, the death of John O'Neil at the WTC on 9/11, the put options linked to Buzzy Crongards firm, Bush's erie 'Let us not tolerate conspiracy theories concerning the events of 9/11' speech and the record number of terror drills taking place that day(some involving hijacked jets) which caused confusion and slowed response times . If all these events are innocent co-incidences then it really is the greatest most amazing series of co-incidences in history.

Again, almost none of these are coincidences, with the arguable exception of John O'Neill. Let's see, the World Trade Center hires a man who was directly responsible for the apprehension of a terrorist who launched an attack on that building complex? Is that an unlikely event?

Is it unlikely that there would be a "30-year-old male in a suit" in downtown Manhattan? Is it unlikely that Bush would get annoyed at the conspiracy theories (assuming for the moment that he was not behind it)? How do you know that the "terror" drills were "a record number"? What is an average day's worth of terror drills?

Others have addressed the ISI connection. The Buzzy Krongard connection? How likely is it that a commission made up equally of Democrats and Republicans would ignore this if there were anything there? The NORAD "standdown" doesn't exist; try reading the recent Vanity Fair article on this topic and you'll discover that the most warning that NEADS (a division of NORAD) had of a hijacked airliner before it crashed was 7 minutes, and that was for Flight 11, the first plane into the WTC.

I'm guessing you guys feel that this is inconclusive, and perhaps it is. It is my opinion and is probably influenced by my political thoughts and feelings on human rights and what I think the globalists are capable of. i'm not going to demand that you subscribe to my own beleifs. But I have to say that I think the belief that 9/11 was an isolated alkaeda attack, carried out with no foreknoweldge is one based on very weak evidence. I also think that to defend the position that 9/11 needs no further investigation is a decision of poor judgement, or corrupt intentions.

Obviously 9/11 was not an isolated Al Qaeda attack; just look at Zacharias Moussaoui for confirmation. He was training to be a pilot but not a 9-11 pilot; they intended to do this again. Al Qaeda has pulled attacks before and since--the embassy bombings in Africa, the Bali nightclub bombing, the Madrid trains bombing and (arguably) the 7/7 attacks in London.

maccy

7th November 2006, 09:01 AM

Obviously 9/11 was not an isolated Al Qaeda attack; just look at Zacharias Moussaoui for confirmation. He was training to be a pilot but not a 9-11 pilot; they intended to do this again. Al Qaeda has pulled attacks before and since--the embassy bombings in Africa, the Bali nightclub bombing, the Madrid trains bombing and (arguably) the 7/7 attacks in London.

Not to mention Dhiren Barot who has just been sentenced in the UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6123236.stm

T.A.M.

7th November 2006, 09:03 AM

For the 8 millionth time (this is why we need an FAQ)

WRT to the Pentagon Hole:

Entrance hole: approximately 90 feet wide at first floor level. Approximately 12-18 feet wide at second floor level.

Exit Hole: approximately 12 feet diameter, later likely excised to a diameter of 16 feet to allow for rescue/recovery work.

TAM

Crungy

7th November 2006, 10:05 AM

Is it unlikely that there would be a "30-year-old male in a suit" in downtown Manhattan?

Ah yes, profiling, through the eyes of CT wing nut! Claiming this as suspicious only adds to the evidence that the CTers have never left the confines of their parents basement, and out into the real world.

It's about a mile walk for me from the Ogilvie train station to my office in downtown Chicago. During my walks both to and from work I pass by an alarming amount of males in "suits". Come to think of it, I also see a lot of males in "suits" in my office building. Should I report them?

timmyg

7th November 2006, 10:15 AM

SirPhilip

7th November 2006, 10:18 AM

then they haven't looked at all the evidence. The 911 commssion hasn't investigated the link between the pakistani ISI and Mohammed Atta. An organisation that is well known to support terrorists. This is one thing that needs investigating further. Before this spirals into another long-winded dialogue about specifics. Basically there are five things to consider here:
There was a clear connection between invading Iraq and resources, like all invasions and wars, historically, that made it a priority.
The Bush administration has used the attacks and "terrorism" unceasingly as justification for the invasion, despite the obvious fact that it would antagonize terrorism.
The invasion was not based on evidence or any mutual thinking, it was based on vested interest. This implies corruption. The kind of corruption that sells conspiracy books. It was then sold as a noble, humanitarian effort, which few people believe now. Even Bill O'Reilly has admitted this wasn't the primary reason.
There is currently no evidence the attacks were allowed, supervised, or involved by a connected group of individuals or organizations with vested geopolitical interests. However, that doesn't potential for that degree of corruption doesn't exist; quite the contrary, and let's keep in mind a very important thing..
Roughly 600,000 people, many civilians, have died in Iraq, and not one person in that administration seems perturbed over it.

pgwenthold

7th November 2006, 10:25 AM

it was more the anonymous part i found suspicious, combined with the unlikely hood of the passport making its way down from the cockpit of the plane to the street, to be found by someone and handed it admist all the chaos that was going on.

How unlikely is that a passport like this would make it's way down to the street? How many passports were found on the street totally?

That seems to me to be the most unlikely part. However, given that a passport fell like this on the street, what are chances it would be found by someone who would give to the authorities anonymously? That sounds pretty likely to me, given the events of the day.

Someone finds it, says, "hey, policeman, I found this!" The cop takes it and says thanks, and then goes on to other work.

The conditional probability of this type of thing happening is very high, I would think.

Horatius

7th November 2006, 10:32 AM

it was more the anonymous part i found suspicious, combined with the unlikely hood of the passport making its way down from the cockpit of the plane to the street, to be found by someone and handed it admist all the chaos that was going on.

How unlikely is it, though? Lots of documents survived the entire impact, fire and collapse, so why not this one? Add in the fact that passports are made of higher quality materials than just office paper, and it's even more likely to survive.

A passpost is a fairly distinctive document. I think lots of people would realize that identifying people from the planes or impact floors would be difficult, and so would likely pick up a passport if they saw it, so as to assist in IDing a person. To do this, it would have to be turned it to someone in authority, and why not the closest police officer?

Heck, I've turned things into the police or security gaurds, and it wasn't even terror-related.

twinstead

7th November 2006, 10:33 AM

I'm confused as to why anybody with any knowledge of history and with even a minute amount of perspective would think that 911, like any other major historical event in history, wouldn't be chock full of 'anomalies' and 'coincidences'?

Looked at with the same manic, paranoid, microscopic scrutiny that 911 is by CTs, I would wonder how many other major events would also be declared fake or conspiracies?

Crungy

7th November 2006, 10:33 AM

it was more the anonymous part i found suspicious, combined with the unlikely hood of the passport making its way down from the cockpit of the plane to the street, to be found by someone and handed it admist all the chaos that was going on.

As has been pointed out many times here on the forum, what you expect is often quite different from the reality of the situation. Do you find the story below suspicious? Not one, not two, but all three CDs survived the explosion and were found! :eye-poppi

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/print.php?what=article&id=243

Columbia broke up over Texas upon re-entry on February 1, 2003, after a successful 16-day scientific research mission. The accident claimed the lives of its seven crew members: commander Rick Husband, pilot Willie McCool, mission specialist Michael Anderson, mission specialist Dave Brown, mission specialist Laurel Clark, mission specialist Kalpana Chawla and payload specialist Ilan Ramon.
Chawla, a native of India where Deep Purple is extremely popular, loved the band. She traded e-mails with the band for several days while in space. Chawla took three CDs on board Columbia: Deep Purple's landmark 1972 album "Machine Head" and 1996's "Purpendicular" and Rainbow's 1978 album "Down to Earth" (Glover and Airey were both members of Rainbow at the time).
While in space, Chawla liked to wake up to Deep Purple's "Space Truckin' " from "Machine Head".
The band members were horrified and deeply saddened by Columbia's fate, and Morse immediately channeled his emotions into composing "Contact Lost" within one hour of the accident. Morse is donating his "Contact Lost" songwriting royalties to the families of the astronauts.
The CD copies of "Machine Head", "Purpendicular" and "Down to Earth" were found among the Columbia debris. NASA used them as part of special commemorative plaques honoring the seven astronauts. Chawla's widower, Jean-Pierre Harrison, has kept in touch with Morse and he presented the three plaques to Deep Purple on stage at a concert on September 23, 2003, in Mexico City, Mexico (PHOTO). The plan is to donate the "Machine Head" and "Down to Earth" plaques to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum. The "Purpendicular" plaque is being kept privatel
http://www.thehighwaystar.com/reviews/03-3/pictures/mexico-nasa-fernando-aceves.jpg
Was the Columbia disaster just a conspiracy to resurrect the flagging career of British heavy metal pioneers Deep Purple? I mean come on, they found not one, not two, but all three CDs?! What are the odds of that? One in 19 billion? Sounds like a conspiracy to me!
How about this doozy!
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts10...rms_030501.html (http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts107_worms_030501.html)
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) _ Hundreds of worms from a science experiment aboard the space shuttle Columbia have been found alive in the wreckage, NASA said Wednesday.
The worms, known as C. elegans, were found in debris in Texas several weeks ago. Technicians sorting through the debris at Kennedy Space Center in Florida didn't open the containers of worms and dead moss cells until this week.
All seven astronauts were killed when the shuttle disintegrated over Texas on Feb. 1. Columbia contained almost 60 scientific investigations.
``To my knowledge, these are the only live experiments that have been located and identified,'' said Bruce Buckingham, a NASA spokesman at the Kennedy Space Center.
The worms and moss were in the same nine-pound locker located in the mid-deck of the space shuttle. The worms were placed in six canisters, each holding eight petri dishes.
The worms, which are about the size of the tip of a pencil, were part of an experiment testing a new synthetic nutrient solution. The worms, which have a life cycle of between seven and 10 days, were four or five generations removed from the original worms placed on Columbia in January.
The C. elegans are primitive organisms that share many biological characteristics of humans. In 1999, C. elegans became the first multicellular organism to have the sequencing of its genome completed.
C. elegans have two sexes: males and hermaphrodites, which are females that produce sperm. A hermaphrodite worm can self-fertilize for the first 300 or so eggs but later usually prefers to accept sperm from males to produce a larger number of offspring.
The experiment was put together by researchers at the NASA Ames Research Center in California.
The moss, known as Ceratodon, was used to study how gravity affects cell organization. During Columbia's flight, shuttle commander Rick Husband sprayed the moss with a chemical that destroyed protein fiber. He also sprayed the moss with formaldehyde to preserve it. Seven of the eight aluminum canisters holding the moss were recovered.
The experiment was put together by an Ames Research Center researcher and Dr. Fred Sack at Ohio State University.
``The cells were surprisingly well-preserved, but we're analyzing how useful it's going to be,'' Sack said.
NASA officials said they don't know if the worms will still have any scientific value since they were supposed to have been examined and unloaded from Columbia within hours of landing
``It's pretty astonishing to get the possibility of data after all that has happened,'' Sack said. ``We never expected it. We expected a molten mass.''

What about this odd "coincidence". What are the odds of a plane crashing into a high rise in the same city and again the pilot's passport manages to fall the ground, relatively unscathed, to be scooped up by an anonymous source? I'm not sure if this guy was a man in a suit.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15223650/

.....A passport belonging to Lidle, an avid pilot who got his flying license after last year's offseason, was reportedly found on the street below the crash site......

David Wong

7th November 2006, 10:48 AM

Roughly 600,000 people, many civilians, have died in Iraq, and not one person in that administration seems perturbed over it.

That's only off by about 1000%, but hey, no amount of exaggeration is too much when talking about the evil Bush!

T.A.M.

7th November 2006, 10:58 AM

Yes, we accuse the CTers of enough exaggeration, we do not need to be guilty of it ourselves.

Current Civilian Death toll of Iraq War = 45,000 to 55,000

For min/max, go here:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

TAM

pgwenthold

7th November 2006, 11:00 AM

I don't believe that, either.

Trigood

7th November 2006, 11:02 AM

the problem with 9/11 cultists is They ask questions but

1) Know the answers in advance of any evidence

2) Don't know what evidence is anyway

3) When caught out move onto something else

4) Want other people to do the investigating for them

5) ..then reject conclusions they don't like

6) Go round in circles

(and so on)
1) Why ask questions if you don't know the answers? That would be too confusing.
:c2:

2) I know what it ain't, buddy!

3) And your point is?

4) Well isn't that the way the world works for most trust-fund babies?

5) I told you, it's too confusing to not already know the answers!

6) :thanks

Trigood

7th November 2006, 11:11 AM

Easily the most suspicious "coincidence" in the 9/11 attacks is the following.

http://www.answers.com/topic/american-airlines-flight-11

Were the 9/11 attacks planned by Stewie hatas?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c4/Stewiefamilyguy.gif
OMG!!!

It's a conspiracy to torture us normal people whose family members watch Family Guy!!!!!

But seriously, I'm happy for Seth McFarlane.

Brainster

7th November 2006, 11:39 AM

Before this spirals into another long-winded dialogue about specifics. Basically there are five things to consider here:
[1]There was a clear connection between invading Iraq and resources, like all invasions and wars, historically, that made it a priority.
[2]The Bush administration has used the attacks and "terrorism" unceasingly as justification for the invasion, despite the obvious fact that it would antagonize terrorism.
[3]The invasion was not based on evidence or any mutual thinking, it was based on vested interest. This implies corruption. The kind of corruption that sells conspiracy books. It was then sold as a noble, humanitarian effort, which few people believe now. Even Bill O'Reilly has admitted this wasn't the primary reason.
[4]There is currently no evidence the attacks were allowed, supervised, or involved by a connected group of individuals or organizations with vested geopolitical interests. However, that doesn't potential for that degree of corruption doesn't exist; quite the contrary, and let's keep in mind a very important thing..
[5]Roughly 600,000 people, many civilians, have died in Iraq, and not one person in that administration seems perturbed over it.

1. And the resources we were after when we invaded France in 1944 were?

2. So we should never do anything that would "antagonize" the terrorists?

3. Exactly what vested interests were involved in the invasion? Yes, the invasion was not primarily a humanitarian intervention. It was a factor, but not the main factor or determining factor.

5. Your evidence for the lack of perturbation? If we left Iraq tomorrow, would more people or fewer people die as a result in the next six months? And the 600,000 deaths, if we accept it (which I don't) is overwhelmingly due to enemy actions like suicide bombings.

Pardalis

7th November 2006, 12:41 PM

There was a clear connection between invading Iraq and resources, like all invasions and wars, historically, that made it a priority.

Nothing to do with 9/11

The Bush administration has used the attacks and "terrorism" unceasingly as justification for the invasion, despite the obvious fact that it would antagonize terrorism.

Nothing to do with 9/11

The invasion was not based on evidence or any mutual thinking, it was based on vested interest. This implies corruption. The kind of corruption that sells conspiracy books. It was then sold as a noble, humanitarian effort, which few people believe now. Even Bill O'Reilly has admitted this wasn't the primary reason.

Nothing to do with 9/11

There is currently no evidence the attacks were allowed, supervised, or involved by a connected group of individuals or organizations with vested geopolitical interests.

Are you talking about Iraq or 9/11?

Are you saying al Qaeda doesn't exist?

Roughly 600,000 people, many civilians, have died in Iraq, and not one person in that administration seems perturbed over it.[/LIST]

Nothing to do with 9/11

Wow, that was a waste of time... :rolleyes:

SirPhilip

7th November 2006, 01:42 PM

That's only off by about 1000%, but hey, no amount of exaggeration is too much when talking about the evil Bush!That was the figure being thrown around for the past few weeks (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/world/middleeast/11casualties.html?ex=1318219200&en=516b1d070ff83c15&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss). It isn't remotely correct now?

Pardalis

7th November 2006, 01:45 PM

Take this to the politics forum.

SirPhilip

7th November 2006, 01:50 PM

1. And the resources we were after when we invaded France in 1944 were? Ball out of court.

2. So we should never do anything that would "antagonize" the terrorists? Sure. Except the connection between Iraq and terrorism was a conspiracy theory.

3. Exactly what vested interests were involved in the invasion? Gosh, I don't know...

Yes, the invasion was not primarily a humanitarian intervention. It was a factor, but not the main factor or determining factor. The primary factor being...

Arkan_Wolfshade

7th November 2006, 01:50 PM

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/casualties.html

Military casualties provided by government sources

Figures represent total since the beginning of hostilities on March 20, 2003. Numbers in parentheses indicate casualties since the end of "major combat" was declared on May 1, 2003.

U.S.
Total military deaths: 2,323
Britain
Total military deaths: 103

Multinational forces
Total military deaths: 101
(With 27 dead, Itay had more soldiers killed than any coalition member besides the U.S. and Britain.)

Iraq (prior to May 1, 2003)
Military Deaths: 4,895 to 6,370
Total captured: 7,300* (as of April 15, 2003)
Total wounded: 5,103

Canada
Deaths: 1 (serving with U.S. Forces)

Civilian deaths estimated from various sources (Since March 20, 2003)

Iraq
• Civilian Iraq deaths: 33,773 to 37,895 (Source: Iraqbodycount.net))
• Civilian Iraq deaths: 12,000 (Source: Official estimate from Iraqi interior ministry March 20, 2003-June 2, 2005)
• Iraqi civilian or religious officials assassinated: 52 (Source: Official estimate from Iraqi interior ministry March 20, 2003-June 2, 2005)

International

Journalists: 84

UN employees: 22
An estimated 75 U.S. civilians have been killed, the most of any international country in Iraq.
8 Canadian civilians have been killed, 1 Red Cross, 1 UN, 1 Christian Children's Fund, 3 contractors, and 2 other
Now please take this drek to the Politics subforum.

SirPhilip

7th November 2006, 02:03 PM

Wow, that was a waste of time... :rolleyes: On your part, as I was stating the obvious. The attacks have, and continue to be used as justification for invading Iraq. You dispute this?

Pardalis

7th November 2006, 02:04 PM

What does this have to do with 9/11?

This is in no way a proof that it was an inside job.

Take this to the politics forum.

SirPhilip

7th November 2006, 02:16 PM

What does this have to do with 9/11? This is in no way a proof that it was an inside job. No, but the invasion was justified by the attacks. If the invasion was of dubious ethics, based on a conspiracy theory, and primarily for self-interest at a enormous human expense, why would that be a leap of reason to assume?

Take this to the politics forum. Request (http://www.randi.org/chat) that a admin move it?

Pardalis

7th November 2006, 02:18 PM

dubious ethics, based on a conspiracy theory, and primarily self-interest at a enormous human expense[/I], what is that such a leap of reason?

I don't care about your "reason". It's still no proof.

Request (http://www.randi.org/chat) that a admin move it?

No, I'm saying move yourself and you Iraq war "reasoning" to the politics forum.

SirPhilip

7th November 2006, 02:32 PM

I don't care about your "reason". It's still no proof. That's why we have things like reasonable doubt and juries. In this case, the world.

No, I'm saying move yourself and you Iraq war "reasoning" to the politics forum. Um...

Anti-sophist

7th November 2006, 02:43 PM

That's why we have things like reasonable doubt and juries. In this case, the world.

The "law" analogy is hilarious when it comes to actual science, but I'll play along anyway.

You seem to be mixed up. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. It's your job to prove your point beyond a reasonable doubt, not provide reasonable doubt.

SirPhilip

8th November 2006, 03:50 AM

The "law" analogy is hilarious when it comes to actual science, but I'll play along anyway. No no, please, allow me, I'll play along with politics having anything to do with science. Some have made a good go at it (http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cg/courses/cgt411/covey/48_laws_of_power.htm). What of it?

You seem to be mixed up. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. It's your job to prove your point beyond a reasonable doubt, not provide reasonable doubt. Politicians should be held to great suspicion. If you want to reconcile politics and science, you can start with it's version of Newton's law: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.." That doesn't mean wild declarations are valid, but neither is denial. The Iraq invasion wasn't a humanitarian effort. Period. You don't call a very controversial administration good-natured altruists because criminally implicating evidence doesn't exist.

twinstead

8th November 2006, 03:54 AM

You don't call a very controversial administration good-natured altruists because criminally implicating evidence doesn't exist.

That's not a problem. The problem is that some people call a very controversial administration mass murderers when criminally implicating evidence doesn't exist.

You'll find few here who call them good-nadured altruists.

Parsman

8th November 2006, 04:55 AM

I think many people here would accept that the current US administration used the attacks of 9/11 after the fact to try and show a link between the people responsible for 9/11 and the then regime in Iraq, a case which is evidentially weak at best. However this can in no logical way make the case that therefore the Bush administration had any involvement in 9/11 either by MIHOP or LIHOP and that is the mistake Sir Philip is making.

milesalpha

8th November 2006, 07:59 AM

Y'know, I have given this considerable thought over the last half hour (ok, I'm on a day off and sitting on the couch stoned so what else am I going to do, it's raining). For the life of my I cannot think of any administration, of any nation, that I would call good natured altruists. On the other hand, I can think of dozens of examples in which a power acted out of perceived national self interest and it lead to the deaths of innocents (British-India, China, South Africa; France-Algeria, Vietnam; China-Tibet; USSR-Afghanistan; Canada and Australia-Indigenous peoples are just a few examples of recent events, history is littered with them).
The leaders involved were either misguided or, and I would argue this is the case with Bush, stupid. But death was not their goal, it is/was a by-product of their incompetence. I do believe that Bush thought his troops would be greeted as liberators, statues would be erected in his honor, and his name would go down in history as the man who brought democracy to the Middle East. Throughout his adult life Bush has demonstrated unyielding mediocrity and simplistic black/white thinking. He didn't have the slightest clue what the Middle East was all about but believed that waving an American flag and pointing a gun would make it just like downtown Austin. He and his team are cavemen, products of a different education and era, and in way over their heads currently. Unfortunately for the world, we still have two years of them left, although with drastically reduced power now.

SirPhilip

8th November 2006, 09:39 AM

SirPhilip

8th November 2006, 09:43 AM

That's not a problem. The problem is that some people call a very controversial administration mass murderers when criminally implicating evidence doesn't exist. You'll find few here who call them good-nadured altruists. Point taken. Is someone still off the hook if they get into a giant bulldozer, accidentally plow through your house, run over your children, blame it on the engine noise, shrug and go golfing?

Gravy

8th November 2006, 09:50 AM

twinstead

8th November 2006, 09:58 AM

Point taken. Is someone still off the hook if they get into a giant bulldozer, accidentally plow through your house, run over your children, blame it on the engine noise, shrug and go golfing?

No, they're off the hook until some compelling evidence is shown that they indeed were the ones who were in the bulldozer, or ordered it to be driven through my house--no matter what they say, or what they have done in the past.

It's called an unbiased investigation, and everybody political or not has a right to it, as do the hundreds of non-politicians also accused of mass murder by some people concerning 911.

Rumor, innuendo, conjecture, and half truths are used by politicians in elections against their opponents; if one wants to be above all that, one shouldn't use the same tactics when accusing them of crimes.

SirPhilip

9th November 2006, 04:37 AM

No.

My point.

Your point?No.

Pardalis

9th November 2006, 12:04 PM

Troll.

SirPhilip

9th November 2006, 02:30 PM

Troll. My signature quote is better than yours.

Pardalis

9th November 2006, 04:01 PM

Like the new addition to my signature SirPhilip?

SirPhilip

10th November 2006, 12:43 AM

Like the new addition to my signature SirPhilip? My crimes against humanity couldn't amount to Rumsfeld's, so my signature quote is still better than yours.:jedi:

gumboot

10th November 2006, 01:00 AM

My crimes against humanity couldn't amount to Rumsfeld's, so my signature quote is still better than yours.:jedi:

Did Rummy really say that? It makes a lot of sense. I wonder if he has done Landmark.

-Gumboot

Matthew Best

10th November 2006, 01:46 AM

I've never quite understood the reaction to that Rumsfeld quote - it seems to make perfect sense to me.

And he's said plenty of other bizarre things if you really want to laugh at him.

twinstead

10th November 2006, 03:54 AM

I've never quite understood the reaction to that Rumsfeld quote - it seems to make perfect sense to me.

I agree. I've never been a Rummy fan, but that quote makes sense:

There are things we know.
There are things we know we don't know.
There are things we don't know we don't know.