Super_Steve_Howey

not that there's anythong wrong with that like... but

I should have sued them! Me and the other bloke who went arse over tit before i did! So, after I told you some bloke had gone arse over tit on the stairs, you still did it anyway? The Trent is class for seriously cheap alchohol and access to the bar post-match (literally walk out the stadium, walk in the Trent and get a pint! wtf). Although for a semi-pretendy-recovering alchoholic I really shouldn't have found it

Thats what you call plausible deniability. I thought plausible deniability was not letting the official spokesman in on the plot, so that their denials of knowledge appear genuine. They have nothing to hide because they know nothing. I'm off to see The Good Shepherd in a bit, I expect the truth will finally be revealed by Hollywood It's excellent btw and a good primer for the 'dark side' ramblings in this thread. De Niro has issues....

"Does my bum look big in this?" "Did you forget you're a fat fucker like?" is NOT the response to give btw

basically what you are saying is we need to kill all the chimps?

What if that player didn't score in the meantime, but was loosely involved in the build-up to a goal? Exactly, where would it end? Also, there is a point to retrospective punishment, in that a player is being punished for something he would currently be getting away with. He may have an impact in that particular game after his offence but he'll be banned for a subsequent match or matches. Exactly. Either the player gets caught by the ref, either he gets caught after that. Simple. Plus it would also take a little bit of pressure off the referees... because UEFA seem to just want to leave all up to the men in black which is ridiculous. What's the point in punishing him after the match? Has that ever changed the result? The whole point is that bad decisions affect games, and end up standing, while it is obvious within a couple of minutes it was a bad decision. At the end of the day, no-one ever forgets these decisions, and while they exist, there will always be calls for change. The ref's will never be good enough to get all decisions right. So if you're happy with the current situation then fine. I for one am just fed up at too many games turning on one bad decision. Decisions after the game help no-one.

"After the chimp removed the tool, it would frequently smell or lick it."

Thats what you call plausible deniability. I thought plausible deniability was not letting the official spokesman in on the plot, so that their denials of knowledge appear genuine. They have nothing to hide because they know nothing. I'm off to see The Good Shepherd in a bit, I expect the truth will finally be revealed by Hollywood

The terrorists turned of the radios and transpondrrs off when they took over the planes. The 13 supected hijackings figure came from the entire number of planes that appeared to be off course and not responding to radio calls. Erog the Pentagon plane was by then just an uncontactable blip on the screen. from Parky: Is this not explained by the fact that there was already a hell of a flap on? I would imagine the SOP's handle single instances of lost aircraft, not the kind of chaos on 9/11. Do these SOP's mention what action is to be taken in the event of intercept? If I recall, most of the delay was down to there being no clear indication of authority to fire from the White House, amongst mixed infromation from the civil controllers. I would imagine this has something to do with the lack of figher activity. The radar signature, and indeed speed of a plane, is completely different to a missile. This would be evident on the post-analysis of the Pentagon data (which they have). A drone would have been spotted by civilians as easy as a plane should have been

I think I saw a movie about this a while back...

I don't know I don't like making assumptions. but a 757 is huge where are all the bits? Not much left when a plane full of fuel hits a reinforced concrete wall at 400 mph. The aluminium would vapourise almost entirely, other parts were clearly identified. There was a clear hole in the wall where the left engine struck, and the black boxes were recovered. How much more evidence do you want, bearing in mind air traffic control, phone calls, etc? Shite how much heat does it take to completely vapourise many tonnes of aluminium and plastic. Why have other crashes not done so?. Which bits? The plane took 40 minutes after the first plane hit the twin tower to hit the pentagon. They seem a little Laissez faire for me. At the sake of repeating my myself, you have no idea what happens in this situation. You cannot produce one example of a similar situation for proof there should be large pieces of wreckage visible. And finally, there are photographs of debris, inside the building, posted by me about 20 pages back. What are you getting at with the 40 minutes bit?

Drafting Emre's suspension letter...

How long is it since we gave anyone a real thrashing? I'd just like to make clear at no point in any time have I been involved in any kind of BDSM partnership with Dr Ken

Impressive. Unless it was just for wearing flourescent tops

Bayer Red Hand FC Espanyol AZ Werder Macabi Paul San Germain Benfica Shakhtar Bordeaux/Osasuna Sevilla Celta Viga Braga Lens Feyenord I would give us 3-1 Best chance yet

I agree. With Bernard, he could handle the ball, if happened to be in the right place of course, whereas there is an audible intake of breath from the crowd when the likes of Carr and Baba recieve the ball.

Has he been any good?

I always find myself saying, we'll get beat if we play next time like that, but at the end of the day, don't we just play like that when the opposition are shite and there's nowt to play for? I can't get it out of my mind that under Keegan that game would have been a slaughter Probably just rose tinted an all that...

Can't wait for the 'what Jonny got for his birthday thread'

You're surely not suggesting the third in line to the throne is a coward?

Well, I thought it solved a few problems. I can't see much point to video evidence after the game, recriminations still rumble on when a player who shouldn't be on the pitch subsequently changes a game, or a goal that should have been disallowed decides a game? Retrospective punishments can't overturn results can they? Like I said, who would have a valid objection to a goal scored by a player that commited a red card offence 3 minutes earlier being wiped off? He shouldn't be on the pitch, but this is a way of implementing that justice without it being abused by coaches or stopping the game every 5 minutes. And as for the non-league argument, I thought the main point was that the things at stake from bad decisions are light years away from non-league. Pretty much every important game is televised nowadays no? If not just for highlights. I don't see why NUFC should be denied a goal that seals 4th place because it was only found out using rules that can't be applied in non-league. Perhaps these gripes aren't really there then...

As champions, do we get automatic entry to defend our trophy next season?

I'm not defending the official story vigourously, I'm merely providing answers to the apparent questions you have about the story, and posing reasonable questions about the events you allude happened instead, in the absence of any positive evidence for it. This is what any rational person does when confronted with questions about their rational beliefs. I for don't believe the story because the White House told me, I believe it because it makes sense in the absence of any credible alternatives, and fits with my normal understaing of physics, logic, reason and humanity. The questions I have about your alternative versions of events are just as valid as yours about the official story, but for some reason you imply one set of questions carries more weight because they go against the 'official story' I'd say no one has the real "official story". Probably to embarrasing to let any of it out with all the fuck ups an all. You propose events as having but one obvious cause, continually using the absence of something as proof, without any direct evidence. The CIA didn't stop the terrorists so they must have known about them, rather than they just didn't know about them. The US attacked Iraq after the Al-Qaeda attacks so they must have been complicit in the attacks, rather than Bush seeing an fortuitous opportunity for some unfinished business. There is no evidence of a plane (which there is) so there must not have been a plane. Doubt is not proof. Ok one last time. 1 You have failed to pick up on whether i agree with the facts surrounding the main events. 2, Questioning whether these buildings were rigged in case of an attack and finding it a plausible possibility has nothing to do with the attacks, others may try to link it, I havent. WT7 remains a mystery though. 3, The position i have taken is that there is one crucial debate; did the US know an attack of some sorts was imminent and was there a failure of intelligence or was it allowed to happen? There is no proof that either is the case. You, in the absence of any other evidence want to believe the US. I just find the whole thing too much of a coincidence and have learned in the last 3-4 years that the people responsible for US foreign policy are deceitful, murderous cunts, whose religious views put them in the 'clinically insane' bracket. Forgive me my cynicism. I knew you accepted the hijackers theory, but took the WTC7 opinions as indication of acceptance of the demolition/insurance theory. My mistake. The CIA plot we've been over, and my points above still stand. You are using association with other world events and the absence of evidence to allude to a specific alternative event. This is by nature an extremely difficult position to argue against, so basic are the premises used. [i]There was NO CIA plot.[/i] Infact the aftermath so Tenet losing his job and the CIA downsized. They aren't in the habit of doing this to themselves. Do you accept that the kind of plot you allude to could never be proved no matter how much official documentation was released? Do you concede that it could have been carried out purely on a verbal basis? Not sure what this question means please clarify. Accepting these ponts, then we are back to ground already well covered here, namely the number of agents involved in the plot, and their motivations w.r.t. possible gains weighed against morality. This event could have been managed by half a dozen agents/ ex-cia/ special forces. Could six people keep aiding the hijackers a secret...? What do you think? On this last quote :"people responsible for ... foreign policy are deceitful, murderous cunts, whose religious views put them in the 'clinically insane' bracket. Forgive me my cynicism." I would argue this has been the case in part around the world for time immemorial. It is a viewpoint that could be used to see conspiracy in any government action. The truest sentence in this thread. Cheers. There was NO CIA plot. Infact the aftermath so Tenet losing his job and the CIA downsized. They aren't in the habit of doing this to themselves. Well, this post was addressed to CG, who thinks there was, but thanks for the input . I have myself pointed out that the CIA were the least 'up for' a barney with Iraq and therefore the strategic gains therein This event could have been managed by half a dozen agents/ ex-cia/ special forces. Could six people keep aiding the hijackers a secret...? What do you think? OK, so based on the above statement, and (some) of your related posts (not all as they would conflict with this scenario), I have the following assumptions: There was no missile into the pentagon (requiring no elaborate camera subdifuge) There were real hijackers using real planes (rendering the mobile phone arguments and personel requiremens moot) to attack all 4 targets The final goal was some higher power play (not involving the CIA or Bush) and not money (i.e. not requiring subdifuge and extra manpower to collapse buildings and fool insurance companies) Accepting these assumptions, I have these concerns: Were these handlers Arabic? What were their stated goals to the hijackers? If they were western, how were they persuaded to go along with the plan? If the handlers were not being directed by the CIA, who was directing them, and for what purpose? Presumably there is an alleged group at the centre of power that does not change with change of government, but that are high enough to direct policy. What specifically did they then gain from orchestrating 9/11? They already presumably have the power to start wars and influence legislation, what else would they have lusted after? Enough to willingly murder 3,000 Americans (again, this was a low estimate). If, as predicted, the Democrats sweep to power, what of their gains due to 9/11? If Bush (and by extension, his cronies and hangers on) knew nothing of these conspirators, then why are a lot of the motivations and supposed benefits from the events post 9/11 attributed to Bush? Did the conspirators improve his lot out of kindness? Again, I really don't like just returning questions with questions, but you can see how such brief suppositions can't really be answered with concrete facts.

language lets hear one from you M. My dog has no nose. Y. How does it smell? M. Awful. Alright for you? good clean fun. It did not take long and I'm sure someone smiled. but had you heard it

Glenn Roeder to be given freedom of the city.