Super_Steve_Howey

The age old argument against video evidence is the time it would take to await decisions, and the stopping of play. (oft used by Motty I think) How about this as a workable implementation? 1. Video can be used but only applies for disputed goals, decisions leading to goals/ruling out goals, pentalties and diving/cheating 2. In the above events, the game conitunues at normal pace with the original referees decision standing. 3. The above incidents are analysed routinely by a video official, or as the result of a challenge from a member of the a club's bench. 4. There is no signal to the players or spectators that a video review is taking place 5. Video is analysed in cooperation with the broadcasters (i.e. no live game = no video evidence rulings) 6. On finding a decision is incorrect given the video evidence, the referee stops play, and takes appropriate action. On finding no conflict, no signal is made and play is not interrupted. 7. If necessary, further corrective action is taken, e.g. if a player dives and 2 minutes later scores or assists, the goal is chalked off The only downside I can see is it undermines referees, but in my opinion, it is about time we moved away from the plainly false and not currently working view that the ref's are infallible.

You gonna post her to death?

Have a good one Jonny I feel for the Adidas production planners this time of year. I nearly bought a pair of Chile 62?'s yesterday, didn't feel comfortable though

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' 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. 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? 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. 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.

Not necessarily not all missiles leave debris. There are some compound missiles which completely burn up. What's a compound missile? A missile made not of metal but a carbon compound. Laser guided can enter throu a window or ventilation shaft. Can carry a lot of explosive. Or a thermite charge. What is it propelled by? Rocket motors have large metal parts. Cruise missiles have turbine blades. Laser guidance implies non carbon elements that would survive a crash. Why would it need a thermite charge? A large amount of explosive leaves a chemical trace, and a fireball different to the one seen on the video stills in this thread. Not all missiles ar propelled by rockets. Apart from rocket motors or turbines as in the cruise misslies, what other methods are used? Laser guided doesnt always mean an on board laser. I took that as read, I was refering to the onbaord equipment necessary for tracking a laser And can you give proof to the different effect to the one seen on the video? Only the numersous videos of missile impacts and jetliner crashes that I have seen. Do you have a source of a video of a missile impact that produces that effect? As I have already stated, some types of incendary warheads might produce that blast (although still arguably look different), but they are not the same type as the warheads designed to penetrate 3 rings of the pentagon. The few combination designs that I am aware of would impliciltly mean the blast would occur after full penetration, and thus would manifest a blast further inside the pentagon rings. I am of course presuming an off the shelf missile was used, i.e. a special one-off jetliner crash simulating one was not specially designed and built.

Are you saying that Lockerbie wasn't instigated by Gaddafi? No where did I say that can you raise it in bold or point it out in a different colour? My mistake, on second reading it would appear you are implying that the US government (a completely different administration to the one now) knew of the Lockerbie plan but ignored it so they could use it as an excuse to bomb Libya? Is this correct. If not, I can see no reason why Lockerbie is used here.

Who's the 'they'? Why would they planes be 'decoys' after all there is plenty of evidence they hit they buildings? You are making a silly linear argument out of the planes and the explosives....Why couldn't these two events be unconnected?If the building were weakened and a danger to those around...Why couldn't the charges been added to the basement later..I mean they could have been in place all along...You can't refute this as there is no evidence either way is there> Apart from the fact they CONVENIENTLY FELL IN THEIR OWN FOOTPRINTS. What a coincidence. Parky, I don't know who "they" are. I thought you did though? I have NO idea who THEY are. Otherwise I would have said. In saying that I'm sure Bush himself only had the vaguest of warnings as well. Do you accept that most of your theories invlove the complicity of hundreds of people? Rigging of explosives, confiscation of cameras, simulation of planes/passengers, grand larsony, etc etc

You're right it does look like a jet fuel explosion.. Doesn't it?

Not necessarily not all missiles leave debris. There are some compound missiles which completely burn up. What's a compound missile? A missile made not of metal but a carbon compound. Laser guided can enter throu a window or ventilation shaft. Can carry a lot of explosive. Or a thermite charge. What is it propelled by? Rocket motors have large metal parts. Cruise missiles have turbine blades. Laser guidance implies non carbon elements that would survive a crash. Why would it need a thermite charge? A large amount of explosive leaves a chemical trace, and a fireball different to the one seen on the video stills in this thread.

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' 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.

Are you saying that Lockerbie wasn't instigated by Gaddafi?

Haha, Parky getting arsey because he's been completely fucked over by everyone in this thread and hasn't got a leg to stand on with his silly conspiracy theories. By the way, where's the satire in asking how they managed to convince an airline to go along with their lies? What's satirical about wondering what happened to the passengers of a flight which seemingly now didn't crash at all? How did they make a missile look like an aeroplane on air traffic control radars? Is that satire or just a valid question? No satire Parky, just yet more questions that you haven't got a clue how to answer. Assumptions based on the usual nonsense. Saying it is doesn't make it so...If you would like I could embarass you? Go on then. You've embarrassed yourself for the last 14 pages of this thread, so if I can do anything to take the heat off, go for it. By the way, just so we set out the ground rules in advance, for you to embarrass me you're going to need to provide some serious evidence that a missile hit the Pentagon, that explosives brought down the towers, and answer all of the questions that I and others have raised in this thread about how that would be possible and what happened to the plane, the airline, the passengers, the mobile phone calls etc. etc. If you're going to post another link to some crackpot website, and then dodge any and all questions pointed in your direction then I'm afraid that's not going to do the trick. No Gemma a plane hit the pentagon and completely dissappeared. Right. Did you not see the earlier photos posted of plane debris? OK, so someone says it's not a 757, what does that imply? That someone trucked it there and planted it? Exactly how many people are involved in this cover-up, as opposed to being innocent people investigating an attack? Bearing in mind missile debris and explosive traces would be evident.

Well what I wouldn't do is store them in a skyscraper which is being used as office space in the centre of Manhattan. Having done economics Gemmill you'll know that insurance markets work on probabilities/risks and costs. If the probability that the building being attacked x cost of sorting out an attack > the probability of fire x cost of sorting fire in a building with explosives, then insure against the attack. Therefore prepare the building. There is an economic justification if the prob of attack is high enough. If the probability of attack is tiny then it would be stupid to put explosives in the building. Lost? You should be. As we both know, economic theory is predominantly bollocks. Escpecially when used to justify pre-rigging a skyscraper with explosives. Theory is bollocks but those equations are just simplifications of real world insurance policy as worked out by an Actuary. Thats how insurance companies work, i'm not setting tax policy here ffs. What was the justification for 'pulling' WTC7?

How exactly did they make these crystal clear calls from mobiles on the plane, when recently the same airline felt the need to install new systems to make this possible? I notice you failed to respond to this question directed at you earlier. Shit, I've entered into this again If it was impossible to make calls from the planes, what exactly do you think that implies?

He said he did.. ?

Can someone consolidate the Silverstein quesions for me. Is the current theory that he unknowingly bought a wreck of a building, and when he realised what a state it was in, as a solution, because he knew there was a possibility of an attack, he had them rigged with explosives, took out a huge insurance policy, and waited until he could blow them up under cover of an attack and collect the insurance money? Or am I just way off base?

God bless the deep south. "There are black sports and there are white sports" "This is NASCAR not Blackcar"

Afterwards on Irish TV they said it was within the rules but my understanding was that if you wanted to take it quickly you said so to the referee and then took the kick immediately, otherwise you waited for the whistle. Last night the kick wasn't taken immediately so I can see why Lille are so pissed off. That was my understanding too, you ask the referee if you can take it quickly and it was up to the opposition to be paying attention. I thought he then needed to signal or whistle though, which he didnt. The ref nods and its taken straightaway. Well, no arm in the air = illegal free kick

If it was a missile, how do you explain the blast? It looks distinctly like a jet fuel explosion. Missiles are either equipped with an inncedary warhead or a penetrative warhead. Some do both, however, in that case the explsosion would have to come from deep inside the building. Secondly, single point incendary explosions do not look like the explosion seen on that camera.

All I could find regarding free kicks. Nowt about waiting for the whistle http://www.fifa.com/en/laws/Laws13_01.htm

Forgetting his form for the minute, but is his experience that valuable? Arguably the bloke has captained 2 of the biggest failures of potential in decades of international competition. I mean, he knows the routine etc, but does he really have the experience of a winner?

Can't you phone up DHL? They're allowed to do small post now. Might cost a bit more than 32p? mind...

They killed that when they merged 1st and second class. This way they get to say you have guaranteed next day delivery of all mail. Doesn't seem matter that a lot of people aren't in until 5 to collect it.

What time was the walk off? wasn't clear from the highlights

He's on a tea break. Union rules. Sure he's not breaking someone's arm at this moment, for non-payment of debt??? They're breaking his for coming round. Why'd you think he wants to be a postie?