Super_Steve_Howey

Not your best post, just a load of waffle about whether i could concieve of a world where governments or officials allow terrorist acts to take place for political capital. Well, I was asking the question as it seems to fit the statements in that post. Have you yet to make you mind up on it, or is it to be left an open question? You deny knowing anything about the Russian attacks and then say you knew about them all along after Rob posted up the story. Hmmm. Renton: What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends? You: E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. Me: What exactly did the Russian government do that constitutes conspiracy, rather than good old fashioned and obvious barbarism? You: The Russians blew up their own citizens in Moscow Me: Is this a proven conspiracy, or another theory? That's what happened above. I didn't deny I knew of the attacks, I was unaware that the Russians were being blamed for them. I was asking if this was a proven conspiracy, in the same veign as Renton. I read the Independant comment you posted, it supports nothing more than the barbarous attacks I had already mentioned above. No mention is made of false flag terrorism operations, and even introduces doubt as to the ultimate power behind the attacks, be it rogue elements of the FSB or Putin himself. This relates to the issue of Bush's knowledge of the CIA plot. If I recall correctly as reported after the event, the CIA could not provide the intelligence to justify invasion, and it was other areas of the administration that were more 'up for it' That is the basic idea behind what i am saying. There. is. a. precedent. Evidently you're basing your precedent for a CIA mass-murder plot on an article in a newspaper. RobW didn't even make clear whether the men jailed for the building bombings were Russians or not, let alone who ordered it, merely another allegation of security service involvement based on another 'man in the know' . I haven't read Litvinenko's book so obviously I can't comment, suffice to say, one unfounded allegation does not reinforce another unrelated allegation, as either or both could be wrong. Trying to find some inconsistency around 'numbers of CIA' operatives as some sort of official theory that i am signing up to is just shite tbh. It doesnt matter nor is it important. Nothing i have said is predicated on numbers of agents involved. I haven't found it, it's there in in your posts, I merely pointed it out and asked for clarification. Like I say, I can hardly argue against a conspiracy where these beliefs are not fleshed out, much like I can't refute Parky's 9/11 theories if he offers none, only more questions. Given the points above about justification for invasion, and your line diagram below, it is more than relevant. Nothing i have said is predicated on ... morality (still dont see the irrelevance of this point do you?), I see it as a central point to the argument given the lack of evidence and the human element to such conspiracies and duality of purpose of so called instruments of state security; but I accept this is a dead end if you can't see that, I've put my point in as many ways as I can think of. Nothing i have said is predicated on ... the ability to prevent such attacks. You have continually attributated failings in planning, prediction, intelligence gathering and action, to some alterior motive, as if any failing of the CIA could never be down to the nature of their work, i.e. the waffle from me up there about surveilance etc As for this 'boundless' task of preventing terrorist attacks, you seem to be confusing Birmingham in 2007 with New York in 2001. Not boundless as in number of opponents, boundless as in ability to achieve complete success against every attack. There were not 1000s of homegrown sleeper cells all over the eastern seaboard, all trying to blow themselves up. Did I give that impression? That was not my intention. There were a few known operatives in the US at the time. Only one of the 9/11 hijackers was known to the CIA, and he was lost after entering the country. As for the masterminds, funders etc, you still haven't made it clear whether you believe the CIA are in collusion with them on an ongoing basis, given your statements about both WTC attacks These are the facts tbh: 9/11, War on Terror, Axis of evil, Iraq. In that order numbnuts. Thank you for breaking it down for me.

Why tomorrow? Are you expecting some sort of allergic reaction to your disgustocakes?

I have chilli on, tomato sauce. THEY ARE MEANT TO BE SAVOURY wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong

you should be shot

I didn't vote for Blair. I won't vote Brown/whoever Just what is it that you are doing to oust those in power? Nothing criminal I hope Is that you Vic? Why do I keep getting compared to this Vic bloke? Second time it's happened, are we similar in some way? I've never seen a post by him, so I'm in the dark on this one as it were...

I didn't vote for Blair. I won't vote Brown/whoever Just what is it that you are doing to oust those in power? Nothing criminal I hope

What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends? E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. There are others in history. Large groups of people? No, just one or two CIA officials. Whether the towers fell over, committed suicide or gave up hope is irrelevant, the question is not WHAT happened, the question is WHY 9/11 happened. The answer to that is simply failure of the intelligence services. The real conspiracy question is why that intelligence was not acted upon, not what the boiling point of magnesium is. E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. What exactly did the Russian government do that constitutes conspiracy, rather than good old fashioned and obvious barbarism? No, just one or two CIA officials. Do you posit that certain CIA agents failed to act to prevent 9/11 to gain extra powers? Does that not question the basic motivations of someone who wants to work for the CIA? What do you think the driving force is behind a CIA agent? Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain? Or even for a percieved higher moral purpose. What other threats are worse than 9/11 that could have justified in their mninds not acting to be able to combat future threats? The Russians blew up their own citizens in Moscow and blamed it on the Chechens. This is info that Litvenenko was meant to possess. The woman journalist that was murdered also had this info. 'Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain?'. In the context of the current war in Iraq, that statement doesnt really fit in this argument. Bush has countenanced the death of more than 3000 people. How many US soldiers have been sacrificed so far in this war and on what basis were they sacrificed? The Russians blew up their own citizens in Moscow Is this a proven conspiracy, or another theory? this statement doesnt really fit in this argument. I think it does if you are implying that a few individuals did not prevent 9/11 for reasons best known to themselves. It is something they would have had to conciously weigh up in their mind beforehand, and come up with an answer that justified it. Bush has countenanced the death of more than 3000 people. Whatever the downsides of the order for war, there were clear and public motivations and claimed benefits to the decision, in contrast to a supposed CIA plot. The moral culpability of both actions does not even compare in my opinion. Saying one could happen because the other happened is a leap too far, unless you attribute the logic of a Baghdad market truck bomb sponsor to that of CIA agents. There is no official plea of guilt from the Russians but loads of evidence, i just cant find it on google, i promise to keep looking and post up. Still dont get it. You questioned whether anyone could countenance the death of citizens. I continue to think that is a banal question given the war in Iraq, precipitated by the act we are discussing. Arguing about moral culpability is just irrelevant. loads of evidence, i just cant find it on google Case proven m'lud Still dont get it. You questioned whether anyone could countenance the death of citizens. I continue to think that is a banal question given the war in Iraq, precipitated by the act we are discussing. Arguing about moral culpability is just irrelevant. You state that Bush, ordering a war against an identified enemy (with at best unpredictable results but clear and public justification) is morally equivalent to a couple of CIA agents being complicit in the murder of 3,000 of their own citizens (well below what could have been the death toll, but mind blowing nonetheless) for some as yet unidentified goals, that may or may not have been in their own self interest, or a perceived higher national interest. Suspending for the minute that, if Bush was not aware of the CIA plot, then plot was premeditated action, while the war is a reaction; do you honestly see no difference in the morality and hence burden of personal justification in the two situations, thereby asserting the likelihood of a CIA plot to ignore 9/11?

And could all be answered by the words "governmental incompetence". The security forces were caught with their pants down, as nothing like this had ever happened before, let alone on American soil. They are making sure they don't make the same mistake again though, that's for sure. Quite, but those are the sorts of questions that should be asked, to help try and make sure it doesn't happen again. Yes. But like you said earlier, the existence of the loons does take the heat off their incompetence somewhat. Ateotd, people are going to believe in what they want to believe on the matter, and we won't find out what really happened behind the closed doors of the CIA until we are old men, if ever. Personally, I choose to believe that they cocked up though rather than accept they were willing to kill hundreds of their own staff (Pentagon building) and thousands of citizens for some unknown motive. Maybe the incompetence was in not anticipating such a devastating attack. Maybe the incompetence was not realising the scale of what was about to happen. On what basis should they have predicted it? It was totally unprecedented. What were the prior clues to an attack on such a scale? I would have thought agents might be allowed to carry out certain acts if it meant gaining an upper hand in another area - like middle east foreign policy, the most economically important region for US energy supply. Are you now asserting that this alleged CIA plot was countenanced from above in line with a clear policy, negating the previous 'one or two' agents theory? I would still contest that the CIA (having helped set up al qaeda via Pakistan in the first place) knew that something was going to happen and didnt seem to try very hard to stop it. Please expand on what level of detail you think they knew that something was going to happen. And how the fact that the CIA assisted Al-Qaeda in the 1980's means they would know of their plans in 2001?

What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends? E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. There are others in history. Large groups of people? No, just one or two CIA officials. Whether the towers fell over, committed suicide or gave up hope is irrelevant, the question is not WHAT happened, the question is WHY 9/11 happened. The answer to that is simply failure of the intelligence services. The real conspiracy question is why that intelligence was not acted upon, not what the boiling point of magnesium is. E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. What exactly did the Russian government do that constitutes conspiracy, rather than good old fashioned and obvious barbarism? No, just one or two CIA officials. Do you posit that certain CIA agents failed to act to prevent 9/11 to gain extra powers? Does that not question the basic motivations of someone who wants to work for the CIA? What do you think the driving force is behind a CIA agent? Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain? Or even for a percieved higher moral purpose. What other threats are worse than 9/11 that could have justified in their mninds not acting to be able to combat future threats? The Russians blew up their own citizens in Moscow and blamed it on the Chechens. This is info that Litvenenko was meant to possess. The woman journalist that was murdered also had this info. 'Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain?'. In the context of the current war in Iraq, that statement doesnt really fit in this argument. Bush has countenanced the death of more than 3000 people. How many US soldiers have been sacrificed so far in this war and on what basis were they sacrificed? The Russians blew up their own citizens in Moscow Is this a proven conspiracy, or another theory? this statement doesnt really fit in this argument. I think it does if you are implying that a few individuals did not prevent 9/11 for reasons best known to themselves. It is something they would have had to conciously weigh up in their mind beforehand, and come up with an answer that justified it. Bush has countenanced the death of more than 3000 people. Whatever the downsides of the order for war, there were clear and public motivations and claimed benefits to the decision, in contrast to a supposed CIA plot. The moral culpability of both actions does not even compare in my opinion. Saying one could happen because the other happened is a leap too far, unless you attribute the logic of a Baghdad market truck bomb sponsor to that of CIA agents.

What about an example of a govt committing an act of terrorism against its own people for political ends? E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. There are others in history. Large groups of people? No, just one or two CIA officials. Whether the towers fell over, committed suicide or gave up hope is irrelevant, the question is not WHAT happened, the question is WHY 9/11 happened. The answer to that is simply failure of the intelligence services. The real conspiracy question is why that intelligence was not acted upon, not what the boiling point of magnesium is. E.g. 1 Russia and Chechnya. What exactly did the Russian government do that constitutes conspiracy, rather than good old fashioned and obvious barbarism? No, just one or two CIA officials. Do you posit that certain CIA agents failed to act to prevent 9/11 to gain extra powers? Does that not question the basic motivations of someone who wants to work for the CIA? What do you think the driving force is behind a CIA agent? Do you think someone could countenance the deaths of 3,000 people for their own personal gain? Or even for a percieved higher moral purpose. What other threats are worse than 9/11 that could have justified in their mninds not acting to be able to combat future threats?

Firing Robson one would not have led to the other (presumably a point done to death, but the truth is the truth as Parky wouldn't say )

Perhaps because a similar event has never happened? Passenger jets rarely hit buildings, even less so at that trajectory. The Pentagon is possibly unique in its design and construction. Yes but they crash often and always leave a lot of wreckage and bags strewn all over the place. Which crash are you comparing it to then? This is a good site. Note the gouged earth. http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles...anecrashes.html I see this has gone un-answered by the "experts" on here. SSH already did. Anyway, you've got a cheek with "experts", you've backed up absolute nothing you've said in this thread. No doubt you could tell us, but you'd have to kill us. Are you saying a passenger jet would leave a tiny hole like that in the side of the Pentagon and there would be hardly any debris and what happened to the wings? Why won't they release more than 3 secs of footage with what is one of the most security camered up places in the world.....Don't worry I know neither of you can ans any of these. But I won't debunk your opinions for it. I don't know and I don't claim to know. Neither do you. The whole topic is not something I'm particularly knowledgeable about. Claiming to know what really happened and offering no proof = zero credibility though imo. It's a bit like Dubya or Blair expecting us to believe the WMD thing tbh To be fair (evidentially) Parky is not claiming that (apart from with the insurance scam ), he is merely posing questions. I am offering up what I believe are plausible answers, but there comes a time when you realise that no answer will do, as the motivation is the questioning itself. There-in lies the credibility, or lack thereof .

Perhaps because a similar event has never happened? Passenger jets rarely hit buildings, even less so at that trajectory. The Pentagon is possibly unique in its design and construction. Yes but they crash often and always leave a lot of wreckage and bags strewn all over the place. Which crash are you comparing it to then? This is a good site. Note the gouged earth. http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles...anecrashes.html I see this has gone un-answered by the "experts" on here. SSH already did. Anyway, you've got a cheek with "experts", you've backed up absolute nothing you've said in this thread. No doubt you could tell us, but you'd have to kill us. Are you saying a passenger jet would leave a tiny hole like that in the side of the Pentagon and there would be hardly any debris and what happened to the wings? Why won't they release more than 3 secs of footage with what is one of the most security camered up places in the world.....Don't worry I know neither of you can ans any of these. But I won't debunk your opinions for it. Do not confuse unfamiliarity with irregularity. I'm saying the situation has never happened before, and therefore observations on the crash can only be based on untested theoretical assertions. The few bits of footage I have seen have amounted to a few relevant frames from each camera view, such was the speed of the impact. That would seem to account for there being only a few seconds of relevant (or rather newsworthy) impact footage existing. I can't see any reason why they would have fixed cameras pointing up at all points in the sky, just in case. I think a home video of the plane in flight exists, but can't quite remember either way.

Perhaps because a similar event has never happened? Passenger jets rarely hit buildings, even less so at that trajectory. The Pentagon is possibly unique in its design and construction. Yes but they crash often and always leave a lot of wreckage and bags strewn all over the place. Which crash are you comparing it to then? This is a good site. Note the gouged earth. http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles...anecrashes.html I see this has gone un-answered by the "experts" on here. SSH already did. Anyway, you've got a cheek with "experts", you've backed up absolute nothing you've said in this thread. No doubt you could tell us, but you'd have to kill us. I suppose you and Stevie believed there was WMD in Iraq. .....and thre was nothing wrong with the voting machines in Florida.. Iraq had (note emphasis please) nuclear program technology in the 80's and 90's. The fact Saddam chose to obstruct the IAEA would plant seeds of doubt in anyone but the most optimistic of people. Voting machines? No idea. I might go and have a read. Hardly worth debating though when the only clear winner in elections is apathy. Slightly ludicrous to say the entire country's policy and direction should hang on 2,000 people in Florida. I would suggest the voting boundary system is more generally at fault, if I recall, incumbents are free to redraw their own boundaries .

Perhaps because a similar event has never happened? Passenger jets rarely hit buildings, even less so at that trajectory. The Pentagon is possibly unique in its design and construction. Yes but they crash often and always leave a lot of wreckage and bags strewn all over the place. Which crash are you comparing it to then? This is a good site. Note the gouged earth. http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles...anecrashes.html I see this has gone un-answered by the "experts" on here. http://www.toontastic.net/forum/index.php?...st&p=283999

The many eyewitnesses who saw it happen make it believable enough to me. This isn't so, there were many contradictory eye witness reports inc a small passenger jet and even a military aircraft..Some even described the high pitched whine of a missile. Police will always tell you that under pressure in these split second moments eye witnesses often haven't a clue what they really saw. And how many eye-witness accounts are used to support your questions? Steve it must be so easy for you just laboriously and religiously following the official story....Have a little fun fella.. The thing is though Parky, he's shown in this thread that he knows what he's on about, he's more or less answered your questions while asking you questions you can't answer and he hasn't had to resort to making up an anecdote about meeting someone 'in the know' yet either. He's just regurgitated the official story. And he hasn't answered many of my (and others questions). Ie A fire near the top of a building and how this would collapse the steel in the bottom of the building....Even in the official report (some of which I've read and I doubt you or Stevie have) this is gossed over with phrases about conductive heat energy and transferance....All cobblers you undrstand. WHY NO INDEPENDANT INQUIRY?? .......I'm not talking about 'good old boy' senators and friends of the Bush family either... I really think its hilarious that people beleive this whole story as it has been portrayed....So full of holes it is. He's just regurgitated the official story As far as it agrees with my own sense of reality and understanding of the world, that is true. Would you rather I claim blue is green to explain events? he hasn't answered many of my (and others questions). Ie A fire near the top of a building and how this would collapse the steel in the bottom of the building In an answer previously, I asked you who had claimed it had collapsed from the bottom? As far as I recall, the collapse occured near the impact sites. I don't remember any other questions you had that I haven't answered. If there are, apologies, remind me what they were and I'll try my best . phrases about conductive heat energy and transferance Not clear what you allude to here.

Perhaps because a similar event has never happened? Passenger jets rarely hit buildings, even less so at that trajectory. The Pentagon is possibly unique in its design and construction. Yes but they crash often and always leave a lot of wreckage and bags strewn all over the place. Which crash are you comparing it to then? This is a good site. Note the gouged earth. http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles...anecrashes.html Note the gouged earth. Why? Is there an incident on that site of a large passeneger jet hitting a heavily reinforced building in the side? On the front page I see passenger jets crashing into the ground, and fighter jets and small aircraft hitting non-reinforced buildlings.

The many eyewitnesses who saw it happen make it believable enough to me. This isn't so, there were many contradictory eye witness reports inc a small passenger jet and even a military aircraft..Some even described the high pitched whine of a missile. Police will always tell you that under pressure in these split second moments eye witnesses often haven't a clue what they really saw. And how many eye-witness accounts are used to support your questions? Steve it must be so easy for you just laboriously and religiously following the official story....Have a little fun fella.. Not at all. It is quite easy however to point out that theorists will put different weight on the same evidence, i.e. eye-witness accounts, dependant on whether they support their questions or not

I can't say anymore than I have Al. But when we meet I'll tell you the whole story. You know 'they' own the media. So, they don't appear anywhere else that you know of then? No.But why would it....? No Lloyds broker or other consultant involved in this is going to go to the media and say they ain't ganna pay because of x y z are they? That is not the way it works. Insurance companies quietly re-build they're positions and alter their policies to better protect themselves in future. As they have done....with regards to terrorist acts. Isn't that what any insurance company would do in the event of a large payout? Are you seriously not even going to allude to the basics of your info, but still claim evidence of wrong-doing?

The many eyewitnesses who saw it happen make it believable enough to me. This isn't so, there were many contradictory eye witness reports inc a small passenger jet and even a military aircraft..Some even described the high pitched whine of a missile. Police will always tell you that under pressure in these split second moments eye witnesses often haven't a clue what they really saw. And how many eye-witness accounts are used to support your questions?

Perhaps because a similar event has never happened? Passenger jets rarely hit buildings, even less so at that trajectory. The Pentagon is possibly unique in its design and construction. Yes but they crash often and always leave a lot of wreckage and bags strewn all over the place. Which crash are you comparing it to then?

Just like the ancients

I can't say anymore than I have Al. But when we meet I'll tell you the whole story. You haven't said anything.