We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 2876 comments are related to the topic:
9/11 was it a conspiracy?
9/11 was it a conspiracy?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 2,876
|
By:
Having read the whole thread I can't get my head around people arguing against any posts by Misspoker.
Officially 19 hijackers. No need (technically) for anyone else involved except one bossman to order it. So if it was carried out by these on behalf of an ulterior motive, i.e. for someone elses benefit, it could be done with just 21. Pontoon. |
|
By:
The idea that George Bush, a man notably stupid and with such a lack of media control he can be reported choking on a pretzel, could mastermind an even that could fool all the people you'd expect to know about such things, but somehow be unravelled by people with, well, less qualifications, is a marvellous one!
|
|
By:
*event
|
|
By:
Who suggested that, sparkster? Besides, do you really think POTUS calls all the shots? Ever heard of plausible deniability?
|
|
By:
Hello Slarty
The US government has been blamed at various times on here. No sources I'm afraid, but if you're in agreement with me that such an idea is ridiculous then we've no reason to fall out. |
|
By:
Indeed, spark. It's all just banter to me.
Unlike most on this thread I remain largely agnostic on this subject. If this doesn't always appear to be the case that's because I am often playing Devil's advocate. Many posters seem content to blithely believe the official version of events (see the 911 Commission report), which they seem to have taken on wholesale and without much consideration. But I like to think for myself and encourage others to do so by offering counter-argument in the hope of provoking a deeper examination of the various claims. A forlorn hope, I know, but I'm a stubborn fecker. Back to your point, the use of blanket terms like "the US Government" is sloppy in such circs. It could have been a rogue faction (such things have happened before, such as the "Business Plot" to oust FDR) and, were it the case, would likely have included a tiny handful of people at the top of the military-intelligence, perhaps names not publicly well-known. As to whether I think it ridiculous that Bush may have had a hand in it, my answer is "no" I don't. I coudn't put a probablity to the lkelihood as the accuracy of the relevant information required is impossible to assess. What I do know, having worked in the media and met a number of famous and powerful people, I know first-hand that media-concocted personalities can bear little resemblance to the reality. Most don't even know that he's not really a Texan ffs! |
|
By:
Sorry for the typos. I hope the gist is there.
I should add that most CT believers are as irrational and sloppy in their thinking and reasoning as those who meekly toe the official "truth". |
|
By:
Slarty[;)]
|
|
By:
crap bait
nice haul |
|
By:
don,t need much bait for this, +400 shows the health of the forum, but the intelligence....oh well
|
|
By:
Two more smart-arsed remarks from two who have offered absolutely nothing to this thread.
Sunset. How many "conspiracy theorists" have you met then? I would have thought that someone who can diagnose paranoia and schizophrenia so readily could definitely be described as an expert. |
|
By:
Slarty, I would agree, generally, that it would be lazy to assume that any plot from within would involve the US government from the President down to an unspecified level. However, the case as put by conspiracy theorists on here when pointed out that politicians, globally, don't have much of an issue with it being an al qaeda plot, along with media and scientists, is that they're all in on it. I find that completely implausible, and as we've both apparently worked in the media, I'm sure you do too.
I find the idea that a 'rogue faction' could pull off such an event, deceiving the entire world, with the exception of a few keyboard warriors, equally implausible. And as always, I await ANY evidence that this is the case. |
|
By:
Well on its way to being a 500+ thread. Well done CB, but some points must be deducted for choosing the easy route.
|
|
By:
some points deducted?
a facking 9/11 one and a god vs evolution one. counting down the hours before the US Open imo |
|
By:
It's true that those are not the most impressive routes to the elusive 500+ threader, but they all count.
|
|
By:
Shameless really.
|
|
By:
mr winkle 09 Aug 10 00:12
A BNP thread would easily outnumber this.  Oh I forgot...we can argue about the deaths of thousands in the U.S.A. by muslims, but we can't discuss the BNP who have killed nobody in the UK, as the luvvies always get the threads pulled. |
|
By:
What are your opinions on the BNP Mr Winkle?
|
|
By:
Upstanding members of the community imo.
|
|
By:
Although I naturally lean 3/4 of the way to the conspiracy side,I've been reading stuff on the anti-conspiracy "Debunking 9/11" website.
They don't mention The Pentagon strike at all though. Why's that then? |
|
By:
secondary fishing is not allowed without a licence
|
|
By:
having had a quick look Gene, they're so giddy about the World Trade Centre I doubt they've even got round to it yet.
|
|
By:
Sparky, the idea that the global media have been complicit in some way is also incredible to me. And there have been some notable pieces that have disclosed from the consensus view (the Daily Mirror and Sunday Times did pieces on unanswered q's and coincidences in the official version of events a few years ago and there have been a few dissenting views reported elsewhere, such as Michael Meacher and John Pilger). But controlling the flow of important information from such an event is relatively straight forward as it all flows through the most senior intelligence channels and out through their press offices. Journalists are often totally dependent on these official sources for information on the investigation, evidence, etc. So proper scrutiny is impossible in these cases. In addition, in this country and probably others there are ways of banning the reporting of certain matters for reasons of "national security" (in tis country they are called D-notices - I wonder how or if this process is policed?)
Also, it is clear from past experience (eg Google PROJECT MOCKINGBIRD) that intelligence agencies sometimes have agents or assets in the media whom they can use to communicate whatever message they are wanting to convey. So while I agree it is silly to imagine thousands of reporters and editors being told what "big lie" they need to conceal, there are various ways that the media can be influenced and their message controlled. |
|
By:
Nothing I'd disagree with there.
|
|
By:
 *departed (not disclosed) |
|
By:
After Slarty's excellent write up at 16.25 I detect the first signs that Sparky's view on 9/11 is a bit(maybe only a bit) closer to those that he thinks he disagreed with,than he first thought.
|
|
By:
Like most people's, my view on the matter hasn't changed in years.
I don't think 9/11 was on inside job because of a) the absence of any evidence suggesting it was, b) the presence of evidence suggesting it was islamic terrorists, c) it would a staggeringly irrational and wicked thing for the administration to undertake. I don't believe they would knowingly have allowed to it happen either, for the same reason. I DO think it possible that the administration were reckless in their security measures to the extent that they could receive a warning that something was planned and failed to act properly on that partly because they knew any terrorist activity would give them an excuse for a more overly militaristic foreign policy. I have no evidence to support this though, I just think it's conceivable. |
|
By:
slartybartfast Joined: 10 Jul 04
Replies: 751 09 Aug 10 22:39 Fair play for answering, Sunset. I'm well impressed you've read the 571-page 911 Commision report but surely you can't find all of it compelling? Which are the bits that particularly convinced you that the official story is true? Well for starters Airport security footage of the hijackers as they passed through airport security Excerpts from the Flight 93 cockpit voice recording, which recorded the sounds of the hijackers in the cockpit and the passenger's attempts to regain control Eyewitness testimony of passengers as they described their own final moments to family members and authorities on airphones and cellphones from the cabins of doomed airliners http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report Also could you expain how the authorities were so certain of the identities of the "hijackers" within just a few hours of the attacks? What is your source for this? Was it the grainy and oh-so-easily-forged CCTV footage? Oh right so the evidence is forged. What is your evidence for this? Or the impressively robust and fortuitous, but again all-too-easily-forged, passport? Again forged evidence. Is that your answer to everything? What is the evidence that any evidence is forged? Is it just because it doesn't fit your conspiracy theory? So it must be forged. Or something else? |
|
By:
sparkmaster. Joined: 07 Aug 01
Replies: 9758 10 Aug 10 01:17 The idea that George Bush, a man notably stupid and with such a lack of media control he can be reported choking on a pretzel, could mastermind an even that could fool all the people you'd expect to know about such things, but somehow be unravelled by people with, well, less qualifications, is a marvellous one! This is an urban myth . Bush scored 120 in an IQ test. He scored 1206, which has been correlated to an I.Q. of 120. The score that Bush received on his qualifying test for the military suggests that his IQ was in the mid 120's, placing him in the 95th percentile of the population for intelligence.[20] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush |
|
By:
the population...or the american population?!
I mean, obviously in comparison to other world leaders, I don't deny there are a lot of stupid people out there. |
|
By:
I thought 150 was the margin for top 5%?
|
|
By:
I've this minute watched a barclaycard advert where a roler coaster runst through the buildings of New York.
Hands up all those on this thread that believes there is a roller coaster running through Manhattan? |
|
By:
Not me.
|
|
By:
I've this minute watched a barclaycard advert where a roler coaster runst through the buildings of New York.
Hands up all those on this thread that believes there is a roller coaster running through Manhattan? That's the logic and deep thought that made you the success you are today, Clocky! |
|
By:
sparkmaster. Joined: 07 Aug 01
Replies: 9767 10 Aug 10 17:49 Like most people's, my view on the matter hasn't changed in years. I don't think 9/11 was on inside job because of a) the absence of any evidence suggesting it was, b) the presence of evidence suggesting it was islamic terrorists, c) it would a staggeringly irrational and wicked thing for the administration to undertake. I don't believe they would knowingly have allowed to it happen either, for the same reason. I DO think it possible that the administration were reckless in their security measures to the extent that they could receive a warning that something was planned and failed to act properly on that partly because they knew any terrorist activity would give them an excuse for a more overly militaristic foreign policy. I have no evidence to support this though, I just think it's conceivable. Sounds like your're admitting the possibility of LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) to me...  |
|
By:
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I don't believe there's any possibility the administration knew the twin towers etc were to be attacked. Intelligence is rarely that specific, and if they did know something like that, their inaction would be as irrational as it would be immoral. However, an increase in 'chatter' could have been observed and not acted upon, hypothetically.
|
|
By:
OK. That is also one of the hypotheses I can conceive being true, besides the official story, and a variety of other LIHOP and MIHOP scenarios.
|
|
By:
I've this minute watched a barclaycard advert where a roler coaster runst through the buildings of New York.
Hands up all those on this thread that believes there is a roller coaster running through Manhattan? That's the logic and deep thought that made you the success you are today, Clocky I'm not the one that thinks planes can fly at 550mph at sea level and that aluminium cuts through steel, Orioles! [:p] |
|
By:
Are those your beliefs Orioles?
|
|
By:
I'm not going around the houses with everyone again!
We're back to the standard conspiracy theory questions that Clocky doesn't understand and aren't his own. In fairness though, I am no more an expert in the areas he mentions than he is. We've done it all before and I haven't the energy, to be honest. This is dogma now, not debate  |