Fabulous Joined: 09 Mar 10
Replies: 722 28 Aug 10 13:04   


I've got some questions which hopefully someone from either side of the argument could answer. Ps open minded on the 9/11 thing.  Some ridiculous theories out there, but also parts of official version which I don't really buy either! Anyway....

1. Only posting because of rages post above, I've always wondered about that. If they claim to have only 1 basic camera for areas of a very important building, surely that's not right.


I don't know if they have ever said this.There is only one cctv camera showing the impact, but thats not the same thing.


2. Before 9/11, was the Pentagon (an obviously restricted) tourist attraction? i.e could people get fairly close to it. The reason I ask, is if it was, surely it would be fairly busy with tourists, armed with cameras etc.

See below.


3. Surely if an airliner was to fly at such a low level through any city, be it Glasgow, London, Paris etc, someone would have captured it. Obviously Concorde was filmed in flames by someone driving a car, it just seems highly unlikely that no one would have captured it at all.



Yes it was, but plenty of other planes that crashed have not been filmed so did they not crash? Your last 2 questions are based on absence of evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Some thing I tried to explain to Gene. There is no evidence that Hannibal went through the Alps. So does that mean he didn't go throw the Alps? Think about it?

4. Apologies if I've missed it, but why with the first tower burning, when the 2nd plane hits, i've never seen a really clear cut image of the livery of the 2nd jet. Obviously there could be footage out there I've missed, but every bit of footage I've seen, the quality isn't great.  I only ask this this, because when it was happening at the time, I 100% heard eyewitnesses on the radio admant that the planes were unmarked. I expect this one could be easily explained though.


Already posted this one.




As I said, open-minded on the whole thing, and happy for these to be answered by either side.

They did 4 things:
1. In the short term they justified their intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan.


This is true. It has since been proven that Iraq was not linked to 9/11 and no weapons of mass destruction were found.Strange they didn't fake some evidence to link Saddam with 9/11. You think they planted 100 plus witnesses seeing a plane hit the Pentagon, but couldn't link Saddam to 9/11.

2. They gain more control over their own people -The Patriot Act for example.

You are begging the question. you have not proven that the government attacked it's own people to gain more control over their own people. This is just speculation.

3. They have managed to engineer a new enemy (to replace the communist threat)
by demonising every Muslim in the world.

So you say. I've never heard the US government say that all Muslims are terrorists.Please provide evidence that they have said this.


4. They,and their friends and associates,and the corporations they are involved with,made lots of money.


This may be true, but it doesn't prove cause and effect.

Very true Fabulous

I find it strange that the accused terrorists had a meeting in Vegas in the build up to 9/11 where they frequented gambling,drinking and stripper premises.

This could be part of them going under cover. Blending in with the rest of the sheep.This is why they shave their beards off.Or may be they were just hypocrites. Or may be they thought Allah would forgive them for killing so many infidels and they would get their 72 virgins.

As Islamic extremists who are willing to sacrifice themselves for their Islamic beliefs, in an act of terrorism against the perverted and capitalistic west....erm...now then...strap yourself in Sunset Cristo but im not sure they where Islamic extremists if they enjoyed the the thrills of drink,gambling and strippers.What do you think?



See above.Are you going to start answering my questions at some point. Your like clocky. Like asking, but not answering. At least Gene answers some times.Ever though of being a politician?

Angel Gabriel When: 29 Aug 10 14:53
Sparky sorry to carp on about Gene Hackmans question number 3.

Have you ever noticed how the American government seems to support Israels racist policies on Palestine?

Racist policies? The Israelis have done some despicable things ,yes. But so have the Arabs. The Arabs have done worse than the Jews. The Jews have been persecuted for more than 2000 years, but that obviously means nothing to you.

America has chosen to target Muslim nations as these nations are defiant in a compromise with regard to the NWO agenda.


So you keep saying and I keep asking you to prove it?

In its 1984 World Development Report, the World Bank threatens nations who are slow in implementing the Bank’s “population policies” with “drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and freedom.”

In the Foreword, then President of the World Bank and 1985 Bilderberg attendee, A.W. Clausen stated:
“(…) although the direct costs of The World Bank programs to reduce population growth are not large, a greater commitment by the international community is sorely needed to assist developing countries in the great challenge of slowing population growth.”
“(…) governments can use incentives and disincentives to signal their policy on family size”, the report continues. “Through incentives, society as a whole compensates those couples willing to forgo the private benefits of an additional child, helping to close the gap between private and social gains to high fertility.”
To give an adequate illustration of the World Bank’s preference for all-out government control over the people, and their intent on meddling in people’s personal decisions, the following quote will suffice (page 107):
“By taxing and spending in ways that provide couples with specific incentives and disincentives to limit their fertility, government policy can also affect fertility in the short run. Government can offer “rewards” for women who defer pregnancy; it can compensate people who undergo sterilization for loss of work and travel costs; and it can provide insurance and old-age security schemes for parents who restrict the size of their families. Each of these public policies works through signals which influence individual and family decisions- when to marry, whether to use contraception, how long to send children to school, and life expectancy, and whether and how much family members work.”

China's one- child policy - which has resulted in forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilisation - has had a 'positive impact' on the country's economic performance, one of Labour's leading advisers says today.

Lord Turner, head of the Financial Services Authority, claims the laws on family size played a crucial role in China's economic take-off and allowed the country to develop without 'severe political and social tensions'.

The former director general of the CBI Adair Turner argues that there is a pressing need to stop world's population growing at an 'explosive rate'.

"... in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages,
famine, and the like would fit the bill".

From "The First Global Revolution"
Club of Rome,

Those who like 911myths.com might want to check this site which debunks much of it:
.
http://911physics.atspace.com/Pages/Debunking911Myths.htm

Jesus, that's a pathetic effort. Debunks nothing at all. How can they have this ancient piece of rubbish on there:

From the time they decided to scramble jets, to the time jets arrived at the Payne Stewarts plane, between 18 and 22 minutes had elapsed (depending on what news source you want to believe.)

Bush didnt murder 3000 of his own people, Israel did it. Before Sunset Kissinger Cristo asks for me to provide evidence. The evidence is all around you Sunset. Mossad where behind it.

sparkmaster. When: 28 Aug 10 23:51
Fabulous, if I may

1. That would surely depend on the sixe of that area? If one camera covers an area adequately, why use two? I'm not sure such a claim has been made though.

2. I don't really know, but if you think of the aircraft that got into trouble over New York last year, did a loop and landed intact in the Hudson....and NOBODY got a decent pic of it, it would be very surprising if someone had got a shot in a much less touristy location.


This was actually caught on cctv,but not clear pics though.And not while it was in the sky and no one recorded it even though most people have video recording on their phones now. Strange the the conspiracy people never mention that. Bet there are lots of pilots that think this landing can't be done either.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIS-aKJMY3E&feature=related



3. As above, Concorde was filmed BECAUSE it was in flames, but that's the only footage of that event. Nothing of the crash itself. There are basically, very few images of plane crashes.


So following the logical fallacy of the conspiracy people, Concorde never crashed then.Is that what you believe Gene?

4. I can't explain that, I didn't hear it

One rather imagines they were trained on the tower that had been hit.

Synthetic Terror and False Flag Operations - excerpts from interwiews with authors Webster Tarpley and Nafeez Ahmed 
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN595MYi7wY

Google their books for info specific to 911.

I rather think the diligant cameramen's eyes would have been drawn to the thing they were filming.

I'm not stating that there weren't planes, what I'm saying is that from all the angles covered why wasn't it spotted earlier?
In fact, only people watching tv in New York said they saw a plane, no one on the ground said that they had.
I appreciate that there would have been limiting views with the make up of the surrounding area, but surely with thousands of people on the streets lots of people should have been able to see the approaching object.

In fact, only people watching tv in New York said they saw a plane, no one on the ground said that they had.

How can you possibly know this?

Some of them would be pointing towards the oncoming plane and would capture the plane quite easily wouldn't they?

Why?

sibaroni When: 03 Sep 10 14:39
Because the US Gvt doubtless consider the conspiracy theorists as utterly trivial.  Correctly.

So, respected architects, engineers, pilots, firefighters and scholars etc, speak out about what they perceive to be glaring anomalies in the official version of events that day are challenging the government's line just to be utterly trivial eh?
Do me a favour.
Why would anyone bother contesting the official version  and possibly facing recriminations if it seemed plausible to them?
Because they deem it implausible to have happened like they were told.

Lucky Trifeta - are there any interviews with any of the people 'on the ground' were someone says that they saw something that wasn't a plane crash into the second tower?

[I'm assuming that you are prepared to concede that something must have hit it?]

If none of them are mentioning a plane then what are they mentioning?

This idea that there were no planes is beyond ludicrous.

Lucky, that doesn't back up your frankly ridiculous claim. I reminded of that time Clocky claimed 'all the tv reporters said no plane had hit the pentagon' and substantiated with one video of a reporter saying he hadn't SEEN the plane hit the Pentagon. Classic distortion of the facts.

Plus the the US military had performed mock drills in the event of an air strike on iconic buildings.
Sparky i cant believe you are questioning whether security cameras would be pointing to the sky. I suppose the Security services where only concentrating on the entrance of the car park.!!