Gene posting from New York, fresh from his speech to the UN.

I await the "Magic Bullet" post... and then a few pages later "The Tale of the Mysterious White Fiat".

Why not ask meaningful questions re Sept 11 like:

Why, despite umpteen hijackings over many many years, airlines were allowed to fly planes in which the pilot was about as well protected as the driver on the 43 bus?

Or, when people are in a building 1300ft high, shouldn't there be rather more options to evacuate than a half hour walk?

Or questions about the brewing health scandal and the surviving victims of the WTC, the people in close proximity to the collapses for example?

They'll be real questions that deserve answers, rather than the speculative twaddle that gets in the way of officialdom actually being held accountable for the events and circumstances for which they ARE responsible.

Coincidence, fog of war, call it what you like - the BBC don't generally do mass murder, unless you count Eastenders killing culture with every episode.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

So, a partially collapsed building was reported as collapsed before it actually came down, on a day when God knows how much guesswork and speculation hit the airwaves, including an American reporter on TV telling his audience that the fire in the North Tower appeared to be under control as a result of firefighters getting water onto it.

In the Gulf War Mk1 a CNN report would have led you to believe Iraq had launched chemical weapons against Israel.
There was shameful speculation around the cases of the Ipswich murders, Raoul Moat and the Madeleine McCann in this country.
That's the nature of the modern media in a crisis I'm afraid - the rush to talk.

Gene - let's suppose every angle you've raised in this whole thing is a genuine reason to assume conspiracy. How many people does that involve? Have you even put together an estimate? Let's just do one case. Let's say one of the flights, 175 from Boston, had 20% fewer passengers than normal. What does that mean (to you)? No-one since 9-11, to my knowledge, has come forward and said, "Hey I tried to get a seat on that flight and was told the plane was full." Since no-one is being turned away either in person or online, then do we assume that people are simply not booking? If they are not booking then there are 2 possibilities:
1. Stat. variance = innocent explanation
2. They know of the conspiracy - not so innocent.

Let's go with number 2 - conspiracy known. If we assume the people on the flight are from in and around Greater Boston or have been visiting the area then they come from a population of 7.5 million. So, what % of the 7.5 million people would have to know of the conspiracy to drag the number booking on a random flight down by 20%? Maths you can do!

Better still - do what your mate singularly failed to do. Give me a needle to thread Gene version of 9/11 and every time you stray from the official line, then give me the evidence. Not a question; not some toss bit of probability, which you clearly don't understand, but evidence - stand up in court evidence. Do you know how much you'll have from 100s of hrs worth of TV coverage, radio coverage and interviews; thousands of eyewitnesses and thousands of photographs.
You'll have none.
Why? Because the 9/11 Commision looked at the evidence and built their version around that evidence - as opposed to making up a fun little story and then trying to find stuff that gives that story some credibility.

I'll make the suggestion again. US authorities do have real questions to answer about 9/11 - ask those, instead of dealing with the fairies at the bottom of your garden.

Look at your position Gene and who's in the corner with you... proven liars and a poor Roy Keane look-a-like.

Who looks like Roy Keane Pandorica?

Angel Gabriel
 
My opinion has changed since this thread started but i still believe people at the top new it was going to happen. 

I think that's along the lines of Mandy's post earlier, Angel - maybe 2 pages back?

Personally, I don't think that's so much of a change in position, though to be fair, many would disagree and say there is a difference. In my opinion, if they knew and did nothing, they're implicit. If they're implicit, that's conspiracy by default. And yet again, at the core of that whole argument is evidence - of which there is none; there's only supposition along the lines of, "Powerful nation, very active secret service, the CIA etc - they must have known." I think basically they screwed up. They missed stuff. They didn't know.

"War is mainly a catalogue of blunders." - Winston Churchill

Angel is - a bit.
Don't go Gene.

You haven't explained the passenger numbers thing, nor the alleged reduction in number of people in the towers. You used it as a tool to cast doubt on the official version when actually, what you do is strengthen it. Please explain in the case of Flight 175 alone how a reduction in passenger numbers to the tune of 20% can, as a result of a known conspiracy, equate to only about 1000 people knowing of the conspiracy in total. What it actually points to is a number in the Boston area alone of well over 1 million people in the know.

Please explain the testimony of about 50 eyewitnesses who identified a large jet as hitting the pentagon, half of whom ID'd it as an American Airlines jet. Not a single eyewitness identifies a missile. Please exlain.

WTC7 - severely damaged by the fall of the towers, collapses. No video, photographic, forensic, eyewitness
or seismic evidence at all to suggest any explosive use. Why would you assume it was a controlled demolition? Evidence?

And the military shootdown of Flight 93. Explain the phone calls to relatives and the cockpit voice recording.

In other words - for a change - answer questions with substantiating evidence, instead of asking them in combination with bluster and double-speak.

Or is the position this?
Gene Hackman says, "I have absolutely no evidence to support the beliefs I hold but I'm still going to hold onto them."

Pandy
How there being fewer people in the towers than usual stregthens the official version is beyond me.
You seem to be very keen on evidence,probabilty and logic,yet you manage to jump
from a 20% reduction in usual passenger numbers on a plane to over 1 million people in one area knowing about a conspiracy!
You'll have to tell me how that works.
You are right by the way,I have absolutely no evidence to support my beliefs,and your "evidence" is simply that you accept the official version of events.

A mini-earner.

Still...on we go towards the mythical 2000.

Imagine a plane has, every day - 100 passengers - taken at random from a total population of 1000.
Then suddenly the plane's load drops. No-one has been turned away by the airline and yet only half the normal number of seats are filled.

A message has circulated around the population as a whole but has only reached 500 people that the plane will crash.

Funnily enough, just 50 people get on the plane.

50% of the population knowing of the imminent crash leads to just 50% of the normal number of seats being filled.

Flight 175 - assuming its filled at random from Greater Boston gets its punters from 7.5 million people. A 20% drop in passengers as a result of a conspiracy being known gives 1.5 million folk in the know.

Angel Gabriel
Evidence is not proof. It is only evidence.

It is only evidence?

Supposing you were on a jury and had to decide whether Gene was guilty of murder or not.
There is no evidence that he is. In fact all the evidence points to his innocence. Are you going to find him guilty?

I wish I'd thought of that

You and I catch a certain bus everyday, and are the only people to ever catch it. We are the only passengers leaving a village with a population of just 2, me and thee - separate beds.
One day, in early September I hear that on the 11th, the bus is going to blow up. I don't tell anyone.
How many people get on the bus on 11/9?

Good.
Now just keep multiplying by each side of the equation by 2 until you hit the relevent numbers.

The same argument applies to towers with allegedly, and you still haven't cited your source for that, a lower than usual population.
Assuming that the conspirators weren't all workers in the WTC, then the % drop = the % of the population in the know.

CastorTroy Joined: 28 May 10
Replies: 479 08 Sep 10 22:51   


and how does tower 7 collapse please?


At first sight this does look suspicious, but if you watch carefully you will see that the top left corner falls first 2mins54 seconds on the video. This is the part that was damaged by fire and the collapse of the Twin Towers


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8&feature=related

tbh i just reckon theres a good chance the yanks did it. throughout history they have killed there own. why not now


When have they done this?

Angel Gabriel Joined: 09 May 05
Replies: 542 09 Sep 10 21:25   


The 3 towers did something which defied architecture and engineering calculations, all 3 collapsed at freefall speed.

No they did not. And you keep repeating the mantra won't make it so. They collapsed from the top down and peeled like a banana. You need to go to specsavers or stop being so prejudiced with the evidence.


The pancake theory must have happened to all 3 Towers on 9/11 if no explosives were used. Is the pancake theory unique to 9/11. If so do we have unique failures in the structures. One thing i am sure of though, the concrete should not have been pulverised exactly as it is, in an explosive demolition.



Of course you have no evidence for these inane assertions.As usual.

Sparky
How was their mission going to be a complete failure?
If the passengers had retaken the cockpit and then landed the plane,then you could argue that their mission had failed.
That wasn't going to happen though was it.Surely they would battle with the unarmed passengers and attempt to get to their intended target wouldn't they?
You're saying that they said "They'll break in and attack us in a minute,so we might as well just give up and crash it into that field"
That is just ridiculous



No it's not. They probably saw they had no chance of winning. They were out numbered. The only option they had was to crash the plane.

awsf Joined: 01 May 03
Replies: 6 11 Sep 10 00:30   


Interesting video of a chinese high rise hotel that caught fire. Once the fire had eventually extinguished, the steel structure was left intact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz72RAbdC48&feature=related




You are comparing apples and oranges. This buildings was not damaged. It was not hit by a plane. It only caught fire.

Barny it wasnt TNT mate. It was a highly safisticated military substance called Nano thermite.
LOLThis one has already been debunked on this thread. You ignored it as usual.


The Architects and Engineeers for 9/11 Truth movement have evidence of Nano thermite molecules in the concrete dust of the demolished WTC towers. They have university expertise to back this up and are calling for the members of NIST to be answerable to these claims.


Already debunked this one. Stop ignoring the evidence.

Why would anyone be looking for people taking things in.  Sections of the tower were off limits for periods of time weeks before 9/11.  Time to take things in and not be seen and to have the demolition work done ffs.

Sunset you have not debunked the Nano thermite. Have you taken the samples to your secret lab in your secret bunker to examine? You seem to believe that you are an authority on all these matters, a man of purpose, a man superior in knowledge. I find you a tad pompous.

Pandorica
Just to clear this probablity thing up:

OK


My town has a population of 200,000.

OK
All clear so far.


1000 of those people regularly bet on a particular horse every Saturday afternoon.

Cool. Probably a Horse Racing Forum tip.


50 of those people get to hear that this horse WILL NOT WIN next Saturday.

OK, 50 of the 1000?


Therefore 10,000 people in the town would have got to hear about this horse?

Well that's true if those 50 people tell 200 others each
If they keep quiet I don't see how 10,000 get to hear about it.

Is that the logic you are talking about?

I don't think it is. No.