9 / 11

[Double Trouble]

* mind you, so do you...

Completely different scenario.

[Dreadful Scathe]

Completely different scenario.

but i bet Cluedo was **** in your house growing up

[David Bailey]

but i bet Cluedo was **** in your house growing up

Mrs Peacock did the coverup in the bedroom with a blunt slush fund?

[Dreadful Scathe]

Mrs Peacock did the coverup in the bedroom with a blunt slush fund?

i was thinking more about how frustrating it would be when players shout "no it WAS professor plum the cards LIE. YOU GODDAMN HIPPY. REVEREND GREEN was clearly a scapegoat and I am calling your parentage into question for refusing to accept the logic of my unsubstantiated allegation..." etc...


actually...second thoughts, that'd be more interesting than normal Cluedo

[Barry Shnikov]

Is it possible to divorce your sister?

I think my brother in law is happy where he is, but I'll ask him...

[Barry Shnikov]

Conspiracy theories.

I have no doubt whatsoever that protecting its oil supply is a primary and probably the primary consideration of US foreign policy, now that the cold war is over.

I have no doubt whatsoever that it was a major factor in the decision to go to Kuwait's defence in 1991 and to invade Iraq in 2003. Iraq, Saudi, Libya, and other nations can have no doubt that America has the capability and the will to project its demands across thousands of miles into the middle of the middle east. They will also know that there is little that they can do to stop this. It is probably a major factor in Iranian thinking about nuclear reactors. Whether they are planning to make nuclear weapons is a moot point but it can't hurt to keep the Americans guessing, right?

I have no doubt that if it came to a US decision as to whether to promote the interests of the laughably-named 'war on terror' or the interests of acquiring plentiful and low priced oil, the war on terror will be left gasping. (Particularly if the decision was not made publicly.)

But to suggest that American personnel planned the deaths of hundreds of airplane passengers and hundreds of office workers in order to simulate a terrorist attack is a breathtaking thing. Could you do it? Sit and plan deaths of your own countrymen and women in the hope only of procuring some quite indefinite and obscure, slight, long-term political advantage?

Not to mention the long term threats to US financial interests caused by an attack on the buildings housing the NY stock exhange, a large proportion of US investment bank HQs, and so forth, with additional danger to thousands of people who would be in that part of NY. It could easily have been that the plane could have caused the first tower to topple within a minute or two, instead of nearly an hour.

I can believe al Quaeda converts can do it, because of their irrational beliefs and hatred. But that doesn't work for the conspiracy theory, because the motivation is completely different.

Finally, there isn't even the glimmerings of a smidgeon of a shred of evidence to suggest anything other than the accepted version. Sure, there are theories - "buildings don't slide to the ground, they tip over - unless carefully demolished by explosives!" Uh-huh. And the collapse of which other buildings, approximately the size of the WTC, allows you to reach that conclusion? - but nothing even va-haguely credible.

[TurboTomato]

If you have not seen Fahrenheit 9/11 you must!! Someone has a lot to answer for!!!

Michael Moore's films, whilst entertaining, really shouldn't be taken as fact.

[TurboTomato]

Conspiracy theories.

I have no doubt whatsoever that protecting its oil supply is a primary and probably the primary consideration of US foreign policy, now that the cold war is over.

I have no doubt whatsoever that it was a major factor in the decision to go to Kuwait's defence in 1991 and to invade Iraq in 2003. Iraq, Saudi, Libya, and other nations can have no doubt that America has the capability and the will to project its demands across thousands of miles into the middle of the middle east. They will also know that there is little that they can do to stop this. It is probably a major factor in Iranian thinking about nuclear reactors. Whether they are planning to make nuclear weapons is a moot point but it can't hurt to keep the Americans guessing, right?

I have no doubt that if it came to a US decision as to whether to promote the interests of the laughably-named 'war on terror' or the interests of acquiring plentiful and low priced oil, the war on terror will be left gasping. (Particularly if the decision was not made publicly.)

But to suggest that American personnel planned the deaths of hundreds of airplane passengers and hundreds of office workers in order to simulate a terrorist attack is a breathtaking thing. Could you do it? Sit and plan deaths of your own countrymen and women in the hope only of procuring some quite indefinite and obscure, slight, long-term political advantage?

Not to mention the long term threats to US financial interests caused by an attack on the buildings housing the NY stock exhange, a large proportion of US investment bank HQs, and so forth, with additional danger to thousands of people who would be in that part of NY. It could easily have been that the plane could have caused the first tower to topple within a minute or two, instead of nearly an hour.

I can believe al Quaeda converts can do it, because of their irrational beliefs and hatred. But that doesn't work for the conspiracy theory, because the motivation is completely different.

Finally, there isn't even the glimmerings of a smidgeon of a shred of evidence to suggest anything other than the accepted version. Sure, there are theories - "buildings don't slide to the ground, they tip over - unless carefully demolished by explosives!" Uh-huh. And the collapse of which other buildings, approximately the size of the WTC, allows you to reach that conclusion? - but nothing even va-haguely credible.

I was speaking to a chap a couple of years back who was a conspiracy theory believer. Apparently, according to his theory even the most skilled pilot could not have managed to hit the WTC deliberately. Woah there.... so an average pilot can land his aircraft on a 45m wide strip of tarmac, yet cannot hit a 64m wide, 415m tall building. As Barry would say, Uh-huh!

Funnily enough after checking with 2 airline pilots they confirmed that was a load of *******s. In fact one said that when they are finished on the simulator proper, they used to fly in between them.

[Barry Shnikov]

I was speaking to a chap a couple of years back who was a conspiracy theory believer. Apparently, according to his theory even the most skilled pilot could not have managed to hit the WTC deliberately. Woah there.... so an average pilot can land his aircraft on a 45m wide strip of tarmac, yet cannot hit a 64m wide, 415m tall building. As Barry would say, Uh-huh!

Funnily enough after checking with 2 airline pilots they confirmed that was a load of *******s. In fact one said that when they are finished on the simulator proper, they used to fly in between them.

It's necessary to think about these things logically. The buildings fell down; I'm pretty sure nobody questions that. I don't think there's any question but that an aircraft did actually hit each tower before they fell down. So what is this theorist's claim? That they were both accidental? Within 15 minutes of each other? That's even more improbable than the 'CIA did it' theories! If a terrorist couldn't do it, why would a US plotter be able to do it? Or is the argument that the planes were remotely controlled, with nobody on board?

I think if someone can land an AWACS on an aircraft carrier then hitting a building isn't difficult.

And don't forget Snake Plissken landed a glider on the roof of one tower. In the dark!

[TurboTomato]

His theory was implying that they were remote controlled (by the CIA or suchlike), I think. I stopped listening to most of what he was saying after that.

[thainmaggiet]

I dont take anything in the media as absolute fact,the point I am trying to make [though obviously not very well!] is that some events and theories do make you think and sometimes give you cause for concern![now trying NOT to use exclamation marks to stress a point lowest form of wit and all that]

[ducasi]

I think the most believable conspiracy theory surrounding the events of 9/11 are that either the American or Israeli military intelligence knew about the proposed attacks in advance, but for selfish reasons allowed them to go ahead.

It's certainly true that there was some knowledge of plans to hijack planes and turn them into weapons.

There are many other questions needing answered, e.g., re: the relationship between the Bush family and the bin Laden family, and why they got safe passage out of the US while the rest of the country was not allowed to fly anywhere.

I don't think that GW Bush and his friends planned 9/11, but it played into their hands very nicely.

[Trouble]

I think the most believable conspiracy theory surrounding the events of 9/11 are that either the American or Israeli military intelligence knew about the proposed attacks in advance, but for selfish reasons allowed them to go ahead.

It's certainly true that there was some knowledge of plans to hijack planes and turn them into weapons.

There are many other questions needing answered, e.g., re: the relationship between the Bush family and the bin Laden family, and why they got safe passage out of the US while the rest of the country was not allowed to fly anywhere.

I don't think that GW Bush and his friends planned 9/11, but it played into their hands very nicely.

Same thing i said only you dressed it up.

[Barry Shnikov]

His theory was implying that they were remote controlled (by the CIA or suchlike), I think. I stopped listening to most of what he was saying after that.

I can sympathise with that.

[Barry Shnikov]

I think the most believable conspiracy theory surrounding the events of 9/11 are that either the American or Israeli military intelligence knew about the proposed attacks in advance, but for selfish reasons allowed them to go ahead.

It's certainly true that there was some knowledge of plans to hijack planes and turn them into weapons.

There are many other questions needing answered, e.g., re: the relationship between the Bush family and the bin Laden family, and why they got safe passage out of the US while the rest of the country was not allowed to fly anywhere.

I don't think that GW Bush and his friends planned 9/11, but it played into their hands very nicely.

Now that I can agree with. I read the book by - erm - Bush's first financial advisor, had been the CEO of Aluminum Corporation of America - huge company - Paul O'Neill, that was his name.

He was a member of the Bush cabinet for two or three years. Has absolutely no doubt that Bush came to power already thinking of finishing off what 'daddy' started in 1991, and just fitted the WTC attacks right in with that agenda.

Quit because he felt certain Bush was getting other fiscal and financial advice from elsewhere and only followed O'Neill's advice when it coincided.

Quite how Bush ever got re-elected by the people who saw his stupid and stupefied face in the schoolroom where he first learnt of the attack is utterly beyond me. My first thought would have been 'is there any way we can get rid of this idiot before the next election?' Any general in charge of a banana republic would have been off his feet and on his way to the cars, detailing people to find out this and take care of that and report back to me within 59 minutes. Not Bush. He sat listening to a child's reading lesson. Sheesh.

[ducasi]

Now that I can agree with. [...]

Are you agreeing with the whole of my post, or just the last line?

[David Bailey]

His theory was implying that they were remote controlled (by the CIA or suchlike), I think.

So it's easier to fly a plane accurately by remote control than by actually seeing what you're aiming at?

I stopped listening to most of what he was saying after that.

Sorry, what was that?

And don't forget Snake Plissken landed a glider on the roof of one tower. In the dark!

Yeah, that was pretty cool - and he only had one eye too, so he had no depth perception. But that was back in 1997, wasn't it? He couldn't do it now, obviously. Come on, keep to the topic, please.

[andystyle]

So it's easier to fly a plane accurately by remote control than by actually seeing what you're aiming at?

On that subject, suggesting that the CIA or someone else remotely flew an aircraft on the scale of a passenger jet has no basis in fact. We're only now developing unamnned air vehicles that, whilst ideally autonomous, can also be remotely-controlled. The most advanced of them are about the size of a combat jet. Our technology doesn't currently allow us to control vehicles the size of a passenger jet by remote...at least, not accurately, and not without significant - and visible - modification.

[thainmaggiet]

I think the most believable conspiracy theory surrounding the events of 9/11 are that either the American or Israeli military intelligence knew about the proposed attacks in advance, but for selfish reasons allowed them to go ahead.

It's certainly true that there was some knowledge of plans to hijack planes and turn them into weapons.

There are many other questions needing answered, e.g., re: the relationship between the Bush family and the bin Laden family, and why they got safe passage out of the US while the rest of the country was not allowed to fly anywhere.

I don't think that GW Bush and his friends planned 9/11, but it played into their hands very nicely.

Well said!

[Barry Shnikov]

Are you agreeing with the whole of my post, or just the last line?

Er...all of it. The most believable (though not what I personally believe); yes, the intelligence services had been given information that there were plans respecting hijacking aircraft and using them as flying bombs (though it's clear that they didn't give the proper weight and credence to that information, and also that they didn't circulate it properly); and yes, there are questions to be answered about Bush's relationship with wealthy Saudi Arabian individuals and families; and yes, it certainly played into Bush's unspoken agenda with almost uncanny precision.

10/10 well done!