aintforever

Of course there is little difference between letting it happen or doing it themselves, I'm not disputing the broad intent if that is what they did. But your theory that the planes that flew into the towers were not airliners is just completely unbelievable. If the US government were to carry out such a complicated and risky plan it is nuts to think they wouldn't use the same type of aircraft as the ones that were supposed to be hijacked. Getting hold of a couple of airliners, painting them the same colour and adding a few vinyl American Airline graphics would be p!ss easy and absolutely vital to pull such a plan off. They would have no control as to what camera crews were watching, how many Japanese tourist would be filming in good quality cameras etc who could get footage online almost instantly. Then of course if they were not the hijacked planes they would have to have been flown by remote control - the technology is there but would add another massive layer of risk (I expect flying jumbos by remote is very different to flying drones). It would also involve recruiting teams of drone specialists from the military to fit and operate the planes - all willing to commit mass murder on US soil and risk the death penalty in the process (that process alone would be impossible). Then of course you have the 4 x airliners full of passengers and crew to dispose of. I suppose they were flown to area 51 and executed and planes destroyed (more willing mass murderers required). They would also have had to recruit 4 teams of middle eastern looking agents (again all willing to commit mass murder on US soil and risk the death penalty) to hijack the planes. unless of course you think the phone calls from the planes were faked - but then of course they would need teams of agents to do that plus voice morphing experts (again all willing to slaughter thousands of innocents and risk their own life in the process). I expect Air traffic control and US military radar operators would also have to be in on it - that's more people complicit in mass murder. We havn't got to the task of wiring the WTC with explosives and carrying out the massive cover up on the ground in New York and you are already using probably a few hundred people in your plan. People willing to risk their lives to carry out a heinous crime on innocent US citizens just so the country can go to some war in the middle east - you seriously believe that?

I agree with the opening post, was a shame Redknapp got promoted but I really cant stand Derby.

I agree about what you say about the neo-cons and America's desire to be the sole superpower. The potential motive is obvious, as is the fact that the US would happily kill innocents to achieve their aim. But if you are looking for conspiracies involving robots flying planes, or building rigged with silent explosives you are looking on the wrong place. The US or Israeli secret services would never be able to carry out such an elaborate, complicated and risky operation. No government would ever consider taking such risks. They are far too clever for that. The reason for all these conspiracies is that Bush used 9/11 as a reason to carry out what he wanted to do in the middle east, he just took advantage of the situation, just like the way the UK the government took advantage of the terrorism fear to implement new laws. To some it looks like they were in on it all along but they were not, they were doing what politicians always do use the situation to their advantage. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Us or Israeli secret services new about the 9/11 plans all along. They may have even played a role in encouraging them, they probably played Bin Laden and his men like a fiddle. I wouldn't even be surprised if the US got Israel to stoke things up in the Palestinian conflict to provoke the attack. Bin Laden fell for it hook line and sinker because the moment those planes hit the tower America knew they would have control of Iraq's oil and Israel knew they could do what the **** they wanted with Palestine for generations.

Nobody is demanding "complete solutions", just one possible scenario to make sense of what you claim. Just one. You can't just say "it didn't look like an airliner so the US government did it" without putting it into a context and giving reason as to how it could be done and what it means. You might as well say aliens did it. You analyse the official account in microscopic detail, jumping to wild conclusions over the slightest thing, if you want to be objective it is only fair that any alternative theory is given the same scrutiny. Just one plausible series of events that could possibly have happened...

There is loads of footage from numerous different angles of the second plane hitting the tower, it looked like an airliner to me. Surely, even you must admit that if the US government did decide to commit the mass murder of it's own people, live on TV to millions worldwide, in a major city in front of thousands of onlookers all with the ability to record the event on their phones - THEY WOULD USE THE SAME TYPE OF PLANE?

The truther nut jobs seem to miss this obvious fact (among numerous others). Wether the towers collapsed or not made zero difference to what would have followed so there is no reason why the US government go through some risky, far fetched demolition job.

You just know I will drive a motor-cycle display team through the holes in your theory. Seriously, what is the point in picking holes in one theory when you can't even offer up a cohesive alternative of your own?

It's always the same with conspiracy theories, it's easy to pick holes, point out things that look weird etc. When you start to drill down into what they are suggesting you end up with some unbelievable Hollywood style plan involving hundreds of people that would be impossible to implement. If it was the US that did it the plan could only realistically involve a handful of people. The crime is so bad you could only involve people you trusted 100% who were willing to commit mass murder. The only possible scenarios I could entertain IF there was any concrete evidence is; a: Part of the US secret services knew Bin Laden was planning something big and let them get on with it, or encouraged it, knowing it would aid their cause in the middle east. b: Everything happened as per the official account except the planes were controlled by some rogue US/Israeli agents.

You could still always offer your theory Pap. If you even have one...

Exactly. Plus there is the fact that the structure was weakened by the plane slicing through almost a quarter of the exterior structure (much of the strength in the WTC buildings was in the external walls), numerous interior beams, and damaging the central core. On top of that you have the blast damage from the explosions. Truthers bang on about fire bringing them down but the real truth is plain to see to anyone with half a brain, fire was only part of it.

LOL, only because I rip your hair-brained theories to shreds. It's easy to point out perceived inconsistencies, things that look weird to the layman, things you don't think would have happened. As soon as the finger of doubt is pointed at any alternative theory they usually fall to pieces. Bit like your Lee Rigby episode. Give us your most likely theory, I will try not to laugh.

What's your theory then?

Yes, but winning a major trophy is still a better achievement.

I'm on 10 a day, too many swaps though. Looks like I need to drive to another town.

I think winning an FA Cup, promotion and getting to the League cup final, without being bankrolled by a billionaire, beats that by a mile.

They havn't sold one player yet you plumb.

Just some sad old f*cker attention seeking. None of the 9/11 conspiracies add up.

Cortese did a good job but I think the only really important issue is the funding from KL. It looks like Cortese left because KL didn't want to fund a Champions League dream, if the owner doesn't want to waste millions chasing a dream that is totally up to her. Our current chairman could be just as good or better than Cortese but it is irrelevant if the money isn't there to back it up.

As long as he brings that bottomless pit of money with him to finance those Champions League dreams.

The only thing getting or keeping good players is Leibherr's money, if that's dried up it doesn't matter who's chairman - good players will leave.

We didn't have to sell Chamberlain, we choose to. Different situation but same thing fundamentally. If a player wants to go, and someone bigger comes in for him we will usually sell.

Why didn't Cortese give Chambo these magic assurances?

It's a great deal, but it's still flogging our young players - no different to what MIGHT happen to Lallana and Shaw etc.

Agree, the way he stopped Arsenal from buying Chamberlain was outstanding.

Just bullsh!t from the bloke who flogged Chamberlain to Arsenal.