aintforever

LOL at the bloke who swears it wasn't an Airliner, how thick are his glasses!

I think the only feasible false flag attack that could have taken place would be that the planes were hijacked as per the official theory but it was undercover agents from Mossad or similar at the controls of the planes. Just because the arabs were on the planes doesn't mean they flew them.

Can't even fill their shack with kids for a quid! I wonder what excuse the blue few will come up with this time.

There will always be unanswered questions, inconsistencies and nut jobs just making stuff up in things like this but there are way more holes in any other theory I have seen than the Bin Laden one. If you have a theory of who did it, how and why, that stacks up, I would love to hear it.

And how the hell do you put enough explosives in place to bring down the towers but make sure they don't go off when you plough an airliner into it! Then carry out a carefull demolition an hour later when the towers are a burning mess, all without making a large bang. And to make it even more complex the towers must fail just at the point where the planes crashed in!

I cant see a Coppell DOF, Pardew Manager combo working, too similar in standing. I would give it a chance if Coppell was in place first and he appointed Pardew - bringing him in over his head would be a recepie for disaster IMO.

As in all conspiracy theorists you look at snippets of information and ignore all logic. If Bush wanted to blow up the Twin Towers then they simply would have staged another bombing, there is no logical reason to involve a elaborate plan involving robot pilots, demolition squads and shed loads of agents apparently willing to commit mass murder. They would simply sneak a big bomb up a tower then frame a few Afgans before shooting them. The Pentagon - if it wasn't a Airliner, what the hell was it and how did they expect to shoot missiles or whatever at the Pentagon in broad daylight and guarantee no one saw/videod/photographed it. The crash in Shanksville - it would obviously be different to other plan crashes as it was no boubt purposely nose dived into a field at full speed. There was possibly a motive for a cover up here, if the plane was shot down (maybe wrongly), but again I don't see where this would fit into some big conspiracy. I think the most likely explanation is that Bush new Bin Laden was planning something but screwed up so is cover his tracks. Or possibly he let it happen thinking Bin Laden would blow up a plane or something and the US could take the moral high ground (show the US public how bad Muslim extremists really are) and it back-fired big time. Any idea that the US government carried out the attacks if way too unbelievable.

That is one of the most suspicious things about 9/11. My guess is that the CIA don't want people to see their building get blown apart. That may be because Israeli robots were flying the plane, or simply because they don't want people to see the interior of the Pentagon or their people get burned alive. I doubt the CIA are bothered that a few internet nerds don't believe them.

I think it's fantastic how 80's violence was just "boys being boys" and violence today is "chav scum". It's a bit like how old biddies moan about the state of the world today, when their generation lived through the bloodiest most violent century the world has ever seen.

That doesn't mean a great deal, just means the actual suicide bomber was of similar description (arab like) or using his ID (If it is true).

What a dumb thread, even if the louder support does make a difference then we still need to score goals in the first half anyway. I do wonder about some of the posters on here.

Bin Laden admitted it on camera. There is no other motive for blowing the crap out of Afganistan. Iraq is a different matter though.

I've not got anything against Scotland, I think it would be more interesting if they and Northern Ireland qualify. Would be ****ing great if those Argentina ****s don't get through though.

Should be called 102 minutes that changed the World. That was shocking stuff.

By far the main problem is pace up front, with Lambert and Paterson/Saganowski the opposition can just play a high line, there is no one to get in behind and Lallana can just be shut out the game. I'm hoping Papa can transform the side, I would definitely look to get in another fast striker as back up as well.

It is good to know that we have people who know about football running the club now, hopefully it wont take too long to put right the damage inflicted by Lowe.

Unless this guy has come in instead of a DOF, leaving Pardew less hands on?

I havn't read one post which is asking for Pardew to be sacked now you melodramatic tit.

There's nothing we can do, we can cheer and shout while the team are playing - that's it. As for JP's fair crack of the whip - that's what sent us down. there was nothing wrong with criticising Poortvleit then just like there is nothing wrong with questioning Pardew now. Burying your head in the sand doesn't help anyone. Pardew's appointment is similar to Burley's in that he has come here with a big reputation, there is always a risk he will go the same way as Burley. A busted flush with no motivation having had his time in the sun. Burley was under no pressure at all, as soon as Crouch came in and said his job was safe it gave him license to spend the rest of the season propping up the bar at the De Vere. If Pardew is here for the pay cheque and not to work his ass off, he might as well leave now. I'm not saying that's the case but there is a chance it could be.

I don't think the booing would have done any harm at all, if anything it might help give the players the kick up the ass they need.

No one is calling for Pardew's head but I am not surprised by the over sensitive reaction from the usual happy clappy mongs to a bit of criticism. I distinctly remember Legod saying "give Poortvliet and the kids a chance they will come good" - that ended up getting us relegated. Facts are we will probably need at least 56 points from our next 40 games to avoid relegation, if we don't start winning in 4 or 5 games we will need play-off form to avoid being in division 4 next year. Given that we are currently the worst side bar one in the league, I find that very worrying. And if any of you plumbs still think we have even a slight chance of promotion, forget it, we dont. The side finishing in 6th last year had 76 points. Which means we will probably need at least 82 points from our next 40 games to get in the play-offs - that would mean showing the same form as Leicester did last year.

Agree, we badly need pace up front, Paterson, Saganowski and Lambert don't have real pace so teams can just defend with a high line. Hopefully Papa can give us that.

Yes, he said the same patronising crap then.

Didin't Arsne Wenger win the league in his first season, after they sacked the previous manager? Stablity doesn't equal success, finding the righ manager equals success which in turn brings stablilty. Pardew needs to be given time but so far he has been poor - you cannot argue that.

I don't think anyone thinks he should be sacked now, it makes sense to give him time to build his team and show what he is about. However even the happiest clappiest mong on here has to admit he has started poorly, if it carries on too long then the club have to consider sacking him.