pap

Sorry, KRG - maybe one day I'll post nowt but pleasing content which meets your intellectual approval. Essex voted UKIP in numbers, and that's close to London. What's different?

Apologies for repetition. Didn't get an answer yesterday. Enjoy these, you've earned them:-

Just a score. Diminishing returns, lad.

Hmm. London. Huge international demand, huge international city, diverse ethnic population, massive amounts of foreign money and full of the commentators who've recently come to note by calling mistakenly labelling good proportion of the British electorate racist. Not that much of a conundrum, KRG.

All on the thread. Learn to read.

Good lad

We've moved on from that, Tim. The cryptome stuff is less effort. Would you like me to start scoring your posts?

I've been fairly clear on who I believe are the responsible parties. Keep doing the "whole government" thing though, yeah?

C'mon now, Halo. The war on terror started the moment the 19 hijackers were named.

I'm flattered that you've chosen to use 2/3 of your peasant post quota to address me. Come on, go for the hat-trick.

It's not. Former BNP members. They were actually on my ballot paper yesterday.

Most people find it annoying. I'm glad you enjoy it.

The Guardian is having a good go at pretending. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/23/local-election-ukip-nigel-farage-labour-tories-lib-dems

No problem. No real idea what that's all about.

http://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

Getting my first ever ST. Always fancied it, but I think this is the first year I can really justify it.

I have decided to just hide the content and deal with each of them when I see them

Not bad. You got 3 of the 25 rules of disinformation:- A few DI traits too:-

Fk me. Please don't let Dimbleby stay up this late.

My points. Your representation of my points. ----- This is a double. You may wish to swap it with someone who needs it (but really, who needs it?)

I've not really got a position on the planes. We saw planes at WTC. We were told that there was a plane at the Pentagon, and yet despite that being inbound for quite some time, there's no footage. Five frames of fúck-knows-what, but it really doesn't look like a passenger airliner. As for the timeline of the stolen election, dissipating post-election anger is not really what I had in mind. I'm merely making the point that people were really serious about getting him in, and didn't seem especially concerned about him being a total fúckwit, or indeed, doing it fairly. I think it's fair to say that a lot of people's priorities changed post-911. That's a central part of my point; I argued that the change in public mood is what enabled such a bellicose foreign policy. In New Pearl Harbor circumstances, I think it perfectly reasonable that some may drop prior grievances in what's perceived to be the national interest, but that's more secondary bonus than primary objective, imo. Where I'm coming from is cumulative discrepancies, and how they should stack up against what appears to be an immutable narrative. There are a few points I've made on this threat which directly contradict not only what went into the initial reports, but also what ended up in the final report of the 9/11 Commission. The insistence that there were 19 named suicide hijackers, despite the fact that at least six declared themselves alive by various means. It's such an easy thing to correct; any serious and comprehensive investigation would exclude them purely on the basis of having a correct account of things. I'm left with the impression of a story that was never investigated and can't be changed. Ultimately though KRG, it just needs to be investigated. It never was. Slightly unbelievable for the crime of the century.

Yeah, it's weird what the eye lingers on. I'm seeing the end of a period of declining spend and the biggest increase in spending since the end of the Cold War, which backs up my point entirely.

Yup, I was fúcking stupid on the timing of that thread. Lessons were learned. Returning to 9/11 and your questions on planes, I'm honestly not feeling a need to expand on my previous answer. They were decoys; this very thread is about a chap claiming they never existed. I guess he's going for the "ultimate decoy" theory. However, in the spirit of generous debate, I could speculate on numerous other reasons why planes may have been used. For starters, it's a big first world problem, guaranteed to fit into the "could happen to anybody" category of any Westerner's mind. Second, and perhaps most importantly, the use of planes hit certain cultural keystones; how many people said "it was like a film" around the time? It was something none of us had seen before, and I'd lay money that the vast majority of this forum watched at least six hours news that day. So what else do planes give us that other scenarios don't? Convenient patsies and quick resolution would be one. I think we can both agree that either of the other scenarios would have mandated a lengthy investigation of some kind. Planes give us hijackers and resolution. I take a bit of issue with your "just explosives" point. I'm assuming that you're a little bit older than me (39), but I remember the 1980s-1990s when we actually had a bombing campaign happening in this country. There was almost universal sadness when you heard of something happening, and some were particularly hard to bear, but we didn't live in fear of it. Maybe that's just me and my cohort, and I invite different opinions, but I never remember a time during that bombing campaign where I was worried of getting blown up by the IRA, just as I don't live in fear of getting done in by Islamic extremists now, despite the fact we had 7/7 here. We just get on with it. So do the Americans, so do the Iraqis and every other nation that has a bomb that goes off in their country. These events are exceptions, one-offs and aberrations - you don't introduce an enabling act when one occurs.

Yay. Way to cherry pick long post.

That's a fair question. Best guess is to obscure the true means of destruction. If controlled demolition were suspected, any investigation would uncover a trail which would eventually lead to the truth. Under the directed energy weapon thesis, the buildings would just appear to explode for no good reason. The planes are a decoy. Apart from a bit of gentle ribbing, you've been alright on this thread, so here's a bit of an expanded timeline. 9/11 was exactly the event the neo-conservatives needed to further the aims of their policy document, Rebuilding America's Defenses, which was essentially a blueprint for achieving and retaining US supremacy in the 21st century (summary | full). Highlights:- They speak about the problems of change, though. Three years later, there is a highly disputed election that many suspect was stolen. 9/11 happened, and public shock and anger allowed much more aggressive foreign policies to be pursued, such as pre-emptive invasion. The hawkish aims in the PNAC policy document could now be pursued, and so they were. After the New Pearl Harbor, we got the multiple theater wars and by going to war with a nebulous concept like terrorism, we're actually in an unending war and it's all getting a bit 1984. My biggest problem with all of this is the way that 9/11, and events like it, have been used to justify draconian and frankly terrifying legislation. Since 2007, there has been a mechanism in place that could turn Britain into a dictatorship with a few amendments - no Parliamentary debate required. We have specific, separate anti-terror legislation which means due process can be suspended if I accuse you of being a terrorist instead of a murderer. We've seen, especially in America, the militarisation of the police to the point where they look as if they are ready for war with their own people, the demonisation of certain groups based on their faith, and the constant reminders that terrorists are amongst us. They said the terrorists wouldn't change the way we lived; they were right - we did that to ourselves, or allowed it to happen with fear. 9/11 was a catalyst that sent the world down a very dark path, seemingly with no resolution. Whatever your view on the culpable parties, I think that's inarguable. Look at the way it allowed groups like the EDL to maintain a veneer of legitimacy, the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation and the thus self-fulfilling prophecy of radicalisation. Afghanistan and Iraq were both strategic objectives. Like PNAC's document said, there is no way the US public would have signed up for either if 9/11 had not happened. They got their New Pearl Harbor, and their way.