Sheaf Saint

Let's just say you're right about the flash, and I can't possibly claim to know what caused it. How do you explain the appendage on the fuselage?

Just like Baj says, it's pretty clear that at 52 seconds they freeze the video before the impact. I don't see how this constitutes 'proof' that the video was photoshopped.

Well, they say the only true way to prove a theory is to actively try and disprove it. That's what I have just done and I came across this, and it does seem that the evidence for flight 77 hitting the pentagon does seem to fit... even so, there are still too many aspects of it that just don't add up, like the maneuvre that Hani Hanjour pulled off prior to hitting it, and the govt's insistence that they did not know about a plane heading towards the pentagon despite evidence to the contrary. Whatever did happen, we have not been told the whole truth.

I'm not aligning myself with anything. I'm just raising the questions that nobody who defends the official story seems able to answer. Sorry if the source website for that is too dubious for you. How about instead. If I knew the answer to that, I would probably not be debating this subject on a football messageboard.

I resent that remark thank you. Read back through all of my previous post and you will see that I clearly posted that I have looked at a lot of information on both sides of the argument, and that I am of the mind that there has been a massive cover up, because it seems to me to be the only explanation for the gaping holes in the official story. But hey, just label me a conspiracy theorist and discredit anything I have said if it makes you feel better. Like I said. I don't know. I have read pages and pages of testimonies from NY firefighters and police officers who claim that they witnessed explosions that were totally consistent with demolition 'rings' around the towers just before they collapsed. I have read and watched interviews with survivors who claim they witnessed a massive explosion in the basement of the South tower before the first plane even hit but who's testimony was rejected by the 9/11 commission. Why? There were traces of thermite found in the debris. Why? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the second plane that hit wasn't even a United Airlines 757, but a military plane. Plenty of people have testified to this and the seems to back it up. Again, this was dismissed. Why? These are important questions that were completely ignored by the 9/11 commission. How can they claim to have carried out a complete and proper investigation when they have not even taken into account some extremely important evidence? You claim that I am ignoring all logic, but by dismissing these questions, you are turning your back on logic yourself. On the flipside of that, how come nobody photographed/filmed a 757 hitting the Pentagon. There are something like 80 CCTV cameras in various buildings all around the pentagon, and in the days following 9/11 they were seized by the FBI and never released. If just one of those tapes shows flight 77 hitting the pentagon, then why have they not released it and put the conspiracy theory to bed once and for all? Why have they not released pictures of the wreckage with identification proving that it was flight 77? Why was there no wreckage on the lawn? Why is it that plenty of people have testified that what they saw hitting the pentagon was not a 757? How could an inexperienced pilot who, according to his instructor, could barely handle a single-engined Cessna fly straight over the pentagon and then execute an extremely complex 330 degree downward spiral before levelling off at just a few feet above ground level at 500mph and hit the ground floor of the pentagon, in a section that just happened to be empty for renovation anyway, without hitting the ground first? Why would they even do this when it would have been so much easier to just point the plane in a straight line from the direction they came in from? Once again, these are very serious points which need addressing but have been ignored by the 9/11 commission. Why? Has no other plane ever crashed nose-first then? Again, where is the wreckage? why has the public never been allowed to see pictures of the recovered debris? Why has the data from the flight recorder never been released? How is it that passengers on flight 93 apparently had lengthy conversations with their families on mobile phones when, by the FBI's own admission, mobile phone technology of the time would have made this virtually impossible? I actually agree with you to a point. I don't believe that they planned it all themselves because Bush and his cronies simply do not have the intellect to cover it up properly without leaving a smoking gun. It is far more likely that they had advanced knowledge of the plans and allowed them to happen, and maybe even added some additional security to make sure it was successful in order to gain public support for their war plans in the middle east. It wouldn't be the first time a US govt has done something like that. But there are still far too many other aspects that just don't make any sense at all, like the finding of one of the hijackers' passports in the WTC debris; the catastrophic failure of the FAA/NEADS security protocols which should have seen flights 11 and 175 intercepted in plenty of time to stop them from reaching their targets; the changing of the names on the list of hijackers by the FBI; the claim by Donald Rumsfeld that he was unaware that a plane was heading towards the Pentagon which has proven to be a lie; the testimony that a USAF E-4B was seen flying over New York on the morning of 9/11; and much, much more. I guess we'll never get the answers.

I read it Verbal. All it states is that 'The FBI is confident it has positively identified the 19 hijackers'. But I have also read a lot on the subject of 9/11 and it is widely known that when the FBI realised that there was too much evidence available that some of the people on their original list were still alive, they simply replaced those people with other names. This was after that BBC article was published. Look it up for yourself. That may be the case for some, but you cannot apply that logic to everybody who believes we have not been told the whole truth about it. I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist. when I become aware of these kinds of claims, I like to look at all the evidence I can find and make up my own mind. For instance, when I first heard about the faked moon landings theory a few years ago, I decided to do some research on it, and I came to the conclusion that it was a load of ******** and all the evidence points to the fact that the moon landings were real. I have done a lot of reading on the subject of 9/11, and the only thing I can say with 100% certainty is that the final report by the 9/11 commission, along with the NIST report into the collapse of the twin towers and their subsequent report on the collapse of WTC7 (which to my mind is one of the most suspicious aspects of the whole saga), are nothing but works of fiction which were intended to cover up the truth rather than expose it. You only have to do a little bit of research into Philip Zelikow - the chairman of the 9/11 commission - to see that his appointment guaranteed that it would not be a fair and independent investigation. You may have had first hand experience of some extremist, paranoid people. But to label everybody who questions the evidence and makes up their own mind, rather than those who blindly accept what they are spoon-fed by people with an agenda of their own (IMO it is these people that should be ridiculed, not the so-called 'conspiracy theorists') as 'loonies' is just totally absurd. There is no 'smoking gun' which proves it was a govt cover up. There probably never will be one. But you only have to whether or not he had advance knowledge of the attacks to know that there is something seriously wrong with his tone and his body language. I have read all of the claims of the 'truthers' and I have read all of the responses of those who wish to discredit the 'truthers'. The way I see it is this - every single aspect of the truthers' case could be explained away as circumstantial or co-incidence on their own. But when you add them all together, and there are dozens, if not hundreds of major flaws and discrepancies in the official story, the chances of co-incidence become infinitessimaly small. Were the WTC towers brought down with demolition? I really don't know. The NIST report seems to have conveniently ignored anything that might have remotely indicated this as being a possible cause for the collapse. Their 'investigation' seems to have started out on the premise that they already knew what caused it. Did a Boeing 757 crash into the Pentagon? I have to say that from everything I have seen and read, the evidence against seems to far outweigh the evidence for in this case. Did flight 93 crash in Shanksville? No, almost certainly not. The aftermath shows no aircraft wreckage whatsoever and the local coroner has been quoted as saying that he only stayed on the scene for 10 minutes before leaving again, because there were no bodies to recover. Has there been a cover up by the Bush administration? Absolutely without question, yes.

You mean in the video allegedly found in a house in Afghanistan by US troops which shows a man who clearly doesn't even look like OBL claiming responsibility? Have a look on the FBI most wanted website - there is no mention whatsoever of his involvement in 9/11 (or any of the other terrorists on the wanted page for that matter) because, by their own admission, the FBI don't have any evidence against him. even **** Cheney has openly admitted that the US government has never claimed that Bin Laden was responsible... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2xRLiRqb8M

What - the fact that 19 arabs, mostly of Saudi origin, of whom six are confirmed as being still alive, didn't fly the planes into those buildings? The fact that the one man blamed most for the attacks by the US - the man who has never actually owned up to being responsible and is not actually on the FBI's most wanted list due to complete lack of evidence against him; the man who was staying at a US hospital in Dubai a short time before sept 11th 2001, has close business links to the Bush family and was actually trained by the CIA to fight against the soviets in the 80s - may or may not have been in Afghanistan at the time; and if he was, he was allowed to escape? Sorry Delldays. I appreciate that you have played an active role in operations, and I genuinely don't want to turn this thread away from being a memorial for the horrors that the world witnessed that day, but to claim that 9/11 is the reason we are still in Afghanistan, just like the dodgy intelligence which justified the invasion of Iraq, is a complete and utter lie on behalf of all those involved.

I liked the p1sstake version that someone came up with for Italia '90 when Andy Roxburgh was their manager... We're on the march with Andy's army We're going to do our usual tricks And we'll shake them up in Rome When we catch the first plane home Like we did in eighty-two and eighty-six. Genius! :rolleyes::smt118

Pink floyd concerned about sales figures??? WTF!? They haven't released an album for over 15 years and they have sold millions upon millions of copies worldwide. They are basically rolling in a massive pit of money, and yet they are concerned about the small dent that spotify might put in their sales? Truly unbelievable.

See my post #11

Maybe, but there is at least one squadron of them based at Middle Wallop near Salisbury so it's possible they were just on exercise.

I went to see this yesterday and I totaly agree. A superbly produced film that really highlights both the stresses that the coalition forces faced and the total futility of fighting an unseen enemy. It's not really an action film. There is some action but it's much more of a drama focusing on the relationships between the guys in the squad and their different backgrounds and attitudes they have towards the conflict. Very highly recommended 9/10

Hmmm. I guess anything is possible when an ego the size of Briatore's is involved. (allegedly, of course!)

Do you actually realise the sheer hypocrisy of that statement?

Quite. Watching the replay, if Kimi had stayed on the track then avoiding all the other cars he would have come out of the corner in 5th or 6th place. As it was, he came out 3rd with a much bigger speed advantage over Kubica in 2nd. He should have got at least a drive-through penalty IMO. Fisichella only has himself to blame for that really. He should have backed the others up before nailing it on the restart.

There seems to be some debate about whether or not Kimi gained an unfair advantage by deliberately using the runoff area on the first corner. Interesting one this. He did clearly gain a massive advantage from it, and if he had gone off the track on the inside and gained a place or two, he would have had to drop back or face a penalty, so why should it be different on the outside?

I never said it was. You do have to ask yourself though, would those later albums have reached number one if it wasn't for their reputation and media profile? You would have to say probably not. I can think of a number of instances where I have bought an album on the sole basis of having really liked some of the artists' previous work, only to be disappointed with it. Sales figures aren't everything.

I went to see Orphan at the cinema lastnight. I won't go into detail because I don't want to give too much away for anybody that wants to see it, but the basic premise is about a woman whose 3rd child dies in the womb so she and her husband decide to adopt, and the girl they end up adopting turns out to be... well, I won't give it away. It's pretty predictable in places with plenty of horror/thriller film cliches. Far too many of those stupid false-suspense moments for my liking. But the story is at least a little different from most and some of the scenes are pretty gruesome - not for the faint-hearted. Some really good acting as well. Worth watching but wait for the DVD rather than forking out for a cinema ticket. 6.5/10

Well that could have been worse for Button I guess. He still has a decent lead in the championship but he really needs to get his head back into a winning mentality if he is going to keep the challengers behind him. Hats off to Fisico. Great drive today. And what is it with Raikonnen - why can't he show that kind of form every race? He's clearly one of the most talented drivers on the grid but most of the time he just can't be bothered. He doesn't deserve the honour of the Ferrari drive IMO.

Hmmm. Can't see it happening TBH. Interesting article this though... The arrogance of the Ferrari team really does know no bounds. What he should have said was "because that's what Ferrari fans want". Persoanlly I have always found that people love supporting the little guy/underdog. If F1 was just about branding then it wouldn't be anywhere near as interesting. In fact I would prefer to see a grid full of independent teams who go racing for the love of it, rather than a grid full of manufacturers who see it purely as good PR.

Is that a 'what a marvellous album' omg, or a 'why did you put that in your list' omg? I do hope it's the former. Cheers Pancake. Glad you like it. I missed out on seeing Bonobo live at The Big Chill earlier this month because they clashed with Orbital and wild horses wouldn't have stopped me from seeing them again. My Girlfriend went to see them and said it was possibly the highlight of the festival for her, so I would like to catch them live at some point. I believe there is a new album out so I assume there will be a tour to promote it.

I think it's fair to say that Oasis' image from the 90s and the high esteem in which their first 2-3 albums are held were a big contributing factor for the sales of the last two albums. A lot of people will have bought them just 'because it's Oasis' and not on the individual merits of those albums.

Why? Judging by all the interviews with him I have seen and read, he appears to be sticking his fingers up to conventional politics and actually doing just what the majority of the british public want. What's detestable about that?

Derbyshire Council have already rolled this out throughout the county and for the life of me I can't see why. Yeah there are a few fairly dangerous roads in the peak district but it's down to individual drivers/riders to exercise common sense, not to be treated like children by a nannying committee. Most accidents on these roads (usually bikers) are caused by people going dangerously over the limit in the first place, so whether the limit is 50 or 60 won't make a shred of difference to people who willingly ignore the limit anyway. I drove to a wedding near Leek a few weeks back and on the main road through you cross the county line into Staffordshire, where the limit just suddenly changes back to the normal 60 again even though the road conditions are identical. It's ridiculous.