New legislation in light of Woolwich attacks

Pap, the US military regards the bay of pigs and the refusal for Kennedy to expand the theatre of war in South Easr Asia as treachery, he is responsible for 1000's of democratic Cuban's dying on beaches.

Pap, hate to say it, but your posts on this and the marathon just don't add up. Its right to be cynical and question what you are told, but cynicism needs to have some grounding in reality.

The first thing to look for is a clear motive. There's a half motive for Boston (but only if the US really wanted Russia to ease off over Syria, which hasn't happened. There is no logical benefit of staging last weeks attack for our government. In fact it's caused them no end of problem.

Buildings 'collapsing in a unusual way', or 'murderers without enough blood' are incidental, they certainly don't indicate a conspiracy.

In recent yours the only conspiracy I'll even half consider is the last plane at 9/11. Government had clear motive to stop it; had jets in area; had clear reason not to want to let the public know; and had few witnesses. Even so, I'd argue that there isn't enough evidence to argue against the official line. And doing so would naturally offend the families of the victims.

I guess I'm saying, you're a good poster, but banging this drum relentlessly is making you look rather silly.

Pap, hate to say it, but your posts on this and the marathon just don't add up. Its right to be cynical and question what you are told, but cynicism needs to have some grounding in reality.

 

The first thing to look for is a clear motive. There's a half motive for Boston (but only if the US really wanted Russia to ease off over Syria, which hasn't happened. There is no logical benefit of staging last weeks attack for our government. In fact it's caused them no end of problem.

 

Buildings 'collapsing in a unusual way', or 'murderers without enough blood' are incidental, they certainly don't indicate a conspiracy.

 

In recent yours the only conspiracy I'll even half consider is the last plane at 9/11. Government had clear motive to stop it; had jets in area; had clear reason not to want to let the public know; and had few witnesses. Even so, I'd argue that there isn't enough evidence to argue against the official line. And doing so would naturally offend the families of the victims.

 

I guess I'm saying, you're a good poster, but banging this drum relentlessly is making you look rather silly.

I'm fairly undecided on both this and Boston; both still have the legal cases to run and the full legislative consequences are yet to be determined. Motive is a difficult thing to determine upfront, and is sometimes only apparent with the benefit of hindsight.

I find Boston interesting because of the huge deployment of personnel used to find and track the brothers. I also find aspects of it highly suspicious and/or convenient, such as the state of the brothers between being arrested and getting into custody. CISPA is back on the cards in the US, an Internet snoopers bill is one of the two pieces of legislation that is back under discussion in the UK.

It's a little more than buildings collapsing in an unusual way. It's the assertion that two skyscrapers, able to support their intact mass of concrete and steel for decades without problems, were unable to support the same mass when it was dispersed. The collapses bear all the hallmarks of controlled demolition,

The presence of molten metal, burning weeks after the events of 9/11 has been independently reported from numerous sources, and are corroborated by thermal imaging - important because it is claimed that the controlled demolition involved melting the steel support columns. WTC7 was almost forgotten entirely.

The official story is not only at odds with all of that, but also video evidence from the day that shows explosions, and certainly foreknowledge of the impending implosion of WTC7. If the controlled demolition hypothesis is correct, then you immediately have a conspiracy.

Cheers for playing nice.

The much maligned David Icke forums got the Savile story ahead of anybody, and while it isn't a traditional conspiracy theory, it does somewhat disprove Verbal's notion that the conspiracy community has never uncovered anything of any value.

Claiming the Jimmy Saville scandal as a ‘credit’ for the conspiracy theorists rather ignores the simple fact that Saville wasn’t a conspiracy. It was a classic (and familiar to anyone who’s worked there) case of a BBC ‘star’ presenter using intimidatory tactics to silence both his victims and his colleagues.

But even if we allow you the Saville case on the credit side of the balance sheet, have you considered what’s on the debit side for cocnsirapcy theorists, just in the last century?

1. The Holocaust. The Nazis were the archetypal conspiracy theorists, ascribing to Jews all the evils that had befallen ‘Aryan’ Germans. So, just counting Jews alone, conspiracy theorists murdered six million people.

2. Stalin’s reign of terror. Stalin was a notorious conspiracy theorist, imagining plots at every turn. His terror campaigns alone claimed the lives of at least 15 million people (source: Robert Conquest).

3. Mao’s cultural revolution. This was a classic conspiracy theory. ‘Bourgeois’ elements had deliberately ‘infiltrated’ the Party and needed to be purged. His campaign tore through ethnic minorities in particular. In Tibet alone, 23,000 people were beaten to death.

3. McCarthyism. Conspiracy theories have always found fertile ground in the US. Senator Joe McCarthy’s version had Hollywood and the media generally, as well as government, education and the unions deeply influenced by Soviet moles. Everything and everywhere in American film was ‘infected’ by the communist menace. So thousands of lives were wrecked as McCarthy hauled people up before his committee, demanding that they admit their guilt and that they name others to save themselves.

4. The Ku Klux Klan. White supremacists, who still number up to 8,000 active members in the southern United States, who saw/see blacks as weakening the white gene pool at the behest of their Jewish masters. Murders, rapes, lynchings, beatings, and driving blacks off their land were the KKK’s methods of choice in dealing with their brand of ‘anti-White’conspirators.

All of these conspiracy theorists were all of the same mindset. They saw evidence of plots in every tiny detail of life. They were paranoid, as are today’s conspiracy theorists, and they were, at the very least, narcissists, as are today’s conspiracy theorists.

And I repeat: conspiracy theorists have NEVER turned up a single actual, documented conspiracy. And there has NEVER been a documented false flag operation in the United States, despite the fact that the current crop of conspiracy loons – including vicious anti-Semites, survivalists, NRA extremists, Creationists, racist ‘birthers’ neo-Nazis and Islamo-fascists – have cried ‘false flag’ at every single American public tragedy from 9/11 to date.

So – great company you keep and a wonder tradition to follow in, don’t you think? Well done.

I'm fairly undecided on both this and Boston; both still have the legal cases to run and the full legislative consequences are yet to be determined. Motive is a difficult thing to determine upfront, and is sometimes only apparent with the benefit of hindsight.

 

I find Boston interesting because of the huge deployment of personnel used to find and track the brothers. I also find aspects of it highly suspicious and/or convenient, such as the state of the brothers between being arrested and getting into custody. CISPA is back on the cards in the US, an Internet snoopers bill is one of the two pieces of legislation that is back under discussion in the UK.

 

It's a little more than buildings collapsing in an unusual way. It's the assertion that two skyscrapers, able to support their intact mass of concrete and steel for decades without problems, were unable to support the same mass when it was dispersed. The collapses bear all the hallmarks of controlled demolition,

 

The presence of molten metal, burning weeks after the events of 9/11 has been independently reported from numerous sources, and are corroborated by thermal imaging - important because it is claimed that the controlled demolition involved melting the steel support columns. WTC7 was almost forgotten entirely.

 

The official story is not only at odds with all of that, but also video evidence from the day that shows explosions, and certainly foreknowledge of the impending implosion of WTC7. If the controlled demolition hypothesis is correct, then you immediately have a conspiracy.

 

Cheers for playing nice.

The 9/11 controlled demolition theories are laughable. The structures clearly failed at the area of impact of both planes, to achieve that they would have had to wire up the specific floors for demolition and make sure the planes hit the exact area - or wire up the whole building for demolition (impossible). And the wired up explosives (or melting metal demolition technology that doesn't even exist) would have to be done under the noses of the thousands who worked there, and be able to withstand a direct hit from a jumbo jet and still function effectively an hour or so later.

If somehow they did manage the above conventional explosives would mean a massive explosion, shattering glass in the whole area (didn't happen). The melting metal theory falls flat because vast majority of the steel support was in the external beams or a central concrete core. If destruction of the internal supports was enough to bring the building down it just adds weight to the accepted theory that the planes brought them down.

Scratch the surface of any of these conspiracies and you can fly a jumbo jet through the holes in them

I actually feel quite sorry for those that actually believe this crap

The 9/11 controlled demolition theories are laughable. The structures clearly failed at the area of impact of both planes, to achieve that they would have had to wire up the specific floors for demolition and make sure the planes hit the exact area - or wire up the whole building for demolition (impossible). And the wired up explosives (or melting metal demolition technology that doesn't even exist) would have to be done under the noses of the thousands who worked there, and be able to withstand a direct hit from a jumbo jet and still function effectively an hour or so later.

 

If somehow they did manage the above conventional explosives would mean a massive explosion, shattering glass in the whole area (didn't happen). The melting metal theory falls flat because vast majority of the steel support was in the external beams or a central concrete core. If destruction of the internal supports was enough to bring the building down it just adds weight to the accepted theory that the planes brought them down.

 

Scratch the surface of any of these conspiracies and you can fly a jumbo jet through the holes in them

So, er, when you doing that then? From the analysis above, it looks like you stopped scratching immediately. I could make brekkie for twenty with the unsubstantiated waffle on offer.

"Clearly fell at the area of impact of both planes" - that may explain everything above it. It doesn't account for the concrete and steel mass being crushed by the same weight it was able to support for decades. You've also neglected to mention WTC7, the other building that came down, which wasn't hit by a plane at all. Plenty of evidence from the day to suggest foreknowledge that the building was going to come down.

"Wire up the whole building for demolition (impossible)". I have a couple of probs with this. First, you'd never wire a whole building; the clue to the eventual aim is controlled demolition. The object is not to get the edifice to explode Death Star style. The second is your qualification of impossible. Controlled demolition is something that happens normally, isn't it? They manage. Difficult and time consuming, most certainly. Impossible? Not a bit of it.

"And the wired up explosives (or melting metal demolition technology that doesn't even exist)"

... in aintforever's memory. Look up thermite/thermate

"would have to be done under the noses of the thousands who worked there"

...which isn't necessarily a problem. I've worked in skyscrapers before; huge buildings populated by loads of different companies, new people in and out of the building every day, including tradesmen, contractors, etc.

"and be able to withstand a direct hit from a jumbo jet and still function effectively an hour or so later"

The only two steel-framed buildings in existence that have ever gone down like the two WTC towers after a plane crash are the two WTC towers. Others have had fires rage in them for days without turning to dust. You're essentially using two unexplained mysteries as proof of how buildings are supposed to come down in these circumstances.

All the pre-911 information tells us that buildings may not "effectively function" an hour or so later, but neither do they explode into dust.

Have another scratch, aintforever

You realise that the buildings were not just 'supporting the same weight' any more and were seriously weakened by thr plane impacts and then fires ? Kerosine burns incredibly hot btw. Once the top layers started to collapse then the forces on its supporting structures would be far greater then when the building was sitting there unweakened. A building that had much support through the centre and its centre column had been weakened aswell ?

The rest is as you say, pretty much a load of waffle, a paranoid conspiracist clinging in to the hope they can topple the big bad governments ?

I have always wondered what they expect to achieve however, if they did manage to get enough people to believe this crap ?

Besides, a single fact remains, no conspiracy has ever been proven correct, no shred of conclusive proof has ever been found and the majority of people believe conspiracists to be pie in the sky fanatics. No doubt that that is a conspiracy in itself, but in reality it is because there has never been a reasoned arguement worth talking about.

stupid, stupid people, stupidest thing on the internet, stupidity, internet stupidity, stupid conspiracies

Don't mind me - just tagging this thread so it is easier for people to search for on the internet. Carry on.

stupid, stupid people, stupidest thing on the internet, stupidity, internet stupidity, stupid conspiracies

 

Don't mind me - just tagging this thread so it is easier for people to search for on the internet. Carry on.

Could you change people to person? Thanks.

The guy who works in IT but doesn't know how to colour balance a media player now demonstrates his fine grasp of structural engineering and demolition. They say you couldn't make it up but with conspiracists its their whole reason for being.

I for one... strongly believe that pap is... NOT STUPID...

He has many valid points in his posts and many of his questions go unanswered.

Posters who ridicule and take the piiish out of him are the stupid peeps...

In most cases there is NO thorough investigation into the various incidents...other than what the powers to be direct...

I am still totally bemused at some of the footage I saw at the incidents.....Boston Marathon, Sandy Hook , Woolwich.....

To be honest...I care not and never will...what idiots say to me or about me........BUT I have never believed the crap about man setting foot on the moon..

So go ahead big boyz ..call me an idiot..

AND if you honestly believe the twin towers collapsed due to aircraft landing theron...more fool you guys..

I will not be debating my views as some of you are a shower of shiiite and use bigger handbags than mine....

Someone said our Goverment..NO state...NO the big boyz club are not capable of doing some of the things suggested over the years...DREAM ON:)

Could you change people to person? Thanks.

I was wrong. It is back to people again unfortunately.

I was wrong. It is back to people again unfortunately.

I still luv you hypo;)

 

He has many valid points in his posts and many of his questions go unanswered.

Go on then, I'll perpetuate this sorry thread a while longer. Which questions are valid and need answering?

I've worked in skyscrapers before; huge buildings populated by loads of different companies, new people in and out of the building every day, including tradesmen, contractors, etc.

Is this actually true? We only have one true skyscraper in this country, and that's barely finished. And you don't seem like the kind of technician whose talents would be in high demand in the US or anywhere else that true skyscrapers exist. I doubt you've even worked abroad. So which skyscrapers have you worked in?

FWIW, I was working in the WTC plaza in the Spring of 2001, and security officers were all over why I was there and what I was doing. A lot of the offices in the WTC contained commercially sensitive material, so even if the building security didn't stop you, office security would have. (And that's leaving aside all the interior fabric removal that always accompanies building demolition).

I just think that this 'I've worked on skyscrapers' schtick is another of your porkies. Correct?

Go on then, I'll perpetuate this sorry thread a while longer. Which questions are valid and need answering?

Read my post again about the size of your handbag big boy:rolleyes:

Read my post again about the size of your handbag big boy:rolleyes:

So like Pap you prefer to avoid the basic questions and plead vicitmisation. Its okay to claim mutilated people were crisis actors and that murders witnessed by scores didnt happen, but if anyone points out how untenable that is its bullying.

We need a poll to decide who can p*ss the furthest - Verbal or Pap

So, er, when you doing that then? From the analysis above, it looks like you stopped scratching immediately. I could make brekkie for twenty with the unsubstantiated waffle on offer.

 

"Clearly fell at the area of impact of both planes" - that may explain everything above it. It doesn't account for the concrete and steel mass being crushed by the same weight it was able to support for decades. You've also neglected to mention WTC7, the other building that came down, which wasn't hit by a plane at all. Plenty of evidence from the day to suggest foreknowledge that the building was going to come down.

 

"Wire up the whole building for demolition (impossible)". I have a couple of probs with this. First, you'd never wire a whole building; the clue to the eventual aim is controlled demolition. The object is not to get the edifice to explode Death Star style. The second is your qualification of impossible. Controlled demolition is something that happens normally, isn't it? They manage. Difficult and time consuming, most certainly. Impossible? Not a bit of it.

 

"And the wired up explosives (or melting metal demolition technology that doesn't even exist)"

... in aintforever's memory. Look up thermite/thermate

 

"would have to be done under the noses of the thousands who worked there"

 

...which isn't necessarily a problem. I've worked in skyscrapers before; huge buildings populated by loads of different companies, new people in and out of the building every day, including tradesmen, contractors, etc.

 

"and be able to withstand a direct hit from a jumbo jet and still function effectively an hour or so later"

 

The only two steel-framed buildings in existence that have ever gone down like the two WTC towers after a plane crash are the two WTC towers. Others have had fires rage in them for days without turning to dust. You're essentially using two unexplained mysteries as proof of how buildings are supposed to come down in these circumstances.

 

All the pre-911 information tells us that buildings may not "effectively function" an hour or so later, but neither do they explode into dust.

 

Have another scratch, aintforever

One for brother Pap:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrQSAkaWsaU

Is this actually true? We only have one true skyscraper in this country, and that's barely finished. And you don't seem like the kind of technician whose talents would be in high demand in the US or anywhere else that true skyscrapers exist. I doubt you've even worked abroad. So which skyscrapers have you worked in?

 

FWIW, I was working in the WTC plaza in the Spring of 2001, and security officers were all over why I was there and what I was doing. A lot of the offices in the WTC contained commercially sensitive material, so even if the building security didn't stop you, office security would have. (And that's leaving aside all the interior fabric removal that always accompanies building demolition).

 

I just think that this 'I've worked on skyscrapers' schtick is another of your porkies. Correct?

I really am sorry to disappoint you, Verbal. I was in the US, in one of these aforementioned skyscrapers, last August. It's the fourth time I've worked in that particular building, and I've spent eight weeks of my working life there.

I have even been to the top of said skyscraper on a guided tour. Could this be just another example of where you've imagined something about me to be true and have made up a load of boll*cks? I think so.

I really am sorry to disappoint you, Verbal. I was in the US, in one of these aforementioned skyscrapers, last August. It's the fourth time I've worked in that particular building, and I've spent eight weeks of my working life there.

 

I have even been to the top of said skyscraper on a guided tour. Could this be just another example of where you've imagined something about me to be true and have made up a load of boll*cks? I think so.

 

Well, this proves conclusively that the US government planned and executed a staged mass genocide of its own people.

Well done Pap. Brilliantly played.

Well, this proves conclusively that the US government planned and executed a staged mass genocide of its own people.

 

Well done Pap. Brilliantly played.

Ah quiet, CB Fry. In case there is anyone else out there intending to reply to this post in as dimwitted a fashion, I was replying to Verbal's accusation that I'd never worked in a skyscraper and was telling porkies, nowt else.

I thank you, although I can't take the credit for "brilliantly played". The set-up was all Verbal.

Ah quiet, CB Fry. In case there is anyone else out there intending to reply to this post in as dimwitted a fashion, I was replying to Verbal's accusation that I'd never worked in a skyscraper and was telling porkies, nowt else.

 

I thank you, although I can't take the credit for "brilliantly played". The set-up was all Verbal.

Hang on. You've proved it. You've spent two months in a skyscraper, making you so clued up about structural engineering and the demolition industry that you can indentify exactly how the US secret service slathered explosives all over the world trade centre to kill hundreds of civilians.

Fragments of fact stitched together to make a whole. Conspiracy.You've done it. All proven. I can't believe the US government would mass murder hundreds of civilians for no obvious reason but they did. Thanks for opening my eyes.

I've emailed the BBC. But I bet they ignore me - as you yourself have already said: they're in on it, man. They're in on it.

I really am sorry to disappoint you, Verbal. I was in the US, in one of these aforementioned skyscrapers, last August. It's the fourth time I've worked in that particular building, and I've spent eight weeks of my working life there.

 

I have even been to the top of said skyscraper on a guided tour. Could this be just another example of where you've imagined something about me to be true and have made up a load of boll*cks? I think so.

Well I'm happy to concede that I was wrong.

See? Saying you're wrong needn't hurt. People do it without keeling over dead.

I presume from your posting style, by the way, that your the diminutive, pale one in the glasses?

So let's get down to business about being wrong:

Are you now prepared to admit you were wrong to suggest that the tango-handed video clip was "proof" of "tampering" by "the media"?

Are you prepared to admit you were wrong to suggest that the "ghosted" hands was anything to do with "tampering", and that the more obvious conclusion was that it was an artefact of interlaced recording?

Are you prepared to admit that your dark mutterings about whether Lee Rigby's head was severed or not is both irrelevant and sick?

And most importantly, are you prepared to admit that the effect of conspiracy theorists' stalking behaviour on the victims and their families of tragedies like Woolwich, Boston and 9/11 is morally outrageous?

I'm assuming - again, I'm sure, wrongly - that you do not have a family. But just suppose you did. And now suppose that one of those family members - a son, daughter or wife - was murdered in the street in the same way that Lee Rigby was. How much would you enjoy the spectacle of internet nobodies speculating as to whether the head was fully cut off or hanging by skin or tendon? Or how much you would appreciate your grief being written off as "crisis-acting"?

When you accuse me and others of 'feigning" outrage at your gross insensitivity, and when you prioritise you own cheap thrills over the grief of victims' families, I am forced back to what I've said repeatedly on here: you are sinister. You've admitted to the paranoid psychological trait of confirmation bias, and you've displayed plenty of narcissism. You've also suggested that conspiracy theories are an addiction for you. So with the best will in the world, I say again: take a break from this, and try to get those conspiratorial voices out of your head. It is clearly not doing you any good.

Hang on. You've proved it. You've spent two months in a skyscraper, making you so clued up about structural engineering and the demolition industry that you can indentify exactly how the US secret service slathered explosives all over the world trade centre to kill hundreds of civilians.

 

Fragments of fact stitched together to make a whole. Conspiracy.You've done it. All proven. I can't believe the US government would mass murder hundreds of civilians for no obvious reason but they did. Thanks for opening my eyes.

 

I've emailed the BBC. But I bet they ignore me - as you yourself have already said: they're in on it, man. They're in on it.

Again, to provide the context you're so willing to omit. The original claim was that any wiring up of the building would be impossible due to the thousands of people working there. I've worked in a skyscraper; people come and go all day long for different reasons.

No obvious reason? Big chortles from yours truly. Did sir happen to observe the radical change in US foreign policy post-911, how the country was able to prosecute two wars with our help. Has sir ever read Rebuilding America's Defenses, in which a number of hawkish neocons, many of whom went into the Bush Administration, said that fighting many wars at once was something the US should be doing, but that the public probably wouldn't go for it without a New Pearl Harbor. The fact that war plans for Iraq existed well before 9/11? It's only not obvious because you're wilfully stuffing your fingers into your ears.

You are an excellent p!ss-taker, CB Fry - one of the best on here. I commend you for the style of your post, but I take issue with the substance.

Well, this thread has taught me something, the Savile/Paul Merton thing was a hoax.

Well I'm happy to concede that I was wrong.

 

See? Saying you're wrong needn't hurt. People do it without keeling over dead.

 

I presume from your posting style, by the way, that your the diminutive, pale one in the glasses?

 

So let's get down to business about being wrong:

 

Are you now prepared to admit you were wrong to suggest that the tango-handed video clip was "proof" of "tampering" by "the media"?

 

Are you prepared to admit you were wrong to suggest that the "ghosted" hands was anything to do with "tampering", and that the more obvious conclusion was that it was an artefact of interlaced recording?

 

Are you prepared to admit that your dark mutterings about whether Lee Rigby's head was severed or not is both irrelevant and sick?

 

And most importantly, are you prepared to admit that the effect of conspiracy theorists' stalking behaviour on the victims and their families of tragedies like Woolwich, Boston and 9/11 is morally outrageous?

 

I'm assuming - again, I'm sure, wrongly - that you do not have a family. But just suppose you did. And now suppose that one of those family members - a son, daughter or wife - was murdered in the street in the same way that Lee Rigby was. How much would you enjoy the spectacle of internet nobodies speculating as to whether the head was fully cut off or hanging by skin or tendon? Or how much you would appreciate your grief being written off as "crisis-acting"?

 

When you accuse me and others of 'feigning" outrage at your gross insensitivity, and when you prioritise you own cheap thrills over the grief of victims' families, I am forced back to what I've said repeatedly on here: you are sinister. You've admitted to the paranoid psychological trait of confirmation bias, and you've displayed plenty of narcissism. You've also suggested that conspiracy theories are an addiction for you. So with the best will in the world, I say again: take a break from this, and try to get those conspiratorial voices out of your head. It is clearly not doing you any good.

This is brilliant stuff Verbal; keep it up. I'm not quite sure how many times I've called your crap out in one thread. I've been pretty decent at answering a lot of your line-items, but I'm not going to do the same here. When proved wrong over your assertion that JFK and the joint chiefs only clashed on Northwoods, you deftly sidestepped it (in your mind, at least) by quoting the one bit of the post you thought you could have a bash at and started making up a load of sh!t.

Then, a little later on, when I describe the hoi-polloi of working in very tall buildings, you accuse me of lying again, once again making up a load of sh!t.

Now, that wee notion thoroughly dismissed, you take a swipe at my appearance, assume that I have no family, making up a load of sh!t. I'm sure my dad can confirm he has grand-daughters and that they are not figments of my imagination.

As for the scenario you're asking me to entertain, I'd want any incident involving a loved one to be thoroughly investigated to a legal standard. I have to contend with the opinions of people on the internet all the time; I wouldn't be so quick to label them nobodies. I do find it a little hypocritical that an internet nobody is asking me to hypothesise on tragic scenarios involving my own family, but we'll leave that there.

All I'll say is that on every assumption you've made about me, you've been off the mark. How well do you think this little campaign to discredit me is going when all your assumptions are a load of sh!te?

I for one... strongly believe that pap is... NOT STUPID...

 

He has many valid points in his posts and many of his questions go unanswered.

 

Posters who ridicule and take the piiish out of him are the stupid peeps...

 

In most cases there is NO thorough investigation into the various incidents...other than what the powers to be direct...

 

I am still totally bemused at some of the footage I saw at the incidents.....Boston Marathon, Sandy Hook , Woolwich.....

 

To be honest...I care not and never will...what idiots say to me or about me........BUT I have never believed the crap about man setting foot on the moon..

 

So go ahead big boyz ..call me an idiot..

 

AND if you honestly believe the twin towers collapsed due to aircraft landing theron...more fool you guys..

 

I will not be debating my views as some of you are a shower of shiiite and use bigger handbags than mine....

 

Someone said our Goverment..NO state...NO the big boyz club are not capable of doing some of the things suggested over the years...DREAM ON:)

Cheers, ottery st mary. I do so love it when you chip in.

Again, to provide the context you're so willing to omit. The original claim was that any wiring up of the building would be impossible due to the thousands of people working there. I've worked in a skyscraper; people come and go all day long for different reasons.

 

No obvious reason? Big chortles from yours truly. Did sir happen to observe the radical change in US foreign policy post-911, how the country was able to prosecute two wars with our help. Has sir ever read Rebuilding America's Defenses, in which a number of hawkish neocons, many of whom went into the Bush Administration, said that fighting many wars at once was something the US should be doing, but that the public probably wouldn't go for it without a New Pearl Harbor. The fact that war plans for Iraq existed well before 9/11? It's only not obvious because you're wilfully stuffing your fingers into your ears.

 

You are an excellent p!ss-taker, CB Fry - one of the best on here. I commend you for the style of your post, but I take issue with the substance.

Convincing the newly inaugaurated president to sign on to not only mass genocide, but mass genocide at very heart of the greatest financial and business centre of the entire western world..well it is certainly Neo, and I suppose is Conservative in a way. But well done for the Neo-cons for driving it through.

I'm really looking forward to the day the whistle is blown on this whole thing. Because, sure as I am now that the administration was signed on to this, I can't help feeling the President must have had one or two reservations about the plan. I mean, sure, he wanted to change foriegn policy. But the mass-murder-of-US-citizens bit must have stuck in the craw somewhat.

All for the greater good as you say, but they must have knocked about a couple of plan Bs before they plumped for crippling New York City and murdering hundreds and hundreds of people.

I think its a real shame the US government couldn't come up with a more innovative idea to enact foriegn policy change than slaughtering hundreds of innocent civilians. A real pity.

Convincing the newly inaugaurated president to sign on to not only mass genocide, but mass genocide at very heart of the greatest financial and business centre of the entire western world..well it is certainly Neo, and I suppose is Conservative in a way. But well done for the Neo-cons for driving it through.

Do you even know what genocide is, CB Fry? I ask because I understand it to be something quite different.

I'm really looking forward to the day the whistle is blown on this whole thing. Because, sure as I am now that the administration was signed on to this, I can't help feeling the President must have had one or two reservations about the plan. I mean, sure, he wanted to change foriegn policy. But the mass-murder-of-US-citizens bit must have stuck in the craw somewhat.

This'd be George W Bush, the President who spent a large part of his pre-9/11 presidency on holiday. A "C-student president with smart advisors", or perhaps less charitably, an idiotic moron. Yes, he was on the ball.

All for the greater good as you say, but they must have knocked about a couple of plan Bs before they plumped for crippling New York City and murdering hundreds and hundreds of people.

Did I say that?

I think its a real shame the US government couldn't come up with a more innovative idea to enact foriegn policy change than slaughtering hundreds of innocent civilians. A real pity.

So in short, you've gone for "sneering sarcasm"

It's one of my favourite CB Fry flavours, right next to "top blokes at Stoke".

Cheers, ottery st mary. I do so love it when you chip in.

Thought I would leave my knowledge/.info.. regarding the CIA raid in Pakistan 2011 ? for Bin Laden ...to another date.

But for my muckers on this forum...will mention some info..in passing..

I am retesting my sources at this time..as Laden was meant to have been killed during the raids in the mountains..extensive bombing raids...

But my really reliable source ..states that Mr Laden is working at the Kosher counter at Maceys in New York.

My concern with this reported raid..CIA led..was that none of the Navy seals saw any sign of Mr Laden at that time. I am concerned that many of seal team 6 are no longer with us..

My other source states the CIA agent Laden died of kidney failure 2003?

Soooooo many corrupt politicians....just who do you believe.

Such a corrupt world that we live in..

I apologise. There were no plan Bs. Just crack on with the planes into skyscraper thing.

Sorry about that.

And, just to be clear - you're saying the president didn't and doesn't know?

Junior BBC reporters deftly ignoring your emails are in on it but the President of the USA wasn't?

Do you even know what genocide is, CB Fry?

It aint rock and roll.

And, just to be clear - you're saying the president didn't and doesn't know?

 

Junior BBC reporters deftly ignoring your emails are in on it but the President of the USA wasn't?

Nope, I'm saying that if he did know, he certainly didn't direct it. W Bush was a figurehead. Are you saying that he dreamt up and implemented policy?

So, er, when you doing that then? From the analysis above, it looks like you stopped scratching immediately. I could make brekkie for twenty with the unsubstantiated waffle on offer.

 

"Clearly fell at the area of impact of both planes" - that may explain everything above it. It doesn't account for the concrete and steel mass being crushed by the same weight it was able to support for decades. You've also neglected to mention WTC7, the other building that came down, which wasn't hit by a plane at all. Plenty of evidence from the day to suggest foreknowledge that the building was going to come down.

 

"Wire up the whole building for demolition (impossible)". I have a couple of probs with this. First, you'd never wire a whole building; the clue to the eventual aim is controlled demolition. The object is not to get the edifice to explode Death Star style. The second is your qualification of impossible. Controlled demolition is something that happens normally, isn't it? They manage. Difficult and time consuming, most certainly. Impossible? Not a bit of it.

 

"And the wired up explosives (or melting metal demolition technology that doesn't even exist)"

... in aintforever's memory. Look up thermite/thermate

 

"would have to be done under the noses of the thousands who worked there"

 

...which isn't necessarily a problem. I've worked in skyscrapers before; huge buildings populated by loads of different companies, new people in and out of the building every day, including tradesmen, contractors, etc.

 

"and be able to withstand a direct hit from a jumbo jet and still function effectively an hour or so later"

 

The only two steel-framed buildings in existence that have ever gone down like the two WTC towers after a plane crash are the two WTC towers. Others have had fires rage in them for days without turning to dust. You're essentially using two unexplained mysteries as proof of how buildings are supposed to come down in these circumstances.

 

All the pre-911 information tells us that buildings may not "effectively function" an hour or so later, but neither do they explode into dust.

 

Have another scratch, aintforever

This is hard work, you are very good at skirting around the points i made.

I am fully aware of thermite but you would need tons and tons of it to bring down the buildings that way. Plus it burns very very brightly and as most of the building's strength was in the outside columns (It was basically a big tube) if you were to try to cut through these with thermite you would see it miles away. To try and cut through the central concrete core with thermite just wouldn't work.

Plus the structures failed at the area of impact (obvious from viewing the footage), you would need tons of thermite and explosive set up on those floors able to withstand an aircraft hitting it then be detonated an hour later to achieve what we saw.

These is no evidence that contradicts the accepted reasons for the collapse.

Nope, I'm saying that if he did know, he certainly didn't direct it. W Bush was a figurehead. Are you saying that he dreamt up and implemented policy?

But he would have been in some of the meetings, though?

Because to organise the mass murder of hundreds of New Yorkers there would have been, what, six or seven meetings?

And even as a blundering moron, you'd think he would use his position as a figurehead to express a reservation or two.

But ultimately the Neo Cons won the day. High fives all round. The Pres is okay with it. Let's start laying the explosives in the WTC.

This is brilliant stuff Verbal; keep it up. I'm not quite sure how many times I've called your crap out in one thread. I've been pretty decent at answering a lot of your line-items, but I'm not going to do the same here. When proved wrong over your assertion that JFK and the joint chiefs only clashed on Northwoods, you deftly sidestepped it (in your mind, at least) by quoting the one bit of the post you thought you could have a bash at and started making up a load of sh!t.

 

Then, a little later on, when I describe the hoi-polloi of working in very tall buildings, you accuse me of lying again, once again making up a load of sh!t.

 

Now, that wee notion thoroughly dismissed, you take a swipe at my appearance, assume that I have no family, making up a load of sh!t. I'm sure my dad can confirm he has grand-daughters and that they are not figments of my imagination.

 

As for the scenario you're asking me to entertain, I'd want any incident involving a loved one to be thoroughly investigated to a legal standard. I have to contend with the opinions of people on the internet all the time; I wouldn't be so quick to label them nobodies. I do find it a little hypocritical that an internet nobody is asking me to hypothesise on tragic scenarios involving my own family, but we'll leave that there.

 

All I'll say is that on every assumption you've made about me, you've been off the mark. How well do you think this little campaign to discredit me is going when all your assumptions are a load of sh!te?

Pretty decent? You haven't answered a single one!

And to be perfectly honest, I didn't read past the first line of your post in which you claimed that E Howard Hunt's 'deathbed' confession was the god's truth on JFK. Hunt's 'confession' is always the last refuge of the desperate. His own wife disowned it, saying that her sons had coached a frail old man into helping them out with a money-making scheme. If you think there was a shred of truth in it, don't you think it would be widely accepted now?

The other thing about Hunt you should keep in mind is this: he co-ordinated the Watergate burglaries because of a ludicrous conspiracy theory within the Nixon reelection committee (the wonderfully named CREEP) that the Democratic Party was funded by Castro.

As for Northwoods, it never happened, despite the keening wish of conspiracy theorists that it did. And I said it was the only time Kennedy 'shot down' the entire CoS. Read your own link for clarification.

I don't know why you're so sensitive about being labelled a liar. Once again: you claimed you had "proof" that news organisations tampered with the video of the Woolwich killer. You knew you had no such proof, that indeed no such 'proof' exists, and you should admit that.

And it's ironic - don't you think? - that someone who blunders on through the grief of others, should get so shirty when it's brought a little closer to home? I'm simply trying to discover if you have an empathy chip; and it's perfectly evident, over this and the Boston thread, that you do not.

So - one more go:

Would you concede that it sick to accuse the victims of the Boston bombings of being 'crisis-actors' - of making up their injuries from the bombing? Would you agree that it's sick to idly speculate about the degree to which Lee Rigby's head was severed?

You're not interested in investigations 'to a legal standard'. You post stuff that would get you instantly thrown off of any investigative team for being utterly cretinous. Do you REALLY think you're postings stand some sort of 'legal standard' test? Good grief, you're far worse than I thought!

And since you're so much more sensitive about your own feelings, rather than those (families, victims, and others involved in these tragedies) who've suffered just a tiny bit more than you, here's some news for you as to why people on here get exasperated with you. It's because you are evasive, deceptive, naive and self-regarding in the way you conduct yourself. This is not something you can accept, of course, because your feelings trump everything else. And I'm sure it won't stop you posting your puerile rubbish. It's a free country (despite your blatherings to the contrary) - and freedom suffers fools gladly.

This is hard work, you are very good at skirting around the points i made.

 

I am fully aware of thermite but you would need tons and tons of it to bring down the buildings that way. Plus it burns very very brightly and as most of the building's strength was in the outside columns (It was basically a big tube) if you were to try to cut through these with thermite you would see it miles away. To try and cut through the central concrete core with thermite just wouldn't work.

 

Plus the structures failed at the area of impact (obvious from viewing the footage), you would need tons of thermite and explosive set up on those floors able to withstand an aircraft hitting it then be detonated an hour later to achieve what we saw.

 

These is no evidence that contradicts the accepted reasons for the collapse.

There is already video evidence of molten metal snaking down the side of the building. Evidence of nanothermite has been found in some of the few samples it was possible to procure.

There are numerous accounts from those in an official capacity that pools of molten steel were burning for weeks afterwards.

There is plenty of evidence for controlled demolition, but when investigations begin with the starting point that fires caused the collapse, and that starting point is non-negotiable, then those investigations are inherently flawed and evidence to the contrary is ignored.

Gone ever so slightly off topic here...lets get it back to the thread title please.

There is already video evidence of molten metal snaking down the side of the building. Evidence of nanothermite has been found in some of the few samples it was possible to procure.

 

There are numerous accounts from those in an official capacity that pools of molten steel were burning for weeks afterwards.

 

There is plenty of evidence for controlled demolition, but when investigations begin with the starting point that fires caused the collapse, and that starting point is non-negotiable, then those investigations are inherently flawed and evidence to the contrary is ignored.

The molten liquid pouring out is more than likely just aluminium from the plane or a mixture of aluminium and other melted stuff. Considering it is pouring out from the area where the plane hit this is by far the most likely explanation. If thermite was in this area there is no way it would have survived the initial blast and high temperatures.

It got hot, things burnt. If it was a controlled demolition it would need literally miles of wires and loads detonators etc. There would be plenty of evidence, not just physical but accounts from people who worked in both towers who would have had to have seen people drilling and wiring stuff up.

I'm not some one who believes everything governments say, I think the US and UK governments are more than capable of doing some pretty nasty stuff to get their own way. But these 9/11 conspiracies would need to involve so many people they are completely unbelievable. For an act of evil this bad, any believable theory could only ever involve no more than a handful of people in a rogue secret services unit.

Pap has consistently refused to answer Gemmel’s and others’ repeated question about what his conspiracy “theory” really is. But it’s actually clear enough from his postings – even if it is (and I’m trying to be polite) hopelessly confused and puerile.

So here's what lurks beneath his "questions" and "proofs of a legal standard":

1. The Coalition government, or some elements within it, wanted to stage a spectacular event in order to introduce unpopular legislation restricting people’s rights. In order to do this, they arranged for the fantastically brutal murder of a British soldier…

2. …Unless it’s all staged, of course. Lee Rigby may not be dead – just “crisis-acting”. He may not even – and this is supposed to be in some unstated way decisive – have had his head cut off! Lee Rigby and his family are probably now in a safe house, cynically laughing at all the fuss.

3. Evidence of “crisis acting” is that there is no blood around Lee Rigby’s SUPPOSEDLY dead body. The two large pools of blood, and blood trails, around the crashed car are irrelevant. Probably someone just got a paper cut.

4. Michael Adebolajo was photographed with bloodless (but oddly bright orange) hands, holding a selection of butcher’s implements also covered in vivid orange. (Heaven only knows how Pap reconciles this with the killer’s confession while he’s waving his “orange” hands about).

5. The other “killer”, Michael Adebowale, is demonstrably innocent because in the very few distant shots of him (there are no close-ups), he has no blood on his jacket. There is no known video of the attack in progress so we don’t know (a) whether the jacket was put on after the bloodiest part of the attack or (b) whether Adebowale was even the one doing the butchering. But the few distant shots in existence nonetheless prove beyond any doubt that he, like Adebolajo, is a patsy. It follows from all this, of course, that the autopsy, which highlighted the cause of Lee Rigby’s death as multiple “incisive” wounds, is also a fake.

6. The orange-handed video is absolutely without any shadow of a doubt genuine and original. There is no reason whatsoever to doubt its authenticity. The orange hands and blades are completely natural and believable. Probably just a trick of the light.

7. This was one of two videos that were then doctored by “the media” before being broadcast showing the killer’s now bloodied hands. This is conclusive, indisputable proof that the whole murder was a staged. The killer’s hands also “ghost”, which is yet more proof of media fakery.

8. All of this happened in front of hundreds of eyewitnesses, including three women, the “Woolwich angels” who interacted with the killers. These three must presumably also be crisis actors, deviously putting on a show of mock-concern for the “victim”. All first-hand witness accounts are by this definition false – and therefore must have been contracted by the mysterious powers to falsely witness the killing. The actual truth is only revealed by, and known to a few privileged investigators of “legal standard” (like Pap), through Googling.

9. The evil “media”, which routinely works hand-in-glove with the government, has been covering up this true picture ever since.

10. The two “killers” are actually patsies and will be victims of a government-controlled show trial that will unfairly convict them, just as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will be unfairly convicted in his show trial for the utterly fake Boston bombings.

Pap may deny specifics and will no doubt use his evident inability at simple ratiocinative argument to do so. But the plain fact is that all of this MUST follow from his various ludicrous musings.

It doesn’t look very clever, does it?

...And right on cue, Radical Muslim students at London Met University have been found hosting the following video on their Facebook page. Depressingly, it contains every single one of Pap's paranoid "proofs" (above) to concoct its story that Woolwich was a false flag operation conducted by the Zionist State/Media using crisis actors:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7yJzObpdY

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exclusive-woolwich-atrocity-was-a-state-hoax-say-university-extremists-8641917.html

Pap has consistently refused to answer Gemmel’s and others’ repeated question about what his conspiracy “theory” really is. But it’s actually clear enough from his postings – even if it is (and I’m trying to be polite) hopelessly confused and puerile.

 

So here's what lurks beneath his "questions" and "proofs of a legal standard":

 

1. The Coalition government, or some elements within it, wanted to stage a spectacular event in order to introduce unpopular legislation restricting people’s rights. In order to do this, they arranged for the fantastically brutal murder of a British soldier…

 

2. …Unless it’s all staged, of course. Lee Rigby may not be dead – just “crisis-acting”. He may not even – and this is supposed to be in some unstated way decisive – have had his head cut off! Lee Rigby and his family are probably now in a safe house, cynically laughing at all the fuss.

 

3. Evidence of “crisis acting” is that there is no blood around Lee Rigby’s SUPPOSEDLY dead body. The two large pools of blood, and blood trails, around the crashed car are irrelevant. Probably someone just got a paper cut.

 

4. Michael Adebolajo was photographed with bloodless (but oddly bright orange) hands, holding a selection of butcher’s implements also covered in vivid orange. (Heaven only knows how Pap reconciles this with the killer’s confession while he’s waving his “orange” hands about).

 

5. The other “killer”, Michael Adebowale, is demonstrably innocent because in the very few distant shots of him (there are no close-ups), he has no blood on his jacket. There is no known video of the attack in progress so we don’t know (a) whether the jacket was put on after the bloodiest part of the attack or (b) whether Adebowale was even the one doing the butchering. But the few distant shots in existence nonetheless prove beyond any doubt that he, like Adebolajo, is a patsy. It follows from all this, of course, that the autopsy, which highlighted the cause of Lee Rigby’s death as multiple “incisive” wounds, is also a fake.

 

6. The orange-handed video is absolutely without any shadow of a doubt genuine and original. There is no reason whatsoever to doubt its authenticity. The orange hands and blades are completely natural and believable. Probably just a trick of the light.

 

7. This was one of two videos that were then doctored by “the media” before being broadcast showing the killer’s now bloodied hands. This is conclusive, indisputable proof that the whole murder was a staged. The killer’s hands also “ghost”, which is yet more proof of media fakery.

 

8. All of this happened in front of hundreds of eyewitnesses, including three women, the “Woolwich angels” who interacted with the killers. These three must presumably also be crisis actors, deviously putting on a show of mock-concern for the “victim”. All first-hand witness accounts are by this definition false – and therefore must have been contracted by the mysterious powers to falsely witness the killing. The actual truth is only revealed by, and known to a few privileged investigators of “legal standard” (like Pap), through Googling.

 

9. The evil “media”, which routinely works hand-in-glove with the government, has been covering up this true picture ever since.

 

10. The two “killers” are actually patsies and will be victims of a government-controlled show trial that will unfairly convict them, just as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will be unfairly convicted in his show trial for the utterly fake Boston bombings.

 

Pap may deny specifics and will no doubt use his evident inability at simple ratiocinative argument to do so. But the plain fact is that all of this MUST follow from his various ludicrous musings.

 

It doesn’t look very clever, does it?

Wow. I really don't know where to start with this. Do we open with the observation that Verbal, hater of conspiracy theorists, is now creating his own conspiracy theories?

Do we once again point out the strawman nature of this argument? Perhaps we should look at all the other times when Verbal has made assumptions and got it so very wrong. Just on this thread alone we have classics such as "pap, the technician who lies about skyscrapers" and "pap, the loner with no family" and "A Thousand Bummings Outside Northwoods", the touching story of how JFK and the joint chiefs really got along.

After considering all of the options, I'm going to elect for none of the above. You see I saw a comment earlier in the thread in which Verbal said that I was feeling hurt. I would like to clear this up. There is a vast difference between pointing out the painfully transparent tactics of an ageing scoundrel and feeling personally affronted by each and every jab. I just don't want anyone mistaking your copy for discussion.

...And right on cue, Radical Muslim students at London Met University have been found hosting the following video on their Facebook page. Depressingly, it contains every single one of Pap's paranoid "proofs" (above) to concoct its story that Woolwich was a false flag operation conducted by the Zionist State/Media using crisis actors:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7yJzObpdY

 

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exclusive-woolwich-atrocity-was-a-state-hoax-say-university-extremists-8641917.html

That's easily in the top sixteen things I have ever seen on the internet. Just brilliant.

Needless to say Pap, I'm now convinced.

I hope they give Drummer Rigby's widow a gig on Holby or something when this dies down. Or maybe an honourary BAFTA. What an actress.

Wow. I really don't know where to start with this. Do we open with the observation that Verbal, hater of conspiracy theorists, is now creating his own conspiracy theories?

 

Do we once again point out the strawman nature of this argument? Perhaps we should look at all the other times when Verbal has made assumptions and got it so very wrong. Just on this thread alone we have classics such as "pap, the technician who lies about skyscrapers" and "pap, the loner with no family" and "A Thousand Bummings Outside Northwoods", the touching story of how JFK and the joint chiefs really got along.

 

After considering all of the options, I'm going to elect for none of the above. You see I saw a comment earlier in the thread in which Verbal said that I was feeling hurt. I would like to clear this up. There is a vast difference between pointing out the painfully transparent tactics of an ageing scoundrel and feeling personally affronted by each and every jab. I just don't want anyone mistaking your copy for discussion.

The thing is, every time your bizarre theories are exposed you get all defensive and start babbling on about nothing.

What's your theory behind the black fella's day-glow orange hands?

The thing is, every time your bizarre theories are exposed you get all defensive and start babbling on about nothing.

 

What's your theory behind the black fella's day-glow orange hands?

Nah, it's not that. I haven't put forward a single theory on Woolwich.

Verbal has though. It's not very good.

Nah, it's not that. I haven't put forward a single theory on Woolwich.

 

Verbal has though. It's not very good.

Intrinsic to the utter horseplop you have posted on this thread is the theory that the events in Woolwich were not "real".

So don't pretend you haven't put forward a theory. You have.

"Where's the blood Bazzer?" is a theory my old son. It's in the question that normal people never ever needed to ask.

You deciding you have "no explanation" for a why a man being murdered in the street is not real to you is a theory.

So good try but this thread is stuffed to the gills with your implied theories.

Couldn't be arsed to dig up loads mote of quotes from you on here but there's plenty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Vc62gkSN8W0

 

Where's the blood, Bazza?

Confronted with that video, you have no explanation. That's fair enough; neither do I.

I haven't put forward a single theory on Woolwich..

I'd complain to the mods pap. Seems like someone's stolen your login and making posts of theories where the media "Sexed up" the video clip, by adding fake blood.

Glad to hear you wouldn't subscribe to such a nonsense theory.