Guest drblow Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 People on this forum who know me will know that I am not known for my support of government! :) I feel a strong conviction that since 9/11 the western world has been living through a deeply sinister plot by US/UK led elite who desire nothing more than total destabilisation of the world, in order to get away with pushing through legislation that allows them to erode the privacy & freedom of individuals, and give them the power to imprison anyone who disagrees. My personal belief is that the media expects me to believe that there is a current global threat to my security from an organisation called Al-Quaida. The media also told me several years ago that this organisation was led by an ultra-rich Saudi exile, was extremely well-funded (to the extent that they were able to plan, train and organise the events of 9/11 - which is no small feat) and is well organised throughout the world. They then expect me to believe that this same organisation is capable of such pathetic and embarassing attemptas at 'terrorism' as were seen in Glasgow airport over the weekend. I grew up in Belfast during the 1970's & 1980's. I know what it's like to have actual fear of terrorism. I know what it's like to sit worrying about your Dad coming home late from work on a day that 5 bombs have exploded in Belfast, causing actual death and destruction. I also happen to know quite a few ex-MI6 and Police members who worked in Belfast during that time period, and can tell you that a number of incidents in Irish history were infact directly planned and organised by them. I can also tell you that during the 25 years of actual terrorism in Ireland, the security forces could do NOTHING to stop it, even after they successfully infiltrated the terrorist cells themselves (in fact, several undercover agants for MI6 ended up converting to the Irish cause after they saw the extent of the British involvement in orchestrating the events). If we don't do something to show them that we do not believe their pathetic attempts to make us feel scared, to feel suspicious of our neighbours, to feel suspicious of anyone with different coloured skin to us, to worry about being bombed, to vote for their ever increasing efforts to reduce our personal freedoms, put up more surveillance cameras ... Ask yourself ... if there really was a threat from international terrorism - would the governments best response be to erode OUR freedoms? Would it not make more sense to address the actual causes of the intense feelings of hatred that the US/UK led war on terror creates around the world? I am very interested to know what people feel about this. I would like to start off a positive, intellectual debate on the topic of 'terrorism'. I am not intending to offend anyone, however if my expression of opinion causes you some discomfort, then please share your feelings here! Maybe we could all begin to learn something. Now, I know alot of you will just instantly dismiss me as a 'conspiracy' nutbag, and that's fine! :P But just do me one favour, think hard about the situation. Do you really believe that this 'attack' on Glasgow airport is the work of an international terrorist group? Does it bear the hallmarks of well organised, well funded, well trained extremists, as the media has led us to believe that Al-Quaida is? Your thoughts please ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Samsonite Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 have a read of this... http://www.theregister.com/2007/06/29/more...iscuits_please/ i found myself agreeing with many of the comments posted about article with regard the 'bomb', but it was the sentiment of the powers-that-be 'creating' terrorists for their own ends that i found most interesting. As for civil liberties - i used to be of the position that if you're not doing anything wrong then why worry about increased public surveillance. Nowadays, i feel that why should I have to PROVE that i'm doing nothing wrong. I am taxpayer, as law abiding as the average cardriver can be, have indulged in various recreational substances that have harmed no-one at all (other than giving the binmen more chocolate wrappers to take to the landfill) and feel more and more aggrieved that the onward creep of civil liberty erosion is affecting ME more than the people they are trying to catch! why IS that then? i raised the point of the increase in the National Security level giving the Gov't the ability to direct funding wherever they needed to amongst some of my learned peers to be recieved with a fair bit of disdain - i think thats the line in the sand where conspiracy theory starts to overwhelm the rationale... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Samuran Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 Do you guys read above top secret? Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drblow Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 (edited) Do you guys read above top secret? Ben Yes I do. In fact I was appaled by the amount of scaremongery that exists on a forum that is supposed to be supporting people who DONT believe the hype! But don't believe their hype either. It's a mainly American sponsored forum, led by John Lear. He is notorious for spreading disinformation. If you want the truth visit www.hourofthe time.com and read what Bill Cooper had to say before he was brutally murdered by US state troopers. Edited July 2, 2007 by drblow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drblow Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 have a read of this... http://www.theregister.com/2007/06/29/more...iscuits_please/ i found myself agreeing with many of the comments posted about article with regard the 'bomb', but it was the sentiment of the powers-that-be 'creating' terrorists for their own ends that i found most interesting. As for civil liberties - i used to be of the position that if you're not doing anything wrong then why worry about increased public surveillance. Nowadays, i feel that why should I have to PROVE that i'm doing nothing wrong. I am taxpayer, as law abiding as the average cardriver can be, have indulged in various recreational substances that have harmed no-one at all (other than giving the binmen more chocolate wrappers to take to the landfill) and feel more and more aggrieved that the onward creep of civil liberty erosion is affecting ME more than the people they are trying to catch! why IS that then? i raised the point of the increase in the National Security level giving the Gov't the ability to direct funding wherever they needed to amongst some of my learned peers to be recieved with a fair bit of disdain - i think thats the line in the sand where conspiracy theory starts to overwhelm the rationale... I like the register article! :) It has the level of disdain that I feel is appropriate for this kind of blatant fear-orism. Increase the Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimbouk Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 I can't be arsed with conspiracy theories. Nor can I be arsed with people who reckon that their civil liberties are being eroded by cctv and identity cards... A lot of the same people would bleat like mad if they or their loved ones were killed or hurt in a terrorist attack and the police said "well we might have protected it but people don't like us tracking suspects as its not fair on them"... The attack on Glasgow was amateur, so was the attack on London - but there are obviously links between them and the arrests on the M6 and in Stafford etc. If the attack on London had gone ahead as planned, they would have killed many people with the first bomb and then the second one was positioned to rip through the crowd who would be kept back by the police in Cockspur St - an old IRA trick. Personally, I would rather not be killed or maimed or lose a loved one by either a professional or an amateur terrorist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drblow Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 I can't be arsed with conspiracy theories. Nor can I be arsed with people who reckon that their civil liberties are being eroded by cctv and identity cards... A lot of the same people would bleat like mad if they or their loved ones were killed or hurt in a terrorist attack and the police said "well we might have protected it but people don't like us tracking suspects as its not fair on them"... The attack on Glasgow was amateur, so was the attack on London - but there are obviously links between them and the arrests on the M6 and in Stafford etc. If the attack on London had gone ahead as planned, they would have killed many people with the first bomb and then the second one was positioned to rip through the crowd who would be kept back by the police in Cockspur St - an old IRA trick. Personally, I would rather not be killed or maimed or lose a loved one by either a professional or an amateur terrorist... Unfortunately, the fact that you 'can't be arsed' does not mean that the situation should be ignored. So what if the 'incidents' in Glasgow and London are linked to arrests made on the M6? Is a 'link' between arrests enough to guarantee that the incident is in fact terrorist related? The media has yet to tell us exactly what the arrests on the M6 were about. But people are ready to believe anything that they hear about 'linking' terrorist incidents. Linked to what? To whom? Why? You're summation of the 2 'bombs' in London shows little regard for the fact that the 'bombs' did not actually represent any danger of an explosion, rather an amateurish petroleum fireball that would cause little damage to people/property unless they were actually sitting in or beside the car. Also, I can find no other source that cites your reasoning about the 2nd 'bomb' being designed to get the crowd 'kept back by the police'. Is this just your opinion? Think hard about these things. Its important. You may not be concerned about ID cards, or surveillance cameras ... and to use your own comparison, would you prefer to live in a society where you or your family could be arrested and held without charge for 'terrorism'? Ever heard of 'internment' in N.I. during the 1970's? It didn't work either. It's very easy to dismiss all questioning of the current terrorism situation as 'conspiracy', but have you actually researched any of it? I notice you do not actually respond to any of the points I made about the validity of this actual incident being Al-Quaida. It's also very easy to hide behind the idea that if your own loved ones were involved in a terrorist attack (god forbid) that you would rather the Police had the power to 'track suspects'. They already do, look at the number of people who have been arrested in this country under anti-terror laws and then released weeks later without charge. Do you honestly want to see some kind of Guantanamo Bay in the UK? I honestly hope that you can find a bit of time to 'be arsed' looking into these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Looby Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 Maybe another trick the so called Islamic terrorists should learn from the IRA is that if you want peace to break out act more like Guy Fawkes rather than place devices in the street or at airports. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimbouk Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 Unfortunately, the fact that you 'can't be arsed' does not mean that the situation should be ignored. So what if the 'incidents' in Glasgow and London are linked to arrests made on the M6? Is a 'link' between arrests enough to guarantee that the incident is in fact terrorist related? The media has yet to tell us exactly what the arrests on the M6 were about. But people are ready to believe anything that they hear about 'linking' terrorist incidents. Linked to what? To whom? Why? You're summation of the 2 'bombs' in London shows little regard for the fact that the 'bombs' did not actually represent any danger of an explosion, rather an amateurish petroleum fireball that would cause little damage to people/property unless they were actually sitting in or beside the car. Also, I can find no other source that cites your reasoning about the 2nd 'bomb' being designed to get the crowd 'kept back by the police'. Is this just your opinion? Think hard about these things. Its important. You may not be concerned about ID cards, or surveillance cameras ... and to use your own comparison, would you prefer to live in a society where you or your family could be arrested and held without charge for 'terrorism'? Ever heard of 'internment' in N.I. during the 1970's? It didn't work either. It's very easy to dismiss all questioning of the current terrorism situation as 'conspiracy', but have you actually researched any of it? I notice you do not actually respond to any of the points I made about the validity of this actual incident being Al-Quaida. It's also very easy to hide behind the idea that if your own loved ones were involved in a terrorist attack (god forbid) that you would rather the Police had the power to 'track suspects'. They already do, look at the number of people who have been arrested in this country under anti-terror laws and then released weeks later without charge. Do you honestly want to see some kind of Guantanamo Bay in the UK? I honestly hope that you can find a bit of time to 'be arsed' looking into these things. I quoted your entire post as I think you should re-read your post. Whoever was behind the attacks in London and Glasgow, they are still terrorist attacks. They were designed to cause unrest and promote a sense of terror amongst the general population. My comments purely relate to the suggestions here and elsewhere that the media and the authorities are using these attacks to keep the public afraid of organised international terrorist threats and thus accepting of increased police powers. Now please feel free to go back and re-read my post. I made a few simple statements which I am happy to expand: 1) I don't want me or my loved ones to be hurt or killed by terrorists whether they be Al Quaeda or Al Bundy. 2) The bomb attempts in London may have been unsophisticated but unless you really think that a full propane gas cannister goes "fizz-pop" when it overheats rather than create a very large bang and shockwave that would have damaged buildings and killed people, then you must agree that if the cars had burnt as appears to be the plan, then they could have done a lot of damage and cause a lot of injuries/deaths. It really is quite bizarre to think that the fire brigade would have checked to see if there were gas canisters in the car if it had caught properly alight. (The same gas canisters as were found in the Jeep at Glasgow airport). 3) The car parked in Cockspur Street (before it was removed to the Park Lane Pound) was referred to by a BBC reporter on the scene on Sunday evening who said something like "if the first car had exploded, then the second car would have been perfectly positioned to maximise injuries if detonated after the first car. 4) The Police have said that the arrests on the M6 and the searches etc in Liverpool, Stoke and Staffordshire are related. I tend to believe the police when they tell me things like that - as they know they will look silly if they got it wrong. When I say I can't be arsed with conspiracy theories, I mean it. I have read elsewhere the rantings of people who reckon 9/11 didn't really happen or that the planes were flown by remote control or that the authorities triggered pre-planted explosives as the towers "couldnt" have collapsed from a 727 hitting them... etc etc etc Yes it seems that the recent attacks were very amateurish - but it also appears that they were committed by a network. Perhaps the next network will have a few cleverer people who will be able to design more efficient ways of killing innocent people. In the meantime, let the police stop cars, search houses, use mobile phones to track people, get identity cards made law, use CCTV to track us - and continue to save lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drblow Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 Ok, I'll address your points individually ... Whoever was behind the attacks in London and Glasgow, they are still terrorist attacks. They were designed to cause unrest and promote a sense of terror amongst the general population. Do you accept that some people hold political or religious beliefs which they believe in so strongly that they are prepared to die? Do you accept that a person who is prepared to commit murderous acts in the name of a cause, must be so extreme that to you & I they appear to be psychotic? Do you also accept that when a terrorist organisation commits acts in the name of a cause they believe in so fiercely, that they immediately issue a statement to the media to further their cause? What I mean is, the 'idea' or 'concept' of a terrorist is an organisation of people who are so commited to their belief (whatever it may be) that they are prepared to kill and die for it. That's what we've been told, right? That's what the IRA is/was. That's what ETA is/was. That's what they told us Al-Quaida was, right? A group of extremist fanatics who are prepared to try to kill us all in the name of their particular cause, right? Al-Quaida has been sold to us by the media as the biggest threat of it's kind, right? More international than any previous terorist threat, right? Better funded and better organised, with cells throughout the world, prepared to carry out suicide missions and atrocities that previous terrorist groups had not done ... right? That's what we're meant to be afraid of ... isn't it? My point is ... the 'attack' on Glasgow airport amounted to nothing more than a car crash. In fact the first policeman on the scene said he thought it was a car accident! Even though the actual attackers have been arrested, there has been no official statement from any organisation to claim responsibility, say why they did it, or what they want in return for not doing it again. Is that not what we should expect from a 'terrorist' attack? So ... if Al-Quaida really did carry out this attack, then why have they not said something? Do you think they are too embarassed by the ineptitude of their chosen martyrs? Do you think that Al-Quaida just assume that everyone will think it's them anyway, so why bother with all that press stuff? The fact is, the incident in Glasgow could be related to anything, or nothing. At the moment, we are only getting statements from Police & politicians. I know you said you believe in them, but I don't. 1) I don't want me or my loved ones to be hurt or killed by terrorists whether they be Al Quaeda or Al Bundy. Neither do I. Yours or mine. Neither do I want my family or children to grow up in a Police state, where freedom of thought has become dictated by the government and media. Where difference of opinion from government results in imprisonment. I know it sounds Orwellian, and it is a metaphor, but look at Guantanamo, read up about the CIA torture flights - these things are happening right now, in our country, in our name. Ok, they're not happening to you & me, because we're average white citizens, but it is happening to our brothers and sisters who are NOT. 2) The bomb attempts in London may have been unsophisticated but unless you really think that a full propane gas cannister goes "fizz-pop" when it overheats rather than create a very large bang and shockwave that would have damaged buildings and killed people, then you must agree that if the cars had burnt as appears to be the plan, then they could have done a lot of damage and cause a lot of injuries/deaths. It really is quite bizarre to think that the fire brigade would have checked to see if there were gas canisters in the car if it had caught properly alight. (The same gas canisters as were found in the Jeep at Glasgow airport). My point is that in terms of terrorism, it's not very effective is it? Terrorist attacks are more often than not bombs, aren't they? Traditional old bombs, with detonators and timers and explosives. They used to leave behind some evidence for the forensic dept to pick up, and they could trace the bomb maker sometimes by the pieces left behind. Even in the 1970's the 'well funded' IRA (with all their money from USA) could make a bomb with fertiliser that was fairly inexpensive, but very effective. Nowadays I dread to think of the number and variety of bombs available to the well funded terrorist. What happened in Glagow is no more of a threat to national security than a car crash on a B-road. UNLESS it is part of the bigger threat that we are told is Al-Quaida - if it is then where's the statement? What possible objective of a major global terror organisation could have been achieved? Do you really believe that this is de-stabilising our country? The point of a terrorist attack is to destroy something, or so many lives, that people genuinely fear for their safety ... Again, the point is that the government has and is using the 'terrorist' threat to make some fairly radical changes to our laws, that can be used for some very sinister purposes - imagine that someone in your family was arrested under anti-terror legislation. Held for 28 days without charge. Imagine if the Police you believe in came up woth some evidence that they said was going to get your family member convicted (ever heard of the Birmingham Six?) 3) The car parked in Cockspur Street (before it was removed to the Park Lane Pound) was referred to by a BBC reporter on the scene on Sunday evening who said something like "if the first car had exploded, then the second car would have been perfectly positioned to maximise injuries if detonated after the first car. Fair enough. I haven't heard that myself, but I can't claim to have read all sources! And I did say intially that I hope we ALL learn something by this discussion. :D 4) The Police have said that the arrests on the M6 and the searches etc in Liverpool, Stoke and Staffordshire are related. I tend to believe the police when they tell me things like that - as they know they will look silly if they got it wrong. Hmm ... well I doubt that anyone has the time or patience to list ALL the times when the police 'got it wrong'. Go read about the Birmingham Six, the Guilford Four ... And they do more than 'look a bit silly', they ruin people's lives. Guiseppe Conlan died in jail. Gerard Conlan & Paul Hill served over 15 years for a crime they did not commit. Their crime was being Irish, in London at a time when public suspicion and alert had been raised by bombings of pubs in London. They were victims in some way of the media pressure on the Police to convict someone of somthing terrorist related, to stop the public from losing all faith in them. The Guilford Four When I say I can't be arsed with conspiracy theories, I mean it. I have read elsewhere the rantings of people who reckon 9/11 didn't really happen or that the planes were flown by remote control or that the authorities triggered pre-planted explosives as the towers "couldnt" have collapsed from a 727 hitting them... etc etc etc Well, I'm sorry, but if you had actually listened to the 'rantings' and really researched the topics, then I cannot see how you could possibly still believe that 9/11 was actually perpetrated by a terrorist organisation called Al-Quaida. Have you seen 'Loose Change'? Have you seen 'In Plane Sight'? ... but wait a minute, that's a whole other thread! :P Yes it seems that the recent attacks were very amateurish - but it also appears that they were committed by a network. Perhaps the next network will have a few cleverer people who will be able to design more efficient ways of killing innocent people. "appears" ... "perhaps" ... don't you hear the fear?? :) Why would an organisation that carried out 9/11 (allegedly) go fom that atrocity to this embrassment? You can think of a million reasons to be afraid & never leave the house again, but I bet oyu there was an industrial fire somewhere in the country today that was more dangerous & threatened more lives than what happened at Glasgow. And what are these networks that you are talking about? Al-Quaida networks? You mean the guys who go out to Pakistan to do terrorist training camps? The guys funded by that uber-rich Saudi bloke? The guys that captured 4 American passenger jets, disabled their transponders simultaneously, by-passed the American radar & defence network, and crashed into a bunch of buildings, one of which is the most well-defended building on the planet?????? So what ... did they just forget about these Glasgow guys? Did they not pass 'how to be a terrorist: the basics'? In the meantime, let the police stop cars, search houses, use mobile phones to track people, get identity cards made law, use CCTV to track us - and continue to save lives. And lets just hope that none of the innocent people who are affected by that are people that WE love, eh? I'm really not trying to be argumentative or insulting (honest!) ;) I am interested in other viewpoints, and it's good to share information! But if I am a bit over-the-top then please take it with a bit of humour thrown in! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drblow Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 Maybe another trick the so called Islamic terrorists should learn from the IRA is that if you want peace to break out act more like Guy Fawkes rather than place devices in the street or at airports. :) Although I'm not quite sure what you mean, it raises an interesting question for me. What exactly do people believe that Al-Quaida wants? Do they want 'peace to break out'? Do they just want total destruction of wetsren democracy? Do they want anything at all over and above causing fear & death? Does anybody really know? Has Al-Quida ever actually said what they want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Looby Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 (edited) EDIT : joke removed on grounds of quality if not taste :) Edited July 2, 2007 by Looby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimbouk Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 Dr B... never fear I am not taking offense at your posts - I don't understand the relevance of them - but thats life. Terrorism comes in all shapes and sizes. Stalking can be a terrorist activity, prank calling can be a terrorist activity - if it strikes fear into the the victims then it is terrorism. In terms of international terrorism, Al Quaeda's alleged structure is such that 9/11 and Glasgow airport can indeed both be part of their "network"... however, I am more than happy to acknowledge that both Glasgow and London suggest a non-"officially" endorsed splinter group - possibly the Judean people's popular front or similar... However - I do believe that Al Quaeda were behind 9/11 - all the films I have seen, books I have read and newpaper articles that claim otherwise have been conspiracy ridden rubbish and as an example: claims that the towers couldn't possibly have collapsed as a result of what we all saw and must thereofre have been demolished with charges is just poppycock. Steel softens as it gets hotter. When it softens and has another ten stories weight on it, it is very easy for it to collapse and for the weight of the resultant falling steel, glass, masonry etc to then crush the non heated up floors below. Back to the point though,,, I agree it seems like a group of amateurs who wanted 100 virgins in martyrdom tried a half-cocked, half-baked attempt at terrorism and failed dismally. However, others will be trying and the government would not put on us condition critical if they didnt believe that there was still a real risk. I am still all for id cards, stop and search, cctv etc. Its all well and good arguing that they are erosions of our civil liberties, but I have nothing to hide, and would rather be watched and safe than be free but at risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drblow Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 I'll try to keep this brief ... However - I do believe that Al Quaeda were behind 9/11 - all the films I have seen, books I have read and newpaper articles that claim otherwise have been conspiracy ridden rubbish and as an example: claims that the towers couldn't possibly have collapsed as a result of what we all saw and must thereofre have been demolished with charges is just poppycock. Steel softens as it gets hotter. When it softens and has another ten stories weight on it, it is very easy for it to collapse and for the weight of the resultant falling steel, glass, masonry etc to then crush the non heated up floors below. Just go & read some stuff about the world trade centre towers, and their construction. And maybe some general stuff about building collapse. I'm not being patronising, but you are using opinion, not fact. If you research the idea that 'steel softens ... very easy for it to collapse' you will find that is not the case. Especially not in the case of the world trade centre towers which had been designed & built to withstand serious natural & manmade disasters. This is the problem with 9/11. The world is full of people who will say "steel softens .." or whatever, without actually knowing the truth. I'm sorry, but the opinion of top level industrial engineers & demolition experts weighs heavier on me than yours. Back to the point though,,, I agree it seems like a group of amateurs who wanted 100 virgins in martyrdom tried a half-cocked, half-baked attempt at terrorism and failed dismally. So ... why on earth assume it is anything more sinister than a pissed off doctor who wants to grab some headlines, and crashews into the airport because they wouldn't let him on his flight for being drunk? However, others will be trying and the government would not put on us condition critical if they didnt believe that there was still a real risk. Do you see what I mean here? Look at the fear in those words. Who says others will be trying? And if they do, who says it's going to be any more frightening than this? The government? You mean those guys with ultra-effective satellite tracking devices & technology, who told us that Saddam had WMD but then couldn't find them? You seem all too ready to believe that the government has your best interests at heart. I sympathise. I am still all for id cards, stop and search, cctv etc. Its all well and good arguing that they are erosions of our civil liberties, but I have nothing to hide, and would rather be watched and safe than be free but at risk. At risk from what? Someone crashing a car into an airport hundreds of miles away, that resulted in 0 injuries except to the perpetrator? Honestly, I find it incredible that people are willing to just give in to these kinds of things, and accept loss of liberty. And people wonder how Hitler managed to persuade the German people ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimbouk Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 1) You are making a lot of assumptions about a) my research and :) my knowledge of such matters. Steel softens when heated. You smash a airliner at 200 knots into a steel frame building and the combinsation of the impact and the resultant heat from the jet fuel fire can easily explain the structural failure - and the arguments that you need 4000 degrees and it can't have been more than 2000 degrees are plain silly. Building five is the only question mark over the WTC destruction and as far as I can see the conspiracy theory boys are hanging everything on some dubious comments by a reporter and what the comments by one the fire chiefs really meant. (Read above and you will realise that I am not making uninformed comments here). 2) Saturday - a car crashes into Glasgow Airport, on fire, with two men on board who have molotov cocktails in their hands. In the boot of the car there are three calor gas cylinders. One of the men attacks police who try to stop the car burning. He also tries to get to the calor cylinders. Friday - a mercedes is driven erratically along haymarket before crashing. A man runs away. The car starts to smoke shortly after. It has calr gas cylinders in it. A second car is parked 300 yards away with similar cylinders. The first car was seen on cctv driving to London from - WAIT FOR IT- Glasgow where it was hired. The police have now arrested 8 people, including one person from abroad. Are you going to suggest that the person abroad was the person waiting at schiphol airport for his brother the doctor to arrive for a weekend of bonhommie but he lost the plot and tried to incidnerate his hamster? There is clearly a group of people involved in the weekend's attacks. They were ineffectual idiots but they were all in a "conspiracy" to terrorise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drblow Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 I can see that I'm not persuading you. I feel that I have addressed your points, but you have bypassed mine without investigation. All I can do now is give you a recommended reading list. http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html http://wtc7.net/ http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/ Don't forget also that 9/11 wasn't just the world trade centre towers. There was that exocet missile (oh I'm sorry, I mean a 757 jumbo jet of which there is no evidence whatsoever) that hit the pentagon too, remember? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimbouk Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 I can see that I'm not persuading you. I feel that I have addressed your points, but you have bypassed mine without investigation. All I can do now is give you a recommended reading list. Don't forget also that 9/11 wasn't just the world trade centre towers. There was that exocet missile (oh I'm sorry, I mean a 757 jumbo jet of which there is no evidence whatsoever) that hit the pentagon too, remember? You really should stop assuming that people haven't read up on the issue. The fact that your arguments aren't worthy of lengthy denial doesn't mean I don't know anything about the subject. Once you started saying that the Glasgow attack was a disgruntled air passenger, your arguments lost all weight. I have read a number of conflicting reports on WTC and on 9/11. I have yet to see anything solid that refutes the official line. Now I am going to go and play with my WM6 device Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drblow Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 I think that's a bit of a shame. At no point did I infer that your reasoning was 'not worthy of lengthy denial', and to refer to mine as such is trite, and merely avoiding the subject. What I should have said was an 'alternative' reading list. I did not mean to suggest that you had no knowledge of the subject at all, merely that there are alternative sources that I felt you should look at. If you have read those alternatives and still believe that a 757 hit the pentagon, or that the twin towers atacks were carried out by 19 independant fanatics (one of the named perpetrators of 9/11 apparently failed flight school in a small light aircraft - and then carried out intense manouveurs in a 757 jumbo jet???) ... then there is obviously little anyone can do to change your mind. Oh, and the comment about the disgruntled passenger thing was a joke ... maybe I should have made that more clear. To dismiss my entire argument on that basis is pretty weak. I'm disappointed in the lack of response to this. To me, this situation is the most important thing we are living through today. So many people bury their heads in the sand, and just accept what they are told by the media, but any depth of research reveals so many contradictions, so many unanswered questions. I am generally appaled by the way that UK opinion is being led by the media, and the number of people I meet who seem not to care about these things. Like I said before, it's all fine until they start arresting people YOU know, or curtailing freedoms that YOU enjoy ... just as long as they keep arresting 'Asian' people, then the rest of us can just ignore the problem ... eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Samuran Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 (edited) HAHAHAHAHA! Wouldnt it be better to put all this engery into politics? rather than ranting away on a forum? Ben Edited July 3, 2007 by Samuran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drblow Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 HAHAHAHAHA! Wouldnt it be better to put all this engery into politics? rather than ranting away on a forum? Ben No. The whole point of 'ranting away on a forum' is to create discussion amongst one's peers, to attempt to engage the minds of the general public, to try to get people to think about what's happening. This is a discussion forum ... isn't it? You can't just dismiss what I'm saying by suggesting that it has no value unless it is directed toward 'politics'. I AM putting energy into politics. Do you believe that politics is something that happens outside your control? That happens TO you, not BY you? We are all involved in politics. Everything is political whether you like it or not. Dismissing or ignoring the problem doesn't mean it will go away. In fact, in this case, ignoring the problem is what is making it worse. Every day. At least I am trying to do something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimbouk Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 1) You are starting the conversation about the UK attacks far too soon. I think most of us think one should wait and actually see what's what before leaping on the "OMG its like the Bush Family conspiracy all over again" bandwagon. 2) At one point you say: "Well, I'm sorry, but if you had actually listened to the 'rantings' and really researched the topics, then I cannot see how you could possibly still believe that 9/11 was actually perpetrated by a terrorist organisation called Al-Quaida" then later you say "...or that the twin towers atacks were carried out by 19 independant fanatics" - all of which sounds like the single most ridiculous conspiracy theory propounded by lunatics - namely that the 9/11 was carried out by agents of the US Government. 3) Your comments re the UK attacks suggest that you think them unrelated. If I were you, I would wait just a week or two and it is more likely that you could speak from a position of knowledge rather than supposition (most of which has already been proven wrong - such as the fact that all of the UK attacks are now known to be linked). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Samuran Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 Ooops just seen your location, I know better than to get into an argument with a Scott... Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drblow Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 1) You are starting the conversation about the UK attacks far too soon. I think most of us think one should wait and actually see what's what before leaping on the "OMG its like the Bush Family conspiracy all over again" bandwagon. 2) At one point you say: "Well, I'm sorry, but if you had actually listened to the 'rantings' and really researched the topics, then I cannot see how you could possibly still believe that 9/11 was actually perpetrated by a terrorist organisation called Al-Quaida" then later you say "...or that the twin towers atacks were carried out by 19 independant fanatics" - all of which sounds like the single most ridiculous conspiracy theory propounded by lunatics - namely that the 9/11 was carried out by agents of the US Government. 3) Your comments re the UK attacks suggest that you think them unrelated. If I were you, I would wait just a week or two and it is more likely that you could speak from a position of knowledge rather than supposition (most of which has already been proven wrong - such as the fact that all of the UK attacks are now known to be linked). Everything you have said there depends on getting more information from the media. I'm trying to tell you that they are lying to you, every day. Waiting for longer just gives them more time to concoct more reasons why these attacks are terrorist related. I do not believe that media reports give me 'knowledge', thats what I have been trying to tell you. I did not say that 9/11 was carried out by US govt agents (although to me its not that far out an idea). You tell me then ... how did they switch off all the transponders simultaneously? How did they pull of seriously intense maneuveurs in 757 jumbo jets? How did they get past the radar & defences, when people such as golfer Payne Stewart was directed out of the sky in a private aircraft by fighter jets after veering slightly off course over New York several years ago? Why did building 7 collapse? Why have video surveillance cameras from the pentagon not been released to the public to put an end to speculation about the 'plane' that hit it? Why was there not one single piece of plane wreckage at the pentagon? To me the lunacy is when people believe these things just because they are told so by the news. @samuran - read my posts. I'm Irish, and I live in Scotland. Does that make it any more palatable to debate with me?? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimbouk Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 One of the joys of the world we live in is that the media acts as a check on government. Yes the media get it wrong sometimes - but anyone who reckons that the state and the media can silence every single person who knows when they are wrong is quite simply deranged. You are starting to sound like one of those loonies who stands at Oxford Circus shouting into a megaphone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest drblow Posted July 3, 2007 Report Share Posted July 3, 2007 I was sincerely hoping this would be an intelligent debate. Your best response appears to be name-calling, which is disappointing. I have tried to offer some alternative opinions as to the nature of the media circus surrounding the 'war on terror'. I sincerely hoped that this thread might at least encourage some people to think a little deeper about the media. yes, I do believe that EVERYTHING we hear is controlled propaganda. no, I do not believe for one second that the media is there to keep the govt in check - I do believe that is how it is SUPPOSED to be, but its not how it is. now, come on ... if you have read up on 9/11 & how it was definitely terrorists, then post me a link so I can read your sources. maybe you could change my mind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now