[Closed] 9/11

Who knows....good video though.

<

Watched til the first blatant misinformation, lost interest.

Watched til the first blatant misinformation, lost interest.

re tell it how it is NorthW

got to architects and engineers for 911 truth

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Quite a lack of information, Northwind, from you about exactly what was "blatant misinformation". or should we automatically know that?

Where's Kaesae when you need him, eh? 😉

This is old news...

is this bike related?

Really? OK, the first one that jumps out at me is the "missing money" (which people pretend was actually lost, rather than just poorly accounted for due to the DOD's sprawling and antiquated systems).

But you can have a second one for free, because in the next breath they claim falsely that it was announced the day before (9/11 nuts like to pretend that the attacks were a distraction from that, when in fact it was originally made public in 2000.)

There might well be something earlier in the vid, though, so I can't promise that's the very [i]first[/i] misinformation.

Oh just realised. Quite right - most vital points at hand here are a; it was a while ago and we can just forget all about it now, and b; posted in the wrong forum and therefore beneath contempt.

Not forgetting c; definitely in a category called conspiracy, and therefore also not worthy of discussion - isn't it fabulous to live in a world where conspiracies just don't exist? Except - er, hang on - isn't it the official line that these terrorists [i]did[/i] conspire to commit these crimes? So - it's ok for conspiracies to exist, provided the narrative is set by [i]our[/i] official good guys.

Many respected architects and engineers think we should have an independent investigation into the collapse of the 3 skyscrapers.
Yes, THREE skyscrapers not 2. It makes no sense to these architects and engineers at all. But what do they know? They are probably crazy.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Actually Northwind, that's the first I ever heard about missing money, so that didn't sound any bells with me. Guess that means that everything else in that video is also false. Makes sense.

Oh hang on though - if there is one truth in there, does that mean by the same "logic" that everything else is true?

It's all just too complicated - better just ignore it.

[url= http://www.davidicke.com/articles/911-mainmenu-33 ]The truth is out there...somewhere...probably[/url]

glenp - Member

Guess that means that everything else in that video is also false. Makes sense.

Nope- but it does tell you that the makers of the video are either liars or incompetents. So why waste my time watching a video made by at best, an incompetent?

It's all too frequently the case with these alleged conspiracies that the people who subscribe to them have not examined evidence from both sides. There seems to be a tendency to form a conclusion before a thorough critical examination of the evidence. Also, many people are seemingly incapable of determining what good evidence actually means.

For example I've spoken to people who believe all sorts of craziness because a website/YouTube video has posted an explanation with no empirical evidence or credible sources.

Please look at both sides of the argument, examine who has the most evidence/most reliable evidence and then form a conclusion. The last time I looked in to this, all of the conspiracy theories surrounding the controlled demolition of the towers was completely evicerated by numerous highly respected experts in their respective fields. A glance through that website is offering no new compelling evidence that makes me want to change my mind.

Conspiracies definitely exist, but they're ususally of the more mundane CIA assaniation, subtefuge variety and even they usually get exposed. Apart from the lack of credible evidence, I just don't think the US Government has the competency to pull it off.

[img] [/img]

Oh god, not this one again. Haven't we all got bored with it by now?
Edit: Beaten to it, but the feeling is still the same.

Ropey phone means no video viewing for me, but do these videos include proof of the laser spot on the buildings? That's my favourite 'fact'

Many respected architects and engineers think we should have an independent investigation into the collapse of the 3 skyscrapers

YEY, love these threads.

Glad to see the Architect and Engineer truther site has already received a plug.

More science facts please, pretty please

Yes, THREE skyscrapers not 2

Wow really, I didn't know that. Very suspicious... oh no, wait, hang on, that was all shown live on global news networks.

i knew nothing about the third building collapsing, but what do I know............

I've just seen Elvis in McDonalds...

INWTS

You are kaeses and I claim my £5.

Just what would happen if it was exposed as a hoax ?

pentagon a good pilot that 😉

tower 3 perfect sense that it collapsed 😯

Just what would happen if it was exposed as a hoax ?

What, you mean that the buildings didn't really collapse and are, actually, still standing?
🙄

Smoke & mirrors? 😉

What, you mean that the buildings didn't really collapse and are, actually, still standing?

jeez! How much like a religious website does that architects and engineers site look?

If there was a conspiracy to destroy all the towers then the people who organised it will love stuff like that. It makes all people claiming a conspiracy existed look like kooks and detracts from the facts in their case (if there are any)

Reston, Va.- The World Trade Center towers would likely not have collapsed if the spray-on fireproofing had not been dislodged by the impact of the aircraft, concludes a report issued today by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST urged the technical community to examine changes to design, materials and techniques-including possible changes to codes and standards-that could improve building performance and increase the safety of occupants and first responders, focusing largely on the effects of fire in relationship to other structural loads.

Wind-ups aside, I do think there are unanswered questions which it should be ok to ask without all the "conspiracy theory" nonsense and finger pointing. And finding errors in a video doesn't mean you should dismiss it entirely - if that were the case I would dismiss the official story in its entirety purely because there is no good reason for WTC7 falling down.

And, to reiterate - nobody can dismiss things with a blanket "conspiracy theory" call, especially if their own version of events is itself a conspiracy theory.

Shussssshhhh shhhhhh shhhhh back to sleep everyone there's good boys n girls 😉

Glenp+1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

.....there is no good reason for WTC7 falling down.

I'd be interested in the Professional Qualifications and relevant experience you have to make that statement ?

TF1 showed NORAD successfully tracking Father Christmas all the way around the planet. A little surprising then that they failed to pick up and intercept two slow-flying passenger jets.

GlenP - 1

There is nothing where we have complete and total knowledge and it is just a bunch of non experts/loons/conspiracists using videos to reinforce their ill informed views whilst claiming to be experts etc

Its like debating with the religious tbh - and the conspiracists have as much proof and as much faith

A little surprising then that they failed to pick up and intercept two slow-flying passenger jets.

I have no credentials whatsoever, Junkyard, nor do you. You are as ignorant as me, we both have to rely on the media. The media has relayed all sorts of excuses and stories on behalf of NORAD, non of which seem very plausible to me. The fact I am not convinced by any of their excuses does not make me ignorant, just a little hard to convince.

I am not questioning their account from a position of ignorance and referring to their facts as excuses though.

As I said religious zeal, despite the evidence, borne from ignorance

Edukator - Member
TF1 showed NORAD successfully tracking Father Christmas all the way around the planet. A little surprising then that they failed to pick up and intercept two slow-flying passenger jets.

GAITHERSBURG, Maryland -- The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released its long-awaited report on the collapse of World Trade 7 following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told journalists at this morning's press conference in Gaithersburg, Md. "WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires."

Conspiracy theorists have long pointed to the collapse of the 47-story structure as key evidence that the U.S. government orchestrated or abetted the 9/11 attacks. No planes struck the building, and the commonly available views of the exterior didn't show significant damage. Yet, at 5:20 pm, 7 hours after the collapse of the Twin Towers (WTC 1 and 2), WTC 7 rapidly fell in on itself. Since WTC 7 housed Secret Service and CIA offices, conspiracy theorists claimed that the building was destroyed in a controlled demolition in order to obliterate evidence of the U.S. government's complicity in the terrorist attacks. [b]"It is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved," stated actress and TV personality Rosie O'Donnell of ABC's The View in March 2007. "For the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible," she said.[/b]

Today's report confirms that a fire was, indeed, the cause. "This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires," Sunder told reporters at the press conference. "What we found was that uncontrolled building fires--similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings--caused an extraordinary event, the collapse of WTC7." The unprecedented nature of the event means that understanding the precise mechanism of the collapse is important not just to answer conspiracy theorists' questions, but to improve safety standards in the engineering of large buildings.

The final report describes how debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7 at the western half of the south face. Fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 burned out of control, because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system had failed. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply. Those water lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. These uncontrolled fires in WTC 7 eventually spread to the northeast part of the building, where the collapse began.

Read more: World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

If I was the CIA I'd have just used a shredder

or not have left a paper trail in the first place

"For the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible," she said.

It takes years of training to be able to carve steel from lumps hewn from the earths core.

I think there is a very unique mine near Sheffield where RSJ's get dug out of the ground cut to length and ready to use 🙂

I'd be interested in the Professional Qualifications and relevant experience you have to make that statement ?

I'm not putting forward any alternative conspiracy, but I am perfectly entitled to find the official conspiracy story inadequate and wonder what the truth really is. I can hold whatever opinion I like without asking your permission.

"It is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved," stated actress and TV personality Rosie O'Donnell of ABC's The View in March 2007. "For the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible," she said.

I think you can learn a lot about a conspiracy theory by the company it keeps. With a decent conspiracy theory, mad shouty cretins like O'Donnell would be embarrassing. With 9/11, she's a respected and oft-quoted voice.

Wind-ups aside, I do think there are unanswered questions which it should be ok to ask without all the "conspiracy theory" nonsense and finger pointing. And finding errors in a video doesn't mean you should dismiss it entirely - if that were the case I would dismiss the official story in its entirety purely because there is no good reason for WTC7 falling down.

And, to reiterate - nobody can dismiss things with a blanket "conspiracy theory" call, especially if their own version of events is itself a conspiracy theory.

+2

tower 7 came down ever so lovely and precise didn't it 🙂

Why do I have to have that/those?

Are you really asking why someone needs to have knowledge about the subject on which they are talking. It's because if they are not we end up with statements about hows it physically impossible to melt steel

Since you seem to think yourself qualified to judge me, perhaps you can let me know your qualifications to do that. Oh no - hang on, that would be equally as pointless as your request.

If you reject the opinion of experts its reasonable to ask if you are one. It is asking if you are qualified to have an opinion on the subject- ie one that would or should be respected. I have no qualifications to dispute the findings of building experts which is why I am not doing it - you are its reasonable to ask if you are well qualified to do this

I'm not putting forward any alternative conspiracy, but I am perfectly entitled to find the official conspiracy story inadequate and wonder what the truth really is.

We are perfectly entitled to point out they are experts in their fields and you know nothing of the subject on which you speak and therefore your view has far less weight than theirs.

You are perfectly entitled to accept this as self evidently true or to get all upset and act as if this has no bearing.

You can hold any opinion you want and we can listen to the experts and you can ignore them despite knowing very little of the subject area.

[i]It takes years of training to be able to carve steel from lumps hewn from the earths core. [/i]

Thank you for that gem jy, it's made my day. Someone should explain to the actress that buildings start to sag as the steel softens, part-way towards actual melting temperature. After that, it depends.

I suppose if we believe everything we were told (and are told by people we are told are experts) then we will never need to waste any more time and money on independently led investigations and campaigns, we can remain happy in a state of ignorant bliss whilst the corporates and the state walk all over us.

Anymore videos or photos of that 757 crashing into the Pentagon?

I think there is a very unique mine near Sheffield where RSJ's get dug out of the ground cut to length and ready to use

I suppose if we believe everything we were told (and are told by people we are told are experts) then we will never need to waste any more time and money on independently led investigations and campaigns, we can remain happy in a state of ignorant bliss whilst the corporates and the state walk all over us.

You are right every time any expert speaks it is to trick the masses into believing what the corporations and states want us to think

There may be some middle ground between nodding to what we hear from the "state" in a north Korean style and being a conspiracist fruit loop who does not realise steel can melt an weakens when it is hot

Have you any facts to accompany your emotive plea?

Science facts, not just facts.

I'd be interested in the Professional Qualifications and relevant experience you have to make that statement ?

nealglover - Why do I have to have that/those? Is this a Court or something? I thought it was a discussion forum, so I had the impression that the qualifications required were that I join-in, have an internet connection and can type.

well, you stated what looked at first glance like a "Fact" rather than purely a guess, or made up nonsense.

So I asked for a bit of background as to your qualification to make such a statement of fact.

That's because, I like to check the Validity of things I read online, rather than just blindly lap them up.

Since you seem to think yourself qualified to judge me, perhaps you can let me know your qualifications to do that.

I don't need to be qualified to ask questions when someone states what they want me believe are Facts.

Are you suggesting I should just Believe what you said, and not bother to find out if wether you are a world renowned structural engineer or a children's swimming coach !?

I think this may be the problem with some of the "Truth Seekers"

They don't bother to check anything, they just read stuff, and if it suits what they want to hear, they treat it as a fact that can't be denied.

Oh no - hang on, that would be equally as pointless as your request.

I think I have already mentioned why my request wasn't pointless.

Junkyard - Member
I suppose if we believe everything we were told (and are told by people we are told are experts) then we will never need to waste any more time and money on independently led investigations and campaigns, we can remain happy in a state of ignorant bliss whilst the corporates and the state walk all over us.
You are right every time any expert speaks it is to trick the masses into believing what the corporations and states want us to think

There may be some middle ground between nodding to what we hear from the "state" in a north Korean style and being a conspiracist fruit loop who does not realise steel can melt an weakens when it is hot

Have you any facts to accompany your emotive plea?

POSTED 1 HOUR AGO #

Well, its not an emotive plea, its a statement of personal opinion, do I need irrefutable facts to state an opinion?

Was the decision to invade Iraq not based upon sound factual evidence?

Where does North Korea fit into this ?

Well, its not an emotive plea, its a statement of personal opinion, do I need irrefutable facts to state an opinion?

Of course you dont need facts to hold an opinion.

The moon is made of cheese is an opinion however there are no facts to support this opinion.

Irrefutable facts help an opinion and refutable facts hinder one.

Is this not pretty obvious basic stuff?

I dont mean to patronise, but it read like i do.

Was the decision to invade Iraq not based upon sound factual evidence?

The Iraq War[nb 1] was an armed conflict in Iraq that consisted of two phases.[41] The first was an invasion of Ba'athist Iraq by the United States[42][43] and the United Kingdom, and assisted by smaller forces from several other countries, starting on 20 March 2003.[44][45] It was followed by a longer phase of fighting, in which an insurgency emerged to oppose Coalition forces and the newly formed Iraqi government.[41] The U.S. completed its withdrawal of military personnel in December 2011.[46][47] However, the Iraqi insurgency continues and has caused thousands of fatalities.
Prior to the war, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom claimed that Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed a threat to their security and that of their coalition/regional allies.[48][49][50] In 2002, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 which called for Iraq to completely cooperate with UN weapon inspectors to verify that Iraq was not in possession of WMD and cruise missiles. Prior to the attack, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) found no evidence of WMD, but could not yet verify the accuracy of Iraq's declarations regarding what weapons it possessed, as their work was still unfinished. The leader of the inspectors Hans Blix estimated the time remaining for disarmament being verified through inspections to be "months".[51][52][53][54][55]
After investigation following the invasion, the U.S.?led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical and biological programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of the invasion, but that they intended to resume production if the Iraq sanctions were lifted.[56] Although some degraded remnants of misplaced or abandoned chemical weapons from before 1991 were found, they were not the weapons which had been one of the main arguments for the invasion.[57]

I find it sad that there are some on here who are so obviously interested in science. They have a natural appetite for learning, but have been let down by their education so that they cannot distinguish real science from the cheap imitations, and know nothing about how real science works. We should be redoubling our efforts to improve the way we teach. It seems the enlightenment has passed a huge section of our society by, and in fact I think Plato is probably spinning in his grave right now at how far we are from a well developed system of thought.

The moon is made of cheese is an opinion however there are no facts to support this opinion.

Pfft! No evidence? Photographic evidence:

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Obvious fake, the radiation in the van allen belt would kill all the bacteria and no cheese could develop on the moon.

Obvious fake, the radiation in the van allen belt would kill all the bacteria and no cheese could develop on the moon.

Was the decision to invade Iraq not based upon sound factual evidence?

If you mean Weapons of Mass Destruction, then no.

The Iraq War[nb 1] was an armed conflict in Iraq that consisted of two phases.[41] The first was an invasion of Ba'athist Iraq by the United States[42][43] and the United Kingdom, and assisted by smaller forces from several other countries, starting on 20 March 2003.[44][45] It was followed by a longer phase of fighting, in which an insurgency emerged to oppose Coalition forces and the newly formed Iraqi government.[41] The U.S. completed its withdrawal of military personnel in December 2011.[46][47] However, the Iraqi insurgency continues and has caused thousands of fatalities.
Prior to the war, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom claimed that Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed a threat to their security and that of their coalition/regional allies.[48][49][50] In 2002, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1441 which called for Iraq to completely cooperate with UN weapon inspectors to verify that Iraq was not in possession of WMD and cruise missiles. Prior to the attack, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) found no evidence of WMD, but could not yet verify the accuracy of Iraq's declarations regarding what weapons it possessed, as their work was still unfinished. The leader of the inspectors Hans Blix estimated the time remaining for disarmament being verified through inspections to be "months".[51][52][53][54][55]
After investigation following the invasion, the U.S.?led Iraq Survey Group concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear, chemical and biological programs in 1991 and had no active programs at the time of

the invasion, but that they intended to resume production if the Iraq sanctions were lifted.[56] Although some degraded remnants of misplaced or abandoned chemical weapons from before 1991 were found, they were not the weapons which had been one of the main arguments for the invasion.[57]

Posted 3 minutes ago #

Therefore is it it not a safe to say that not all facts are reliable?
And that if just one part of any supposed factual event or incident is suspect then the rest must be viewed skeptically until re-proved with irrefutable evidence.

 

Therefore is it it not a safe to say that not all facts are reliable?

One problem is that following that rule the above is also a lie and cannot be trusted [ same applies for the scepticism principle - you need to be a sceptic abut that "truth" as well and therefore reject it]

Another example would be sight - sometimes you have mistaken things for other things therefore you must assume what you see is NEVER true either. It makes little sense to do this

Its also true that some facts we believe will be wrong - you cannot then use this as proof that this fact , we are discussing, is wrong you still need evidence to persuade us and I am still waiting for it.

And that if just one part of any supposed factual event or incident is suspect then the rest must be viewed skeptically until re-proved with irrefutable evidence.

Evolution had no mechanism for transmission for a century till DNA was discovered- did nto make it wrong though it was "suspect".

As for irrefutable nothing is irrefutable if you try hard enough
Evolution [ I cannot think of any stronger theory with such strong evidence from divergent fields] for example is doubted by the religious who have a book to disprove it.

I find it sad that there are some on here who are so obviously interested in science. They have a natural appetite for learning, but have been let down by their education so that they cannot distinguish real science from the cheap imitations, and know nothing about how real science works. We should be redoubling our efforts to improve the way we teach. It seems the enlightenment has passed a huge section of our society by, and in fact I think Plato is probably spinning in his grave right now at how far we are from a well developed system of thought.

THIS
IME conspiracists tend to be quite bright and knowledgeable but rather ignorant on epistemology and science and therefore prone to reaching erroneous conclusions.
I can see why they do it though

Anyway, Wallace always takes it with him.

No he didn't. He took CRACKERS. Have you not even seen the documentary? Look at ALL the evidence FFS. He took crackers to the Moon, to go with the cheese the moon is made of. Sheesh...!

Junkyard,
Barley`s !!!
I give up, you`re like a Jack Russell on a mop head !

Im not exactly sure what it is in particular about 9/11 that draws in so many conspiracy people

but i think a lot of americans* have a very hard time accepting that the worlds number one global superpower was dealt such a massive blow by a few guys from a 3rd world country ( [u]I[/u] know Saudi isnt necessarily 3rd world)

and all their apache gunships, aircraft carriers, drones, etc couldnt do a thing to stop it
and more importantly no matter how many assault rifles and handgus with hollowpoint amo youve bought from wallmart and stashed in your closet you are powerless

and it was the skyscraper; the ultimate symbol of america's real power as a the capitalist powerhouse that proved to be so vulnerable

for many americans (including rosie o'donnel)the default position of 'blame our evil government' is a much easier pill to swallow

* for americans you can also substitute westerners

Junkyard,
Barley`s !!!
I give up, you`re like a Jack Russell on a mop head !

I have no idea what any of that means tbh but i assume it is a collection of ad hominems because you have no argument against the rational points I made in my post.
Why not try and counter my points- its what happens in debates and insults are unlikely to be found to be persuasive and reflect badly on you

Kimbers I think most conspiracies seem to be US based and require

1. Big [media] "world changing" event
2. Govt and therefore spies - ie its easy to make the link
3. Americans - many of whom just think everything their govt says is a lie and they would do anything [ applies to some lefties this as well]
the three biggies are surely
JFK
Moon Landings
9/11

I think it is no coincidence they are all american

There may be some mileage in the JFK one tbh if I had to pick as some of the story is interesting

Therefore is it it not a safe to say that not all facts are reliable?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

Thats interesting [seen the story before FWIW] as it would be spun either way
1. they report it early - even though its still standing in the background * and it does not fall down = the BBC are liars why should we believe anything the media says

2. it falls down later - see they had a script and got it wrong- its a conspiracy I tell thee

Either way this fact can prove a conspiracy whatever the outcome over WTC7.

This is what they do ith facts rather than actually think about what it means

*Its seems obvious that doing it live there would be inaccurate reports confusion hell even hysteria about lots of stuff and reporters would be flustered etc- hardly surprising some facts were wrong and they reported on incomplete knowledge.

Junkyard - Member

Junkyard,
Barley`s !!!
I give up, you`re like a Jack Russell on a mop head !

I have no idea what any of that means tbh but i assume it is a collection of ad hominems because you have no argument against the rational points I made in my post.
Why not try and counter my points- its what happens in debates and insults are unlikely to be found to be persuasive and reflect badly on you

Well I do not insult folk over a forum unless they insult me first and you havent done that, Barleys is an old Lancashire school yard saying meaning I give up normally used whilst play tag or bulldogs etc.

The term jack russell on a mop head denotes a persistent character, its more of a compliment IMO.

The points I am trying to make re: 9/11 :

1/ The official story comes from a US government that IMO holds very little credibility when it comes to telling the truth.
2/ The official story itself is one huge coincidence theory, total acceptance of this story and the ensuing actions taken by the Bush administration is (IMO) a surrender of any future objective,resistance to government policy.

The Blair/Bush love in before and after 9/11 ensured we in the UK were dragged into this (dare I say it ) debacle.

1/ The official story comes from a US government that IMO holds very little credibility when it comes to telling the truth.
2/ The official story itself is one huge coincidence theory, total acceptance of this story and the ensuing actions taken by the Bush administration is (IMO) a surrender of any future objective,resistance to government policy.

Barleys is an old Lancashire school yard saying meaning I give up normally used whilst play tag or bulldogs etc

These days kids say bowley for the safe zone - Cant recall what we said as kids [ in lancashire] to give up - we were never quitters like you 😉

1/ The official story comes from a US government that IMO holds very little credibility when it comes to telling the truth.

Well sort of but not everyone was a govt employee and just because you are it does not mean you will lie- See Doctors and teachers for example [ notice hiw i dont say the police though 😉 ]. Not accepting a 9 /11 conspiracy does not mean I think the US or any govt is some sort of trustworthy organisation who would never lie to me. Of course they would lie to me and of course they will lie to me. However this does not mean they have done this time.

2/ The official story itself is one huge coincidence theory, total acceptance of this story and the ensuing actions taken by the Bush administration is (IMO) a surrender of any future objective,resistance to government policy.

look at football last season Man city win the league in the last minute of extra time by scoring to beat their city neighbours on goal difference because they had given them a drubbing at their rivals ground after a player was sent off. were this a hollywood movie you would have laughed at it for being so clichéd
the truth is often strange and inconsistent- fiction is often consistent and more reliable as it has planned for every eventuality

{paranoid mode]Probably makes more sense to be suspicious of the stuff with no gaps in it [/paranoid mode]

I dont disagree with your general stance re govts but we still need some actual evidence

Bowleys .....! is that the private school version 😉

Agreed that truth is invariably stranger than fiction (I have just done 5k on the concept 2 in 20 minutes, 2 x 50 pressups and 1 x 8 rep tabata on the concept 2)however I cannot accept the US govt, version on 9/11.

One aspect I have difficulty with is the takeover of the planes,
4 sets of at least a 4 man cell manage to kill (how many?? 3,4 5 flight attendants??) make their way on to the flight deck, wrest control of the plane from the pilot/co pilot (whilst covered in copious amounts of warm sticky blood from the flight attendant who they have just killed with a stanley knife)and then take control of a modern, complex aircraft and set course for .........the 72 coal eyed virgins, this scenario occurred successfully at least 3 times (lets disregard flight 93 for now), then accurately navigate to Manhattan and Washington and hit their intended targets.

The British and American special forces training depts have hell of a lot to learn from these guys, in fact if they could practically train a few platoons of soldiers to be able to carry out such a mission then they could over run the modern western armies relatively easily.

We will never really know what went on that day, I definitely do not know and therefore cannot provide any actual, factual evidence, but I do have have a natural right to both disagree and comment.

ps Apologies for the late response.