"Lawmaker takes 9/11 doubts global"

Michael Meacher, who served as Tony Blair's environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003, shocked the establishment by calling the global war on terrorism "bogus." Even more controversially, he implied that the U.S. government either allowed 9/11 to happen, or played some role in the destruction wrought that day.

...former Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, who was commanding general of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security until 1984, is quoted on the "Patriots Question 911" Web site as saying, "I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, 'The plane does not fit in that hole.'

"So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?"

The article is actually about Yukihisa Fujita, a member of the Democratic Party of Japan and his self-propelled inquiry into the 'facts' of the 911 incident and the war on terror.

It's interesting when people who actually have something to lose (ie. politicians, etc.) come out and say it. Have a read of the article. You can tell Fujita has sourced a lot of his information off the net... having heard much of this evidence myself around the traps.

Full Article here...
Lawmaker takes 9/11 doubts global | The Japan Times Online

Discuss...

El prez, can you post that thingo you showed me ages ago, I'm too busy at work to find it myself.

There have been doubt about what happened on 11/9. Nothing new here.

Look it up on Snopes is my short answer. Essentially "truthing" started because a crazy French journalist was bored and broke.

hehe "Albert Stubblebine" ^_^

..I feel the difference here is that high-level politicians are questioning it and calling for independent inquiries. I'm not necessarily talking about 911 conspiracies, I'm talking about the fact that it's weird that people of authority are speaking so openly about it and campaigning so vigorously...

Japan was the biggest enemy of the US, ever. It's interesting that a Japanese politician seems to be leading the 'official' charge. Just making an observation...

Why would high level politicians be any less stupid than the normal people who peddle this crap?

I guess the same way any organisation keeps their grand plans a secret from the outside world.

Funny comic though. ;)

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Time will tell.

Having said that, I was more pushing toward the point of what would be the motivation of a Japanese politician to ask his Prime Minister to investigate (or at least look into it)? I know this will start yet another sh!t storm but I've always been wary of the Japanese government as far as their intentions internationally. Uber tard... seriously... do you think they'll ever have similar intentions of the mischief they got up to 60 years ago? I believe they will. Call me insane (oh wait... I am)! (It was a serious question... seriously). ;)

Tell me how is it they can bring one of the other buildings down (building 7 from my shoddy memory) in a controlled demolition perfectly, the same day due to it being damaged. Many demolition experts have come out and said that a demolition of that scale and precision takes weeks if not months to plan and implement. The renter of the towers apparently made something around 2 billion from insurance, and had tried to take out a second insurance policy on the towers a couple of weeks prior to 11/9. Demolitions experts have looked at footage of the towers falling and said 'it looks like a controlled demolition'.
America wanted a war on terror just like they wanted in on WWII. Pearl harbour was known about months before it happened, America sacrificed thousands of its people to get in on that. Was 11/9 different? I don't know, but I keep an open mind.

An independent inquiry is an absolute must, tens if not hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result and we are all willing to accept the story given by the only people who may or may not have something to hide. I would like to see an inquiry done by people who clearly don't have anything to hide. Then it can be put to rest.

Quote from Evil @ngel;347750:
Tell me how is it they can bring one of the other buildings down (building 7 from my shoddy memory) in a controlled demolition perfectly, the same day due to it being damaged. Many demolition experts have come out and said that a demolition of that scale and precision takes weeks if not months to plan and implement. The renter of the towers apparently made something around 2 billion from insurance, and had tried to take out a second insurance policy on the towers a couple of weeks prior to 11/9. Demolitions experts have looked at footage of the towers falling and said 'it looks like a controlled demolition'.
America wanted a war on terror just like they wanted in on WWII. Pearl harbour was known about months before it happened, America sacrificed thousands of its people to get in on that. Was 11/9 different? I don't know, but I keep an open mind.

An independent inquiry is an absolute must, tens if not hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result and we are all willing to accept the story given by the only people who may or may not have something to hide. I would like to see an inquiry done by people who clearly don't have anything to hide. Then it can be put to rest.

I like you.

I'm open minded and the whole 9/11 attack has always smelled a bit fishy to me.

I guess I'm just more interested to see what comes to light from such an inquiry, be they ones the support the conspiracy or debunk it.

personally i'm sick and tired of anything related to '911'

Think of poor fleshy - I mean, that's his birthday - forever stolen... (or thinking of it from my point of view - always made easy to remember).

There have been several inquiries, and they all concluded that yes, it was a conspiracy.

The conspiracy was formed of a dozen crazy people who believed they'd get to bang virgins forever if they flew some planes into some buildings.

Oh, and have you ever wondered what happens when you fly planes into reinforced concrete?

That's right! They disappear: YouTube - F4 Phantom Vs. Wall

Blah blah blah. In 50 years time it'll all come out. Mark my words. If the US didn't do it, they knew about it and did nothing to stop it.

C'mon. All the conspiracy theories aside you're telling me the US government couldn't stop FOUR different planes hijacked at the same time?? C'mon. Think about it seriously. Name the last major plane hijacking in the US in the last 20 years. I can only find reference to ONE. You seriously believe that with all the technology about they could hijack FOUR in one day and do what they did? I myself find that very difficult to believe...

As it has been documented, the reason the hijacked planes couldn't be aprehended was because a number of other "hijacked plane scenario" drills were being run at the exact same time, and differentiating between real and not real was apparently not possible.

Make of that what you will.

Quote:
You seriously believe that with all the technology about they could hijack FOUR in one day and do what they did? I myself find that very difficult to believe...

I find it easy to believe, because it happened.

What was clever about the way the conspirators went about it is that they applied a suicide attack to a completely new area.

Until 9/11, the way to deal with hijackers was to let them have their way. No point risking passengers or crew if there are dangerous people aboard who won't hesitate to kill a few. Best to just fly to Cuba or whathaveyou, sit on the plane for a few days, then get off when the negotiations are done.

So when the box-cutters and such arrived, everyone said "OK, standard procedure, let them do what they want". Then the conspirators took the planes and flew them into three buildings and a paddock.

Notice how there have been zero hijackings since then? It's because anyone who tries to hijack a plane will die. On the plane. Passengers and crew will probably pummel them to death. The "shoebomber" wasn't in very good shape by the time cops got to him.

Like I think I've said before, why do you need two conspiracy theories when one will do? Especially when the second one is either ignoring simple facts or preposterous when given 10 minutes of serious thought?

Almost all conspiracy theories ignore certain facts to make it sound more plausible, but no more so than the official report(s) often ignore logic, sense and other documented truths.

If you believe exactly what happened on 9/11 is what the US Government is telling you, then you're clearly as delusional as the nut-jobs writing elaborate conspiracy theories.

Go watch some Fox News or something. :P

Quote from El Presidente;347819:
I find it easy to believe, because it happened.

For such a smart guy you say some weird stuff.

Having worked in the media for over a decade I can tell you unequivocally that what is told in a news story is done in a way to convey a greater power's viewpoints, not the facts. On all levels. From your p!ssy little newspapers in small towns to the broadsheets that 'grace' the news-stands of a bustling metropolis. Whether it's keeping advertisers happy, council or the federal bureaucracy, it's always a large factor on what goes to press/air.

I can't safely say that all these conspiracy theories are right or even close. I can guarantee you that what the MEDIA is telling isn't the whole truth, or even close to it. It may be what they're fed as far as information, or it may be some ulterior motives. Who really knows?

As I said earlier, time will tell. It always does.

...unless of course you're getting your information from some other source?

On a side note (which isn't really a side note)... have you ever read a story in a newspaper, or seen a report on TV on a topic that you actually know something about (like you do it for your job, or had something to do with the event)? Ever noticed how bullsh!t they are? How much they miss the main point or skip around it? I hope you've experienced that... then you'll begin to understand my train of thought.

Occam's razor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem with that Occam's Razor in regards to t 9/11 is that the Government's official report isn't neccessary the most simple/straight forward of explainations. Broadly speaking, it makes just as many "assumptions" (considering there's little hard evidence on many aspects of the event) as many of the conspiracy theories.

The other problem with Occam's Razor is that it's dumb. The simplest answer for the universe is that there's a man in the sky. :P

Occam's Razor is a f*cking great Spiral Architect track though...

Quote:
Broadly speaking, it makes just as many "assumptions" (considering there's little hard evidence on many aspects of the event) as many of the conspiracy theories.

Err, no. The 'truther' theory requires two conspiracies, the conventional theory requires only one.

Quote:
The other problem with Occam's Razor is that it's dumb. The simplest answer for the universe is that there's a man in the sky. :P

You've missed the point again. In the creationist account you need to explain the sky man as well as the observable laws of the universe. In the scientific account you only need to do the latter.

Incidentally this objection to the existence of god predates Occam's Razor by a long time.

Quote:
I can't safely say that all these conspiracy theories are right or even close. I can guarantee you that what the MEDIA is telling isn't the whole truth, or even close to it. It may be what they're fed as far as information, or it may be some ulterior motives. Who really knows?

Speaking of Razors, look up Hanlon's.

How does it "require" two conspiracies? In your opinion, perhaps? Oh, and you obviously haven't spoken to any creationists/fundamentalists lately.

Point missing all-round, it seems! :D

Quote:
How does it "require" two conspiracies?

OK. It proposes two conspiracies. The original conspiracy (crazy people do crazy things), plus a conspiracy to deliberately fail to prevent the first one.

In some versions there's a single conspiracy where the original conspiracy is a fake; but it has far more moving parts than the original conspiracy and thus also falls foul of Occam's Razor.

As for creationists and fundamentalists, a year of going to an SDA church was plenty enough for one life, thankyou.

Yeah, so there are two conspiracy's according to you. Many 9/11 conspiracy's actually set out to prove that the entire thing was setup by the American government, not that there was a conspiracy to do nothing about some Middle Eastern men wanting to launch an attack on the USA.

Ie; one conspiracy.

Quote:
In some versions there's a single conspiracy where the original conspiracy is a fake; but it has far more moving parts than the original conspiracy and thus also falls foul of Occam's Razor.

.

Ta for giving me the opportunity to quote myself.

the gubment did it = conspiracy involving the keeping quiet/in the dark of thousands of emergency service and law enforcement personnel, not to mention convincing the media to keep quiet about it.

the crazies did it = a couple of guys got promised 20 virgins in the afterlife if they hijacked a plane and crashed it into a building.

which one sounds more likely?

Quote from paladin;347873:
the gubment did it = conspiracy involving the keeping quiet/in the dark of thousands of emergency service and law enforcement personnel, not to mention convincing the media to keep quiet about it.

the crazies did it = a couple of guys got promised 20 virgins in the afterlife if they hijacked a plane and crashed it into a building.

which one sounds more likely?

Why do people keep bringing up the 'keeping thousands quiet' point? Why do thousands have to be 'in on it'? Why can't they just be tricked like everyone else and be fed the same stuff everyone most seems to so willingly just gobble up? Wouldn't involving thousands be a bit silly if you didn't want to be found out?

We keep coming back to the same point in the discussion gentlemen. You cannot positively refute either side of the argument with any level of certainty. As I've said before, only time will tell... and it will tell.

You're both smart fellas. The US is the current superpower. They want to control everything like every other superpower in history. They realise that the world is more connected and collectively smarter than it ever has been before, so they have to do things a bit more subtly than superpowers in the past. The question you really need to ask yourself is why did the US (or 'coalition of the willing') really attack Afghanistan and Iraq? There seems to be a lot more evidence pointing toward the thirst for oil and control of that part of the world than any other argument. Even one of Colin Powell's top aides recently has openly admitted that the WMD speech Powell made was the 'lowest point' of his life. If you honestly believe that the reason the US attacked these countries was because of the 'terrorist threat' then you should really take a long, hard look at yourselves and history. History repeats. Call back in 50 years and tell me what's what then. ;)

I've noticed 9/11 Conspiracy buffs use the exact same arguement from incredulity (ie. arguement from ignorance) and same ability to ignore gaping contradictions/flaws in their logic as Creationists.

It's ****ing eery, and saddening, as before 9/11 I thought only religious nuts could be so stupid.

Quote from grandinferno;347888:
Why do people keep bringing up the 'keeping thousands quiet' point? Why do thousands have to be 'in on it'? Why can't they just be tricked like everyone else and be fed the same stuff everyone most seems to so willingly just gobble up? Wouldn't involving thousands be a bit silly if you didn't want to be found out?

Think about it logically. How would you pull off the biggest conspiracy of all time without having large numbers of people involved. How are they all supposed to be kept quiet when there are massive incentives for them to come forward?

I'm not saying it's impossbible. Though neither is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Quote from grandinferno;347888:
You're both smart fellas. The US is the current superpower. They want to control everything like every other superpower in history.

Who is they? The American government? The American people? I think this is another mistake most of these truthy-type people make. The American government isn't some kind of evil masonic secret society who hate everyone and want to enslave the world to do their bidding. Sure, they want to protect their national interests - like every other government in existence. Is invading Iraq either getting them either oil or wealth? Not really. The amount they are spending is likely to be far greater than any return they could possibly hope for. And that's assuming that the Iraqi government will want anything to do with them when it's all over.

Most of what the American government does is aimed at domestic opinion. Being an American citizen (dual with Australia), having travelled there extensively and having many American friends - I can tell you quite simply that 99% of the time they, being government/pollies, don't give a shit about what the world thinks of what they do. They would happily piss the entire world off if it would boost their polling figures back home. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the whole Iraq/Afganistan wars were just about domestic American politics and an 'appropriate' government response to 9/11. Whether it was actually appropriate is a whole other issue.

edit: clarity

Quote from uber tard;347893:
Think about it logically. How would you pull off the biggest conspiracy of all time without having large numbers of people involved. How are they all supposed to be kept quiet when there are massive incentives for them to come forward?

I don't really understand why there need to be large numbers involved. All I see is that there are different levels of deception and people just seem to lap it up.

Quote from uber tard;347893:

Who is they? The American government? The American people? I think this is another mistake most of these truthy-type people make. The American government isn't some kind of evil masonic secret society who hate everyone and want to enslave the world to do their bidding.

The American government (and the people in a way I guess). The American government has inexplicable ties to corporations. If Australian politicians had ties like the Americans do to corporations they'd be out on their ear or in an enquiry in no time. But in the US it seems to be accepted. There are a hell of a lot of US corporations making a lot of money out of the war at the moment. This is another way that Iraq is reminscent of Vietnam... it'll go for a while and make a lot of people a lot of money.

Things like the Project for the New American Century sort of give subtle indicators to their intended direction. Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote from Jaian;347890:
I've noticed 9/11 Conspiracy buffs use the exact same arguement from incredulity (ie. arguement from ignorance) and same ability to ignore gaping contradictions/flaws in their logic as Creationists.

It's ****ing eery, and saddening, as before 9/11 I thought only religious nuts could be so stupid.

How about you clarify the gaping contradictions then for me?

My argument (as I've said a few times before in this topic) cannot really be disproven. We all get our information from the media - which isn't entirely solid a lot of the time. I'm sure we can at least agree on that. We'll just have to wait and see.

Quote:
I don't really understand why there need to be large numbers involved.

Depending on which exact 'truther' scenario, at a minimum you will need:

* Air traffic controllers at the several airports in range. Say two dozen.
* Several high level FBI and CIA agents. Say 5.
* Whitehouse level conspirators. Say another 5.
* A lot of contractors to install high explosives for demolition in the twin towers and WTC7. Say 50.
* For everyone in the twin towers and WTC7 not to notice the 50 guys spending 3 months strapping explosives to every load bearing element on every floor. Say 55,000.
* The pilots and co-pilots of the planes. 8.
* The crazy muslim guys. 20.
* Oh yeah, every passenger who flew on the planes has to fake their own death and cause enormous hurt to their families and friends. Luckily you only need several hundred such people, huzzah!

Total conspirators required: Thousands, who all have to act according to a very complicated and precise plan.

The original conspiracy requires 20 nutjobs arranged into independent cells with a pretty simple plan.

Quote from El Presidente;347896:
Depending on which exact 'truther' scenario, at a minimum you will need:

* Air traffic controllers at the several airports in range. Say two dozen.
* Several high level FBI and CIA agents. Say 5.
* Whitehouse level conspirators. Say another 5.
* A lot of contractors to install high explosives for demolition in the twin towers and WTC7. Say 50.
* For everyone in the twin towers and WTC7 not to notice the 50 guys spending 3 months strapping explosives to every load bearing element on every floor. Say 55,000.
* The pilots and co-pilots of the planes. 8.
* The crazy muslim guys. 20.
* Oh yeah, every passenger who flew on the planes has to fake their own death and cause enormous hurt to their families and friends. Luckily you only need several hundred such people, huzzah!

Total conspirators required: Thousands, who all have to act according to a very complicated and precise plan.

The original conspiracy requires 20 nutjobs arranged into independent cells with a pretty simple plan.

Quote from grandinferno;347808:
C'mon. All the conspiracy theories aside you're telling me the US government couldn't stop FOUR different planes hijacked at the same time?? C'mon. Think about it seriously. Name the last major plane hijacking in the US in the last 20 years. I can only find reference to ONE. You seriously believe that with all the technology about they could hijack FOUR in one day and do what they did? I myself find that very difficult to believe...

They let it happen. There's no doubt in my mind. All the other points are arguable. Once again my initial points of the post have been ignored... I'm tiring of being lumped with conspiracy nuts. A little less assumptions should be made about my views and perhaps a little more attention should be paid to what I'm actually saying...

Quote from El Presidente;347896:
Depending on which exact 'truther' scenario, at a minimum you will need:

* Air traffic controllers at the several airports in range. Say two dozen.
Why? Plane takes off as normal plane gets hijacked/taken control by???? hits building. Why do we need traffic controllers to be in on it?
Quote from El Presidente;347896:
* Several high level FBI and CIA agents. Say 5.
* Whitehouse level conspirators. Say another 5.
Some maybe
Quote from El Presidente;347896:
* A lot of contractors to install high explosives for demolition in the twin towers and WTC7. Say 50.
* For everyone in the twin towers and WTC7 not to notice the 50 guys spending 3 months strapping explosives to every load bearing element on every floor. Say 55,000. Wasn't the buildings fire protection checked/serviced a short while prior? The insulation on the beams included. Explosives could have been placed within the structure on these beams in non-visible locations when this was done. Needing 1 bogus company employing those same 10ish CIA/FBI/NSA dudes from above.
Quote from El Presidente;347896:
* The pilots and co-pilots of the planes. 8.Why? they got taken over/killed and their planes flown into stuff. They don't need to be in on anything, just a regular day for them, until...
Quote from El Presidente;347896:
* The crazy muslim guys. 20.Who said it was 20? Oh yeah the official story. Could be done with 1-2 per plane. The same CIA/FBI,NSA guys from before. Allegedly, a couple of the vaporised terrorists have turned up alive again. Maybe there is something to this islam. OR maybe they weren't really on the plane.
Quote from El Presidente;347896:
* Oh yeah, every passenger who flew on the planes has to fake their own death and cause enormous hurt to their families and friends. Luckily you only need several hundred such people, huzzah! BAHAHAHA NO they only have to die. USA sacrificed thousands at pearl harbour, they have this history.

Quote from El Presidente;347896:
Total conspirators required: Thousands, who all have to act according to a very complicated and precise plan. Total required for the act 10-15. Plan etc one team less than 20-30. Likelyhood of a fairly bungling until that point terrorist organisation pulling off what is a reasonably well planned, thought up and executed plan?? Compared to say a highly organised and motivated (they needed war) government with near limitless resources and all the latest tech on hand? HMmmmm....

Quote from El Presidente;347896:
The original conspiracy requires 20 nutjobs arranged into independent cells with a pretty simple plan.

My new conspiracy requires barely more possibly the same. Damn it must be false it takes maybe 20 more guys to do it this way. /sarcasm.

Quote from grandinferno;347900:
They let it happen. There's no doubt in my mind. All the other points are arguable. Once again my initial points of the post have been ignored... I'm tiring of being lumped with conspiracy nuts.

Err...you state you belive in a conspiracy, so why get upset when you get lumped along with your fellow conspiracy nuts?

Quote:
A little less assumptions should be made about my views and perhaps a little more attention should be paid to what I'm actually saying...

So what are you saying then? You haven't made any real points aside from saying 'isn't it odd that a handful of politicians around the world believe the American government is responsible for 9/11?'.

Are you claiming that the US government planned the attacks on the Pentagon/WTC? Or that they knew about it but chose not to act upon them? The Japanese politician believes the former, the ex-American general believes the latter. (ie. Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists).

If your first source is correct (British politician), then your second source (Japanese politician) is a ****ing moron who has watching some shitty hack online documentary based on poor/incorrect science and been suckered into them.

If your second source is correct, then your first source is wrong and has clearly based his conspiracy views on incorrect information.

If you're going to try and promote a conspiracy grandinferno, first pick a side and show some consistancy. So far all you've shown is that you've determined that the US government is responsible for 9/11, which basically means you'll cherry pick facts/opinions that only support your view.

The burden of proof lies on Creatio- sorry, 9/11 conspiracists to provide reasonable and rational evidence for their conspiracy.

ok so the facts are. the planes were hijacked. they flew into the building the buildings came down.
What is not really answered is why the buildings came down.. sure a plane hit them but i dont think that would be enough to bring down a building. but really buildings are not really built for a plane to crash into them.. so its really a unknowen.

Found this
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&feature=related[/media]

Quote from Jaian;347927:
Err...you state you belive in a conspiracy, so why get upset when you get lumped along with your fellow conspiracy nuts?

So what are you saying then? You haven't made any real points aside from saying 'isn't it odd that a handful of politicians around the world believe the American government is responsible for 9/11?'.

Are you claiming that the US government planned the attacks on the Pentagon/WTC? Or that they knew about it but chose not to act upon them? The Japanese politician believes the former, the ex-American general believes the latter. (ie. Young Earth and Old Earth Creationists).

If your first source is correct (British politician), then your second source (Japanese politician) is a ****ing moron who has watching some shitty hack online documentary based on poor/incorrect science and been suckered into them.

If your second source is correct, then your first source is wrong and has clearly based his conspiracy views on incorrect information.

If you're going to try and promote a conspiracy grandinferno, first pick a side and show some consistancy. So far all you've shown is that you've determined that the US government is responsible for 9/11, which basically means you'll cherry pick facts/opinions that only support your view.

The burden of proof lies on Creatio- sorry, 9/11 conspiracists to provide reasonable and rational evidence for their conspiracy.

I actually think there are elements of truth in both of these peoples opinions. What I don't appreciate is being called a nut, or stupid by a person who obviously has the maturity of a 13 year old boy with an avatar of some girl with her hand in her pants. I have picked a side and I have shown consistancy. I don't just chime in a bag other people out and wait for them to somehow slip up. You seem to consistently repeat this process and make NO point but name-calling.

I believe in what I believe in and I think I've spelt it out (across several topics on these forums). I haven't watched one documentary and decided blindly from that the US are some evil empire... I've seen a lot of evidence that suggests that something is askew in the way things are travelling. I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again. You can't validate your argument anymore than I can validate mine (due to our ONLY sources) so don't try and pretend that you can rightfully call people names and carry on the way you do.

I don't wear a tin hat my friend. Stop treating me like I do. Show some more respect and present an argument and not just pick on other peoples arguments. Or are you just going to give up and fade away once it gets too difficult to come up with a decent response like the last time we had a discussion regarding a similar topic on this forum?

Speak soon matey.

Quote from MetalAttack;347932:
Now the pentagon. the offical release of a video thats ment to be showing the plane hitting the building is not real.. it dont look anything like a plane.. its too small.. it was too clean of a attack.. take a look at some of the pics taken after the plane hit.. the grass is fine.. there is a bit of a hole in the building not enough to fit a plane in it. and there is no real sign of a plane... no baggage.. no seats, windows no anything..

I disagree, there is plenty of evidence that it was a plane, and only poor conjecture that it was instead a missile, which is contradicted by the facts.

"I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?" - Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response

[Image: http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/911-flight77-debris.jpg]

In addition to this, if you claim this was not a plane but a missile, then you're suggesting the US government hijacked a passenger plane, flew it to a secret location where they either killed all the passengers and crew, or have them hidden in secret prisons for the last 7 years, before disposing of the plane. They would also have paid off/killed the air traffic controllers or anyone with radar who would have noticed the plane going off its course. After this, they fired a missile at the Pentagon, but took extra care to put plane wreckage with plane markings around the lawn of the Pentagon, hoping nobody would see them doing this.

Or you could believe terrorists hijacked and crashed the plan into the Pentagon.

Occam's Mach 5 come's into play here.

Quote from grandinferno;347933:
I actually think there are elements of truth in both of these peoples opinions. What I don't appreciate is being called a nut, or stupid by a person who obviously has the maturity of a 13 year old boy with an avatar of some girl with her hand in her pants.

Cool, so should I also base your maturity on your avatar? Sounds like fun, but is there any point to it?

Quote:
I have picked a side and I have shown consistancy.

Consistency in believing in a conspiracy, regardless of what the facts are.

Quote:
I don't just chime in a bag other people out and wait for them to somehow slip up. You seem to consistently repeat this process and make NO point but name-calling.

I thought my point was clear...these conspiracies are not based on fact, and those who promote these conspiracies base it on poor science and irrationality, and display the same symptoms as Creationists.

The logic employed by both groups are strikingly similar.

Young Earth Creationist evidence and logic completely contradicts Old Earth Creationist evidence, but both groups will stick to their premise that the scientifically accepted explanation is invalid.

The same applies for the US Government Let it Happen and Made it Happen groups...their evidence contradicts each other, but in general they disregard evidence contradicting their position.

Quote:
I believe in what I believe in and I think I've spelt it out (across several topics on these forums).

I don't make a habit of following you from thread to thread, so I'm mainly basing what I think your opinion is on what you've posted in this thread.

Quote:
I haven't watched one documentary and decided blindly from that the US are some evil empire... I've seen a lot of evidence that suggests that something is askew in the way things are travelling.

I've seen a lot of evidence that the Moon Landing is a hoax. What differentiates me from those conspiracy nuts who believe the Moon Landing is a hoax is a bit of common sense, as well as having a look at the 'facts' presented in the conspiracy theory, and seeing they don't really hold up.

Quote:
You can't validate your argument anymore than I can validate mine (due to our ONLY sources) so don't try and pretend that you can rightfully call people names and carry on the way you do.

I can, for one simple fact: the burden of evidence is on you, who claim that the US government are involved in some conspiracy and somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Flying Spagetti Monster logic, I can't prove he doesn't exist, that does not mean he exists.

Quote:
I don't wear a tin hat my friend. Stop treating me like I do.

Oh, so you don't believe in conspiracies? I got the impression otherwise in everything else you've posted. I don't see any consistency here.

Quote:
Show some more respect and present an argument and not just pick on other peoples arguments.

If it makes you happy, I'll substitute the word 'nuts' with 'theorists'.

My arguement is that 9/11 conspiracy theorists rely on poor science, irrationality and an arguement from incredulity. You, for example, have decided the American government either staged 9/11 or deliberately allowed it to happen. You've openly stated this, and won't back it up with evidence. If you had evidence for one, it contradicts the other. But you've decided regardless you are not going to accept the most commonly accepted and scientifically sound explanation.

Yours is an irrational opinion which a large minority share.

Quote:
Or are you just going to give up and fade away once it gets too difficult to come up with a decent response like the last time we had a discussion regarding a similar topic on this forum?

Um, what?

Quote from grandinferno;347933:
Or are you just going to give up and fade away once it gets too difficult to come up with a decent response like the last time we had a discussion regarding a similar topic on this forum?

Haha, I see what you're taking about now. You were the one I was arguing with in the Obama thread. Your hatred of the American government makes more sense now.

Sure, you could say I gave up and faded away once it got too difficult to come up with a decent response, but in my second last post, I addressed all your points, and in my post after that, the final post, I specified "I'm bored of this discussion". There was no further point to that discussion as our definitions of terrorism were too different.

You're free to interpret that as a victory for you, if you want.

Quote from Jaian;347934:
I disagree, there is plenty of evidence that it was a plane, and only poor conjecture that it was instead a missile, which is contradicted by the facts.

"I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?" - Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response

[Image: http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/911-flight77-debris.jpg]

In addition to this, if you claim this was not a plane but a missile, then you're suggesting the US government hijacked a passenger plane, flew it to a secret location where they either killed all the passengers and crew, or have them hidden in secret prisons for the last 7 years, before disposing of the plane. They would also have paid off/killed the air traffic controllers or anyone with radar who would have noticed the plane going off its course. After this, they fired a missile at the Pentagon, but took extra care to put plane wreckage with plane markings around the lawn of the Pentagon, hoping nobody would see them doing this.

Or you could believe terrorists hijacked and crashed the plan into the Pentagon.

Occam's Mach 5 come's into play here.

OR you could conjecture that the Government or some other high level organisation hijacked the planes and flew them, full of the passengers into assorted buildings. No need to postulate some hidden passengers and paid off traffic controllers. We know this is exactly what happened. What we don't know definitively is, whether it was done by terrorists or the US gov or some other high level organisation.

The missile theory is pretty weak and would require involving many many more people. Simpler just to fly a plane into it, whoever you are.

Quote from Jaian;347935:
.....
I can, for one simple fact: the burden of evidence is on you, who claim that the US government are involved in some conspiracy and somehow responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Flying Spagetti Monster logic, I can't prove he doesn't exist, that does not mean he exists.
......

Why does the burden of evidence only fall on one side? Why shouldn't the burden of evidence fall on you, who claim that some goat herders/terrorists are involved in some conspiracy and somehow responsible for the 11/9 attacks?
Why isn't an independent inquiry warranted? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to say now we know and can prove beyond doubt, (not there yet), that this or that is what happened. Especially considering the enormous loss of life it caused and is still causing.

Jaian; that photo with the single piece of debris is consistantly the only one used in defending the government's report. But notice how it's perfectly shiny?

I challenge you to find another single photo (yes, just 1) that shows any identifiable airliner debris in the same scene as the Pentagon shortly after the impact. If you can, I'll drop this element of the argument quite happily.

But you wont be able to, because the only other debris pictures that feature debris AND the pentagon are of building debris. There are many specific aeroplane part/debris photos released by the government themselves (well after the fact) or spread via the internet without detailed source details, which quite frankly good be photos from anywhere at any time.

Quote from Evil @ngel;347941:
OR you could conjecture that the Government or some other high level organisation hijacked the planes and flew them, full of the passengers into assorted buildings.

Concrete evidence that the US government has ever employed suicide bombers: 0

Concrete evidence Islamic terrorists employ suicide bombers: Dozens of cases every year.

Quote:
No need to postulate some hidden passengers and paid off traffic controllers. We know this is exactly what happened.

What? We KNOW that air traffic controllers were paid off? Please provide a source for this.

Quote:
The missile theory is pretty weak and would require involving many many more people. Simpler just to fly a plane into it, whoever you are.

Agreed.

Quote:
Why does the burden of evidence only fall on one side? Why shouldn't the burden of evidence fall on you, who claim that some goat herders/terrorists are involved in some conspiracy and somehow responsible for the 11/9 attacks?

Goat herders were alleged to have masterminded the 9/11 attacks?
Terrorists with the following backgrounds were alleged to have been behind the attacks:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - Completed a degree in Mechanical Engineering in the USA
Ramzi Yousef - Degree in Chemical and Electrical Engineering
Mohamed Atta - Degree in Architecture
Osama bin Laden - Part of a billionaire family, with a possible degree in civil engineering.

Some of the terrorists are known to have enrolled in flight schools in the USA. They're also known to have called for a war on the USA and American targets, and have previously bombed American military and civilian targets.

Quote:
Why isn't an independent inquiry warranted? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to say now we know and can prove beyond doubt, (not there yet), that this or that is what happened. Especially considering the enormous loss of life it caused and is still causing.

Agreed, if you change your wording to beyond all reasonable doubt.

Quote from rec;347947:
Jaian; that photo with the single piece of debris is consistantly the only one used in defending the government's report. But notice how it's perfectly shiny?

You mean the part of the debris out in the lawn which is made of metal and reflecting sunlight? Is metal not supposed to glint in sunlight?

Quote:
I challenge you to find another single photo (yes, just 1) that shows any identifiable airliner debris in the same scene as the Pentagon shortly after the impact.

[media]http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image063.jpg[/media]

There's that matching piece in the background behind the man in the blue?

Quote:
If you can, I'll drop this element of the argument quite happily.

What line of argument? I'm not sure, are you suggesting that an aircraft did not crash into the Pentagon? If not, then what did? And what happened to the 'real' plan and all it's passengers?

Quote:
But you wont be able to, because the only other debris pictures that feature debris AND the pentagon are of building debris. There are many specific aeroplane part/debris photos released by the government themselves (well after the fact) or spread via the internet without detailed source details, which quite frankly good be photos from anywhere at any time.

And any photos alleged to be of the Pentagon and the debris on the day itself could easily be doctored. So can any video evidence, and eye witness accounts and testimonials can be lied about.

Hell, the photo I linked to last night was shot by a Navy photographer, so it was probably doctored anyway, right?

In summary, you can call into question any evidence citing a massive conspiracy. This is what perpetuates the moon landing hoax conspiracy.

Quote from Jaian;347935:
My arguement is that 9/11 conspiracy theorists rely on poor science, irrationality and an arguement from incredulity. You, for example, have decided the American government either staged 9/11 or deliberately allowed it to happen. You've openly stated this, and won't back it up with evidence. If you had evidence for one, it contradicts the other. But you've decided regardless you are not going to accept the most commonly accepted and scientifically sound explanation.

We can argue all day about who's right and who's wrong. At the end of the day I can present evidence (or others can) and you can cry foul, compare them with creationists and declare that it's not 'scientifically sound'. My point - that I keep coming back to - is that pretty much all your 'evidence' is filtered through the media/government in some way or another. How can you possibly guarantee that your sources are better than anyone elses? How can you use the argument that because a majority believe in something that it has to be right? As you can probably see by now, and probably pounce upon... I'm not going to enter the 'it was done by a demolition team because of...' argument or anything along those lines.

All I'm saying is that the 'US did it argument' or the 'US knew about it argument' seems a lot more logical than the 'US had no idea it was going to happen' argument. If you look through history you'll find that these sort of false flag operations are rife. It's a quite well documented government tactic used to sway support for a cause or objective. If you stay away from the nitty-gritty and emotional aspects of what happened with 911 and look objectively at the USA's foreign policies and what was happening around that time, you'll realise that the US was always looking for a reason to attack Afghanistan and Iraq. There's the two fold advantage. One, they get the oil. Two, their corporations make lots of money either destroying (arms) or repairing (Halliburtonesque companies). Iraq will be like Vietnam. It will be long and drawn out and make heaps of cash for private enterprise.

I have noted that a lot of these points I've made prior to this have been ignored and there have been attempts to draw me into the plane crash scenarios arguments. I may have an opinion on them, but it's hard to find any evidence to back it up, so I'm not entering it. Ha ha you say? It'd be nice if there was an independant enquiry so at least there would be something to look at. Thus, the point of this thread initially. But instead it became a conspiracy theorist bashing thread.... as always.

Jaian - that photo falls under the same category as the last one you posted and can be scrutinised in the same way. Try harder. :P

Quote from rec;347947:
I challenge you to find another single photo (yes, just 1) that shows any identifiable airliner debris in the same scene as the Pentagon shortly after the impact. If you can, I'll drop this element of the argument quite happily.

Quote from Jaian;347950:
[media]http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image063.jpg[/media]

Quote from rec;347972:
Jaian - that photo falls under the same category as the last one you posted and can be scrutinised in the same way. Try harder. :P

In other words, even though I've provided the photo you still won't accept it ie. it's pointless discussing it with you. As I said yesterday, conspiracy theorists will always be able to deny any and all evidence short of their own eye-witnessing of the event, and even they can find excuses.

Quote from grandinferno;347970:
My point - that I keep coming back to - is that pretty much all your 'evidence' is filtered through the media/government in some way or another.

Fair enough. It works both ways though, and at least government sources (ie. Pentagon, FBI, Air trafffic control) are more likely to know the facts than internet bloggers who use secondary sources..

Quote:
How can you possibly guarantee that your sources are better than anyone elses?

I can't guarantee, but they're more likely to be accurate.

Quote:
How can you use the argument that because a majority believe in something that it has to be right?

I didn't say it has to be right. But there is more evidence to support this than any other arguement put forward.

Quote:
All I'm saying is that the 'US did it argument' or the 'US knew about it argument' seems a lot more logical than the 'US had no idea it was going to happen' argument.

The US did it is more logical than the US were not expecting it?

Sorry, that is not at all rational. As El Presidente advised earlier in this thread, you should apply Hanlon's razor to this:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

Quote:
If you look through history you'll find that these sort of false flag operations are rife. It's a quite well documented government tactic used to sway support for a cause or objective. If you stay away from the nitty-gritty and emotional aspects of what happened with 911 and look objectively at the USA's foreign policies and what was happening around that time, you'll realise that the US was always looking for a reason to attack Afghanistan and Iraq.

Looking at American foreign policy, they have been bombing Iraq for a decade prior to 9/11. They did not need to construct an elaborate, massive conspiracy to launch the biggest terrorist attacks in modern history against their own country and military.

Quote:
There's the two fold advantage. One, they get the oil.

They have to purchase oil from Iraq like everyone else. They don't 'get' the oil.

Quote:
Two, their corporations make lots of money either destroying (arms) or repairing (Halliburtonesque companies). Iraq will be like Vietnam. It will be long and drawn out and make heaps of cash for private enterprise.

That's a valid point, but you'll have to demonstrate that they have the kind of sway to dictate foreign policy to the US Government this way.

Quote:
But instead it became a conspiracy theorist bashing thread.... as always.

There's no avoiding that, if you suggest conspiracy, you should

...expect to be criticised on those grounds.

(too lazy to click edit)

Quote from Jaian;347949:

Quote from Evil @ngel;347941:
OR you could conjecture that the Government or some other high level organisation hijacked the planes and....
Concrete evidence that the US government has ever employed suicide bombers: 0

Concrete evidence Islamic terrorists employ suicide bombers: Dozens of cases every year.
And? So remove government from my sentence and leave some other organisation. Does that offend your sensibilities less?
Quote from Jaian;347949:

What? We KNOW that air traffic controllers were paid off? Please provide a source for this.
Yeah OK bad sentence structure. Its clearly not what I meant but in future I will do better just so you can't quote me out of context.:eek:

Quote from Jaian;347949:

Agreed, if you change your wording to beyond all reasonable doubt.
You're right it should be beyond reasonable doubt, and we are still not there yet.

Quote from Evil @ngel;347997:
And? So remove government from my sentence and leave some other organisation. Does that offend your sensibilities less?

What kind of organisation? An organisation which employs suicide bombers and targets American military and civilian sites...where do you think that leads?

All I come up with that fit that bill are Islamic terrorist organisations.

The only other group that utilise suicide bombers are the Tamil Tigers, and they have never targeted the US, and have no motivation to do so.

Quote:
Yeah OK bad sentence structure. Its clearly not what I meant but in future I will do better just so you can't quote me out of context.

My bad, I misread it. Didn't mean to quote you out of context.

Quote:
You're right it should be beyond reasonable doubt, and we are still not there yet.

That's where I and the majority of people disagree with you.

Quote from Jaian;347988:
.....
They have to purchase oil from Iraq like everyone else. They don't 'get' the oil.

All the oil in Iraq has been forward sold to US companies at discounted yesterdays prices for something like the next 40-50 years. All oil exploration and exploitation of Iraq's only resource will now be conducted solely by US based companies, not the Iraqi owned groups that used to do it after Saddam kicked the US out when he came to power. Is that enough of a 'they get the oil' for you?

Quote from Jaian;347988:

That's a valid point, but you'll have to demonstrate that they have the kind of sway to dictate foreign policy to the US Government this way.
Cheney. Heard of him? The former CEO of Haliburton, still heavily invested and involved with the company when he and Bush started handing out the prizes in Iraq. Given massive amounts of money from Haliburton on numerous occasions. Said to be going back to Haliburton after his time is up. Would owning the vice prez be enough sway for you?

Some interesting stuff on Haliburton:
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/chronology.html

Quote from Jaian;347988:

There's no avoiding that, if you suggest conspiracy, you should

What? what should we do? Ahh I see expect to be criticised. Is that because you are to closed minded to accept that there are some discrepancies between the official story and some of the evidence, as examined by qualified non-government people.

Quote from Jaian;347999:
What kind of organisation? An organisation which employs suicide bombers and targets American military and civilian sites...where do you think that leads?

All I come up with that fit that bill are Islamic terrorist organisations.

The only other group that utilise suicide bombers are the Tamil Tigers, and they have never targeted the US, and have no motivation to do so.

Could lead to someone who wanted it to look like a terrorist suicide bombing. Allowing the US to go to war and the sheep in USA to have a very large part of their civil rights stripped away. Including the fact that the Prez can now simply sign a document making him the dictator of the country for essentially as long as he sees fit. NO other people need agree or sign anything. America is no longer a democracy and the power has been taken from the populace, all steps I would take if I wanted to control an entire nation with an eye to the world. Not saying thats the gameplan, just that it is now because of 11/9 possible. It wasn't prior.
Also;
Japan used suicide bombers/pilots and they targeted US military and civilian targets.:p

Quote from Evil @ngel;348000:
All the oil in Iraq has been forward sold to US companies at discounted yesterdays prices for something like the next 40-50 years. All oil exploration and exploitation of Iraq's only resource will now be conducted solely by US based companies

Bullshit.

"Iraq will award contracts to 41 foreign oil firms in a bid to boost production that could give multinationals a potentially lucrative foothold in huge but underdeveloped oil fields, an official said on Sunday.

"We chose 35 companies of international standard, according to their finances, environment and experience, and we granted them permission to extract oil," oil ministry spokesman Asim Jihad told AFP.

Six other state-owned oil firms from Algeria, Angola, Pakistan, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam will also be awarded extraction deals, Jihad said." - 22 June 2008 (AFP)

At the moment about 6% of the US imported oil comes from Iraq.

Quote:
not the Iraqi owned groups that used to do it after Saddam kicked the US out when he came to power. Is that enough of a 'they get the oil' for you?

Nope.

Before the war Iraq was exporting about 69% of it's oil exports to the US. I don't have this year's figures, but in 2007 they only exported about 16% of their oil to the US.

Going from 69% down to 16% of their oil exports to the US...how does that fit in with the US interfering with Iraq to 'get the oil'?

Quote:
What? what should we do? Ahh I see expect to be criticised. Is that because you are to closed minded to accept that there are some discrepancies between the official story and some of the evidence, as examined by qualified non-government people.

I'm sure there will be discrepencies, holes in the story etc. That doesn't mean I'll just onto the latest conspiracy theory based on speculation and anti-Americanism and incorrect facts.

Quote:
Could lead to someone who wanted it to look like a terrorist suicide bombing. Allowing the US to go to war and the sheep in USA to have a very large part of their civil rights stripped away.

Instead it could be the Russian's who hired Islamic terrorists to hijack those American planes. Why would the Russians sneak a snuke up her snizz? It could be the British Empire is expanding once more, hiring the Russians to use the Muslims to attack the USA to cover the impending British invasion.

God bless the Queen.

Quote:
Including the fact that the Prez can now simply sign a document making him the dictator of the country for essentially as long as he sees fit. NO other people need agree or sign anything. America is no longer a democracy and the power has been taken from the populace, all steps I would take if I wanted to control an entire nation with an eye to the world. Not saying thats the gameplan, just that it is now because of 11/9 possible. It wasn't prior.

Alternatively, a more reasonable explanation is that the methods used before have failed to prevent such a catastrophe, and a country scared that it could happen again is reacting strongly.

But hey, if Bush declares the next elections void and null and decides to hold onto power in January, then you'll have a case (even though any such attempt would see him deposed very quickly). I don't see that happening though.

Quote:
Japan used suicide bombers/pilots and they targeted US military and civilian targets.

Yes, when the Emperor takes control of Japan again, that might be a future threat.

Quote from Evil @ngel;348001:
Could lead to someone who wanted it to look like a terrorist suicide bombing. Allowing the US to go to war and the sheep in USA to have a very large part of their civil rights stripped away. Including the fact that the Prez can now simply sign a document making him the dictator of the country for essentially as long as he sees fit. NO other people need agree or sign anything. America is no longer a democracy and the power has been taken from the populace, all steps I would take if I wanted to control an entire nation with an eye to the world. Not saying thats the gameplan, just that it is now because of 11/9 possible. It wasn't prior.

Gee... that sounds really familiar...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3052896,00.html

Quote from Jaian;347988:
Fair enough. It works both ways though, and at least government sources (ie. Pentagon, FBI, Air trafffic control) are more likely to know the facts than internet bloggers who use secondary sources..

...or just as likely to make sh!t up to suit their agenda??

Every other point you've made has been more than adequately addressed by Evil @ngel...

I thought I'd whip this in while I'm mentioning Nazi's in my argument... :P

"Naturally the common people don't want war... That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

Quote from Jaian;347987:
In other words, even though I've provided the photo you still won't accept it ie. it's pointless discussing it with you. As I said yesterday, conspiracy theorists will always be able to deny any and all evidence short of their own eye-witnessing of the event, and even they can find excuses.

You posted a picture with the same debris!

Quote from rec;348006:
You posted a picture with the same debris!

1. I posted a pic showing debris of the plane which is not seen in the first pic.
2. I even wrote down where that debris is located so there would be no confusion, which you seem to be actively ignoring.
3. You an even see the plane's painted lettering on that debris that isn't in the first pic.

Here are the two pics:

[media]http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/911-flight77-debris.jpg[/media]
[media]http://www.loosechangeguide.com/images/image063.jpg[/media]

The second pic shows in the background, near the wall, a second large piece of aircraft debris with part of a painted letter on it, while the man is holding another similar piece (which could be the one in the first picture).

Here is what you wrote after I posted the first pic:

"I challenge you to find another single photo (yes, just 1) that shows any identifiable airliner debris in the same scene as the Pentagon shortly after the impact. If you can, I'll drop this element of the argument quite happily."

To summarise: the first pic has one major piece of debris identifiable, the second picture has two.

The second picture matches your requirements.
I'm not going to argue this point anymore.

[QUOTE=Jaian;348004]"[i]Iraq will award contracts to [b]41 foreign oil firms[/b] in a bid to boost production that could give multinationals a potentially lucrative foothold in huge but underdeveloped oil fields, an official said on Sunday.[/QUOTE]

Hmmmm... but what's the chance that a few of the top 5 say will be US companies and who knows how many will be American companies amongst the rest?

Let's see here...
[url]http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=upiUPI-20080620-095957-3175&show_article=1[/url]

"The energy firms BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell and Total are close to concluding talks on two-year service contracts to develop natural resources in Iraq."

Let's go through the list...
BP. English.. zero points there. The 100th biggest political donator in the US. Interesting...

Chevron. American. 5th largest energy company on the planet.

ExxonMobil. A US company, and the largest in the world based on profit.

Shell. Headquarters in the UK, but it's US arm is one of it's biggest, if not the biggest of all Shell's subsidiaries.

Total. French. No links to the US on first perusal. Although they're copping a lot of flak dealing with the Burmese junta. *shrugs

Find the list of the 41 foreign oil firms. I'd be interested to see it...

Quote from Jaian;348004:
Bullshit.

"Iraq will award contracts to 41 foreign oil firms in a bid to boost production that could give multinationals a potentially lucrative foothold in huge but underdeveloped oil fields, an official said on Sunday.

"We chose 35 companies of international standard, according to their finances, environment and experience, and we granted them permission to extract oil," oil ministry spokesman Asim Jihad told AFP.

Six other state-owned oil firms from Algeria, Angola, Pakistan, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam will also be awarded extraction deals, Jihad said." - 22 June 2008 (AFP)

At the moment about 6% of the US imported oil comes from Iraq.
So over 75% of the oil contracts going to US companies or companies with strong US interests and ties is not enough to suggest "they got the oil"? To quote you.Quote from Jaian:
Bullshit
Quote from Jaian;348004:

Before the war Iraq was exporting about 69% of it's oil exports to the US. I don't have this year's figures, but in 2007 they only exported about 16% of their oil to the US.

Going from 69% down to 16% of their oil exports to the US...how does that fit in with the US interfering with Iraq to 'get the oil'?
Before the war Iraq was under heavy sanctions and oil exports were much less than they are now. Could it be that 69% of not much is the same or less oil than 16% of craploads.
Quote from Jaian;348004:

Instead it could be the Russian's who hired Islamic terrorists to hijack those American planes. Why would the Russians sneak a snuke up her snizz? It could be the British Empire is expanding once more, hiring the Russians to use the Muslims to attack the USA to cover the impending British invasion.
Yeah it could have been, now you're getting the hang of it.:grin:
The above statement does not reflect reality and is only for entertainment purposes
Quote from Jaian;348004:

But hey, if Bush declares the next elections void and null and decides to hold onto power in January, then you'll have a case (even though any such attempt would see him deposed very quickly). I don't see that happening though.
He would need to do it before the elections and there would need to be a threat to the national security, another event like 11/9 would do it. Admittedly it is very unlikely, but if it were to happen it would be a strong case for the conspiracy buffs, and vice-versa.

quick one for anyone thinking there should've been more dmg to the pentagon:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtFBuJbzjLE[/media]

the pentagon is hardened against the threat of bomb blasts, so I'd say it's a little bit tougher than a standard concrete barrier. Yes I'm aware planes are bigger, faster etc than trucks, but plane wings are a lot flimsier.

unfortunately all the footage of the planes hitting the twin towers has too much smoke and fire to show the holes created by the planes, but I'd assume (initially anyway) they werent much bigger than the pentagon one.

^ That

My theory is Spain stole them - and now they live abroad, sipping pina coladas.

Crazy Spaniards.

[media]http://www.williambert.com/eealbum/eegallery/small/MadridStreet_CRW_3550.jpg[/media]

Quote from Evil @ngel;348021:
So over 75% of the oil contracts going to US companies or companies with strong US interests and ties is not enough to suggest "they got the oil"? To quote you.

Earlier you claimed it was only US based oil companies that were getting the contracts.

I'd like a source for your new figure of 75%

Quote:
Before the war Iraq was under heavy sanctions and oil exports were much less than they are now.

Bullshit.

Iraq was exporting MORE oil before the war than they are now.

"Since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that removed Saddam from power, Iraqi production has mostly hovered between 1.7 million and 2 million barrels per day, according to the International Energy Agency. It's prewar production was 2.58 million barrels per day." - January 2008 (International Herald Tribune)

Since then oil production has increased, but it's still hasn't met up with pre-war oil production figures.

Why make shit like this up when it's so easily verifiable?

Quote:
Could it be that 69% of not much is the same or less oil than 16% of craploads.

No, this is easily refuted by the import figures:

[media]http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/4606/usimportsbd3.gif[/media]

Quote from Jaian;348047:
Earlier you claimed it was only US based oil companies that were getting the contracts.

I'd like a source for your new figure of 75%
Yes and I was acting on the information available before the news item you linked to which was reported at about the same time, possibly after (I can't be arsed doing timezone conversions) I posted. Information that I was unaware of which came to light at the approximate time I posted obviously superseeds the info I had at the time. I willingly stand corrected. Months prior it was widely reported as being the plan and heavily criticised, maybe the condemnation is why they changed tacks? However the 41 companies you mention have not been awarded any contracts to the oil as you stated, they have been awarded the right to try to get the oil contracts. It is still possible that most/all will go to US firms, especially considering the puppet government they have set up there. Apparently end June it will be announced who has actually won the contracts.
Quote from free market news:

Up to 41 foreign oil firms are now qualified to participate in Iraq's coming licensing round for oil and gas contracts, the Iraqi oil ministry said on Sunday.

The 75% comes from the 41 companies minus the 6 from minor countries we know of that probably don't have strong ties or interests in the USA and one from China making about 83% minus some more to account for whatever. Do you think that large multinational conglomerates wouldn't have strong US interests and ties whether or not they are US owned. Remeber I didn't say only US owned butQuote from Evil @ngel;348021:
So over 75% of the oil contracts going to US companies or companies with strong US interests and ties......
Oh and the source is me and your info and maths.
Quote from Jaian;348047:

Iraq was exporting MORE oil before the war than they are now.

"Since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that removed Saddam from power, Iraqi production has mostly hovered between 1.7 million and 2 million barrels per day, according to the International Energy Agency. It's prewar production was 2.58 million barrels per day." - January 2008 (International Herald Tribune)

Since then oil production has increased, but it's still hasn't met up with pre-war oil production figures.
Here:
http://www.metimes.com/Politics/2008/06/22/iraq_to_award_oil_contracts_to_foreign_firms/afp/
It's a little more up to date then your months old info, much as yours was against mine for the above.
It is reported that oil production is running at about 2.5M barrels currently, about the same as prewar. Sorry the 'official' prewar figures. This does not include the truckloads of oil that were illegally trucked out of Iraq, with the blessing of the US. Past a US base to the border, hundreds of oil tanker trucks a day. Wonder were all this oil ended up?

Quote from Jaian;348047:

Why make shit like this up when it's so easily verifiable?

No, this is easily refuted by the import figures:

[media]http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/4606/usimportsbd3.gif[/media]
I haven't made anything up it has all been based of information I have read in the past. Some of it may now be incorrect but I am not making this shit up.
Sorry but those import figures don't tell anything close to the full story, just the official story. Unless you can find figures that include all the smuggled oil (obviously not possible) any figures are just about worthless. Even taking the graph as complete it shows currently about 600k per day, and averaging it out (quick and dirty) across the complete graph comes to about 600-750k per day. Not a real large drop then.
You seem to be a little naive. The official story is rarely the full story, and is usually swayed by someones agenda.

Now getting back on thread I actually agree with you a conspiracy is unlikely but I do still have one cheek on the fence.

Quote from Evil @ngel;348086:
Yes and I was acting on the information available before the news item you linked to which was reported at about the same time, possibly after (I can't be arsed doing timezone conversions) I posted.

Roughly 2 days before you posted. You should know this because the link you posted gives the published date as the 22nd June, whereas you posted yours on the 24th.

Quote:
Information that I was unaware of which came to light at the approximate time I posted obviously superseeds the info I had at the time.

Even if that information was not released, you would still have been wrong.

"Norwegian oil producer DNO ramped up oil production in Iraq in the third quarter" - 15 November 2007 Reuters

"Addax Petroleum and Genel commenced drilling activities by spudding the first jointly operated well (TT-04) in the Taq Taq license area in mid-2006." - Swiss oil company Addax Petroleum

Canadian, Turkish and Swiss (among others) oil companies have been in Iraq drilling for oil since at least last year.

Quote:
It is still possible that most/all will go to US firms, especially considering the puppet government they have set up there.

Anything is possible. It's possible Australia might invade New Zealand.
The evidence so far shows that the Iraqi government is trying to get the best bids from over 40 of the biggest oil companies from around the world.

"Despite claims by some critics that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to take control of its oil, the first contracts with major oil firms from Iraq's new government are likely to go not to U.S. companies, but rather to companies from China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia." - 5 April 2007 CNN

Quote:
The 75% comes from the 41 companies minus the 6 from minor countries we know of that probably don't have strong ties or interests in the USA and one from China making about 83% minus some more to account for whatever.

That didn't answer my question, I'd like a source for your claim of about 75% to ascertain that you did not just make that number up. I haven't seen the list of 41 companies so I can't tell whether at least 30 companies being looked at are American or based in the US.

I would be very interested in seeing where you got this list of companies from, or if you have just made up a number.

Quote:
Wonder were all this oil ended up?

Wonder no longer:

30 percent of the recipients were Russian; 15 percent were French; 10 percent were Chinese; 6 percent each were Swiss, Malaysian, and Syrian; and 4 percent each were Jordanian and Egyptian.

Good to see everyone else jumped in before the Americans could steal the oil.

Quote:
Sorry but those import figures don't tell anything close to the full story, just the official story. Unless you can find figures that include all the smuggled oil (obviously not possible) any figures are just about worthless.

It is possible, thanks to seized documents from the Iraqis following the invasion.

A total of over 111 million barrels of oil worth of vouchers were issued to US individuals and companies during the entire pre-war sanction period.
We'll ignore the fact that a number of those vouchers were never used, and pretend they were.
Let's only use the last 5 years, that would indicate an average of 22.2 million barrels of oil per year were 'smuggled' or approximately 60 thousand barrels of oil per day. Before the war the US was legally importing 800 thousand to 1.2 million barrels (rough figures) per day.

In other words, the smuggled oil has no impact whatsoever to this discussion, but nice try.

Also, if you did want a good look at the figures for 'smuggled oil', here are some figures:

[media]https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/images/ch2_anxB_img01-01.jpg[/media]

^^ That's interesting info, I couldn't be arsed to look properly:oops:

So how about this as support of a conspiracy.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/06/20080626-4.html#

As of 26 June America is now officially in a state of national emergency.
Under a national emergency the Pres can declare martial law, and more importantly under martial law the Pres can suspend elections indefinitely. I believe also no-one except the Pres can suspend martial law??

America is one signature away from becoming a dictatorship.

While it sounds dramatic, it doesn't mean anything...Bush has declared state of emergencies multiple times before eg. for the forest fires in California, for Hurricane Katrina, for the September 11 attacks. Bill Clinton before him also declared multiple state of emergencies during his presidency, as did his predecessor's in the 80's.

None of these state of emergencies in the past 30 or so years have led to any dictatorships, although I suppose in theory Bush can be the first.

I don't see it happening though.

Bush wouldn't survive an attempt at dictatorship. He'd be shot down by the Supreme Court and I doubt that the Joint Chiefs would want to play along.

Mad props to Jaian for keeping up the argument with pesky facts while I was too stupid to realise that GU's URLs had all changed. Again.