hibs.net Messageboard

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 241 to 251 of 251
  1. #241
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozymandias View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Im sure there are more where that came from. Ths issue for you is that they don't actually support your position.

    Your point that we're all blind and that until we see exactly what you see is a tad arrogant, I'd suggest.

    Incidentally, what do you actually believe did happen on 9/11?
    I don't believe what we have been told is anywhere near the truth. And I think that anyone who has examined the evidence (from all sides) and does needs their bumps felt. You think that makes me arrogant? Well I'd say I'm a damn sight less arrogant than those who would brand me a tin hat merchant for taking an interest.

    What seems likely to me is the following:
    • Steps were taken from senior agents inside the US Government (likely Chenney) to ensure that insufficient interceptors would be available amid a confusing airspace (including a mock up hijack exercise) to interfere with the event
    • The aircraft (and yes I do believe there were aircraft) which struck the twin towers were not the ones we have been told - the telltale sign being a mystery attachment to the underside of the aircraft. A retired American Airlines pilot who flew the actual (alleged) second plane has verified this on tape and the engine mismatch (see my post above) backs him up - it seems likely they were some kind of drone.
    • There were also explosives involved in the demolition of WTC 1, 2 & 7 - their freefall collapse into their own footprints stretching from extremely unlikely to downright impossible without the input of a highly professional team and hi-tech explosives in the opinion of the majority of architects and demolition experts I've seen interviewed on the matter. This tallies perfectly with multiple expert eye witness accounts (ie the Fire Fighters) not to mention the widely available video evidence.
    • Whatever impacted the Pentagon was not an airliner piloted by some kind of enthusiastic amatuer - the manouvres carried out are just too extreme - and too perfect! - and the hiding of video evidence which would support this claim does nothing to discourage my disbelief.


    The implications of the above are enormous and I'm not surprised that people find it very hard to swallow - I know I did for a long time. But the more I've looked the more ridiculous the official account has become to any standard of reasoning, and the more convinced I've become that there was at least collaboration from within if not the staging of the whole thing - so yes - an inside job!


  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #242
    @hibs.net private member Just Alf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The 'Mains
    Posts
    2,775
    Quote Originally Posted by basehibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Supposed to be back on the man-tits alliance now but - 9/11 was definitely the result of a conspiracy - of that there is no argument. The bone of contention is who were the conspirators. Also, the story we are routinely fed is so full of holes as to be a laughing stock and if you don't know that already then you should really do some research - even a cursory glance at the info I've posted already should give you some idea of this but comes nowhere close to covering all the ground.

    Given that the main proponents of this story were George W Bush's government - the core of which hailed from a far right organisation called the "Project for a New American Century" who's tenets called for "full spectrum dominance" of the world by the USA accompanied by "regime change" in multiple nations - and who also stated that a "New Pearl Harbour" event would likely be necessary to prepare US public opinion to allow this to happen. Also given the $3.5 Trillion that was found to have disappeared from the Pentagon budget shortly before 911 and the fact that the investigation into this and it's data were destroyed by the twin strikes on the Pentagon and WTC7 - well you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to start pointing the big finger of suspicion at George W Bush (and family), Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wofowitz and their PNAC associates.

    If you add to this the complicity of Cheney and Rumsfeld in ensuring no interceptors could get in the way, the refusal after 16 years plus of the US authorities to release evidence that could shut all us skeptics up straight away (ie video footage from around the Pentagon and within the airport) then it's little wonder that questions are still being asked and so they should be. To be exact, my suspicions are upon ELEMENTS of the then US government and their associates. However, the actions of subsequent administrations would suggest that they know damn fine well what happened but do not believe it's in their interests to come clean.
    BH... Quick question... The bit about the BBC reporting a collapse before it happened.

    I was interested in all this stuff a while back and this was disproved. Essentially the reporter was given an update into their ear mike while on air and misheard what was said. In the program they pulled up the recordings to show what happened.

    So if this single item has been disproved is there not a possibility that other areas may be suspect as well?.... Possibly?



    Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
    "The word "genius" isn't applicable in football. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."
    --Joe Theisman, NFL football quarterback & sports analyst.

  4. #243
    Old enough to know better. Stupid enough to do it anyway. Mr White's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by basehibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The aircraft (and yes I do believe there were aircraft) which struck the twin towers were not the ones we have been told - the telltale sign being a mystery attachment to the underside of the aircraft. A retired American Airlines pilot who flew the actual (alleged) second plane has verified this on tape and the engine mismatch (see my post above) backs him up - it seems likely they were some kind of drone.
    What do you think happened to the passengers on those flights then?

  5. #244
    @hibs.net private member Just Alf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The 'Mains
    Posts
    2,775
    Re the mystery attachment to the underside of one of the planes....

    Here's the response.

    One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in*New York*magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of imagesóthe pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."


    Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
    "The word "genius" isn't applicable in football. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."
    --Joe Theisman, NFL football quarterback & sports analyst.

  6. #245
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by basehibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't believe what we have been told is anywhere near the truth. And I think that anyone who has examined the evidence (from all sides) and does needs their bumps felt. You think that makes me arrogant? Well I'd say I'm a damn sight less arrogant than those who would brand me a tin hat merchant for taking an interest.

    What seems likely to me is the following:
    • Steps were taken from senior agents inside the US Government (likely Chenney) to ensure that insufficient interceptors would be available amid a confusing airspace (including a mock up hijack exercise) to interfere with the event
    • The aircraft (and yes I do believe there were aircraft) which struck the twin towers were not the ones we have been told - the telltale sign being a mystery attachment to the underside of the aircraft. A retired American Airlines pilot who flew the actual (alleged) second plane has verified this on tape and the engine mismatch (see my post above) backs him up - it seems likely they were some kind of drone.
    • There were also explosives involved in the demolition of WTC 1, 2 & 7 - their freefall collapse into their own footprints stretching from extremely unlikely to downright impossible without the input of a highly professional team and hi-tech explosives in the opinion of the majority of architects and demolition experts I've seen interviewed on the matter. This tallies perfectly with multiple expert eye witness accounts (ie the Fire Fighters) not to mention the widely available video evidence.
    • Whatever impacted the Pentagon was not an airliner piloted by some kind of enthusiastic amatuer - the manouvres carried out are just too extreme - and too perfect! - and the hiding of video evidence which would support this claim does nothing to discourage my disbelief.


    The implications of the above are enormous and I'm not surprised that people find it very hard to swallow - I know I did for a long time. But the more I've looked the more ridiculous the official account has become to any standard of reasoning, and the more convinced I've become that there was at least collaboration from within if not the staging of the whole thing - so yes - an inside job!
    To be fair, Iíve always wondered about the Pentagon part more than the other theories, Iíve been in and around the area before and it seems pretty impossible how an aircraft could hit it where it did, the building itself is at the bottom of a hill and a freeway overlooks it too!

  7. #246
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    36
    Posts
    3,108
    Quote Originally Posted by basehibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Supposed to be back on the man-tits alliance now but - 9/11 was definitely the result of a conspiracy - of that there is no argument. The bone of contention is who were the conspirators. Also, the story we are routinely fed is so full of holes as to be a laughing stock and if you don't know that already then you should really do some research - even a cursory glance at the info I've posted already should give you some idea of this but comes nowhere close to covering all the ground.

    Given that the main proponents of this story were George W Bush's government - the core of which hailed from a far right organisation called the "Project for a New American Century" who's tenets called for "full spectrum dominance" of the world by the USA accompanied by "regime change" in multiple nations - and who also stated that a "New Pearl Harbour" event would likely be necessary to prepare US public opinion to allow this to happen. Also given the $3.5 Trillion that was found to have disappeared from the Pentagon budget shortly before 911 and the fact that the investigation into this and it's data were destroyed by the twin strikes on the Pentagon and WTC7 - well you don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to start pointing the big finger of suspicion at George W Bush (and family), Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wofowitz and their PNAC associates.

    If you add to this the complicity of Cheney and Rumsfeld in ensuring no interceptors could get in the way, the refusal after 16 years plus of the US authorities to release evidence that could shut all us skeptics up straight away (ie video footage from around the Pentagon and within the airport) then it's little wonder that questions are still being asked and so they should be. To be exact, my suspicions are upon ELEMENTS of the then US government and their associates. However, the actions of subsequent administrations would suggest that they know damn fine well what happened but do not believe it's in their interests to come clean.
    3.5 trn dollars for some arabs to fly a plane? Sounds expensive.

    Ok, was just clarifying. There are a lot of illogical leaps in your reasoning - even if all you say above is true, which i doubt it is.

    I take your point about the conspiracy, but it seems quite clear it was perpetrated by al qaida, and the gang.

    Im not saying i dont believe the US govt are capable of some dubious shenanigans, god knows they habe done plenty. But to commit such as act of self-harm, all to create a pretext to invade afghanistan? Seems far fetched.

    Tge other thing ive always found funny, is that if they were capable of perpetrating such a cover up involving thousands of co-conspirators, all of whom were prepared to take part in the mass murder of thousands of fellow american (a fairly big if, im sure you will agree), how come they couldnt come up with a more water tight pretext for invading iraq, where they couldnt even manage to plant some gas canisters.

    I habe no doubt that there are bits of 9/11 that we dont know about, or habe been hushed-up - sub-standard building standards in NY skyscrapers, multiple, multiple failures of intelliegence and law enforcement, terrible responses from numerous agencies etc etc. But to then leap from that to suggest that the US govt purposely did it is mental.

    And the whole 'false flag' theory doesnt make sense either - if thw US govt wanted/needed a falae flag attack to justify their military expansion (another enormous if) there are any numver of sceanrios that they could have perpetrated that would have done the job that wouldnt have involved murdering thousands of citizens, crashing their economy and embarrasing all of their agencies and actually flying a plane into their own defence ministry! The US has invaded numerous countries before and since on far flimsier pretexts. It makes no sense.

    For example the gulf of tonkin incident involved a confrontatiob between some boats - even their entry to ww2 (if you believe they did know about) was after a sneak attack on a naval base thousands of miles from the US mainland, from where they had evacuated their pacific fleet (or most of it).

    It makes no sense on so many levels - practically more or less impossible, unnecessary for the supposed aim you think it was trying to achieve - and that is if you accept the premise that the US govt (not just Bush and Cheney et al, wlbut the thousands of civil servants and spooks you would need to involve), with the collusion of the financial world, israel, the media (US and foreign) not to mention the hundreds of contractors and workers who would have had to be involved) would even habe wanted to attack their most important financiL sentre and city, crash their airlinr industry and kill thousands of their own citizens.

  8. #247
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    36
    Posts
    3,108
    Quote Originally Posted by basehibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't believe what we have been told is anywhere near the truth. And I think that anyone who has examined the evidence (from all sides) and does needs their bumps felt. You think that makes me arrogant? Well I'd say I'm a damn sight less arrogant than those who would brand me a tin hat merchant for taking an interest.

    What seems likely to me is the following:
    • Steps were taken from senior agents inside the US Government (likely Chenney) to ensure that insufficient interceptors would be available amid a confusing airspace (including a mock up hijack exercise) to interfere with the event
    • The aircraft (and yes I do believe there were aircraft) which struck the twin towers were not the ones we have been told - the telltale sign being a mystery attachment to the underside of the aircraft. A retired American Airlines pilot who flew the actual (alleged) second plane has verified this on tape and the engine mismatch (see my post above) backs him up - it seems likely they were some kind of drone.
    • There were also explosives involved in the demolition of WTC 1, 2 & 7 - their freefall collapse into their own footprints stretching from extremely unlikely to downright impossible without the input of a highly professional team and hi-tech explosives in the opinion of the majority of architects and demolition experts I've seen interviewed on the matter. This tallies perfectly with multiple expert eye witness accounts (ie the Fire Fighters) not to mention the widely available video evidence.
    • Whatever impacted the Pentagon was not an airliner piloted by some kind of enthusiastic amatuer - the manouvres carried out are just too extreme - and too perfect! - and the hiding of video evidence which would support this claim does nothing to discourage my disbelief.


    The implications of the above are enormous and I'm not surprised that people find it very hard to swallow - I know I did for a long time. But the more I've looked the more ridiculous the official account has become to any standard of reasoning, and the more convinced I've become that there was at least collaboration from within if not the staging of the whole thing - so yes - an inside job!
    If you believe there were explosives used, you meed to add in a few dozen (possibly a few hundred) facilities amd maintainenace workers across four buildings, demolition experts, and the NYFD who obviously hid the evidence of explosives from the rubble.

    This is a helluva big conspiracy.

  9. #248
    Coaching Staff Iain G's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    London
    Age
    40
    Posts
    9,223
    Quote Originally Posted by basehibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't believe what we have been told is anywhere near the truth. And I think that anyone who has examined the evidence (from all sides) and does needs their bumps felt. You think that makes me arrogant? Well I'd say I'm a damn sight less arrogant than those who would brand me a tin hat merchant for taking an interest.

    What seems likely to me is the following:
    • Steps were taken from senior agents inside the US Government (likely Chenney) to ensure that insufficient interceptors would be available amid a confusing airspace (including a mock up hijack exercise) to interfere with the event
    • The aircraft (and yes I do believe there were aircraft) which struck the twin towers were not the ones we have been told - the telltale sign being a mystery attachment to the underside of the aircraft. A retired American Airlines pilot who flew the actual (alleged) second plane has verified this on tape and the engine mismatch (see my post above) backs him up - it seems likely they were some kind of drone.
    • There were also explosives involved in the demolition of WTC 1, 2 & 7 - their freefall collapse into their own footprints stretching from extremely unlikely to downright impossible without the input of a highly professional team and hi-tech explosives in the opinion of the majority of architects and demolition experts I've seen interviewed on the matter. This tallies perfectly with multiple expert eye witness accounts (ie the Fire Fighters) not to mention the widely available video evidence.
    • Whatever impacted the Pentagon was not an airliner piloted by some kind of enthusiastic amatuer - the manouvres carried out are just too extreme - and too perfect! - and the hiding of video evidence which would support this claim does nothing to discourage my disbelief.


    The implications of the above are enormous and I'm not surprised that people find it very hard to swallow - I know I did for a long time. But the more I've looked the more ridiculous the official account has become to any standard of reasoning, and the more convinced I've become that there was at least collaboration from within if not the staging of the whole thing - so yes - an inside job!
    I think most people with some level of pilot training could manage to point a plane at the twin towers / the pentagon and hit the target?!

    As noted in another post, any cover up is more likely about why the twin towers were not structurally design / properly built to accommodate such an event as this. Ar$e covering exercise by authorities is more likely!

    If the central core was damaged to a great extent and the secondary structure was weakened due to the excessive heat of the fire (not to mention having a whopping great jet plane sticking into the building!) then a collapse straight down into it's footprint is not unimaginable, it collapsed / pancaked.

    Have a look at the CTV building in Christchurch that collapse on itself during the earthquakes for example. Am sure someone with a level of structural engineering knowledge plotting an attack could look at the design of the WTC and note that this could happen given enough damage where the building can no longer support it's own weight.

  10. #249
    First Team Breakthrough
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by basehibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't believe what we have been told is anywhere near the truth. And I think that anyone who has examined the evidence (from all sides) and does needs their bumps felt. You think that makes me arrogant? Well I'd say I'm a damn sight less arrogant than those who would brand me a tin hat merchant for taking an interest.
    I didn't brand you a tin hat merchant for taking an interest. I think it is a gentle poke term for those who, having looked at the evidence, decide to believe the inside job view. But that's my opinion. If you're going to be enraged, be enraged at something I've actually said.

    Quote Originally Posted by basehibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Steps were taken from senior agents inside the US Government (likely Chenney) to ensure that insufficient interceptors would be available amid a confusing airspace (including a mock up hijack exercise) to interfere with the event
    Simply not true. Cheney was in charge of what could be termed "National Preparedness", which focused at the times on WMD's. there is no evidence I can see where he had specific control of NORAD, or that there were nay different protocols in place on 9/11 compared to any other day

    Quote Originally Posted by basehibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The aircraft (and yes I do believe there were aircraft) which struck the twin towers were not the ones we have been told - the telltale sign being a mystery attachment to the underside of the aircraft. A retired American Airlines pilot who flew the actual (alleged) second plane has verified this on tape and the engine mismatch (see my post above) backs him up - it seems likely they were some kind of drone.
    The Director of the Space Photography Laboratory at University of Arizona wpuld beg to differ re the attachment of a pod. In somewhat uncompromising terms at that... Given the literally thousands of cameras pointed at the WTC after the first impact, and therefore the myriad of images of the second one, one might assume that there would be indisputable, uncontollable-by-the-government images backing the claim. There isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by basehibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There were also explosives involved in the demolition of WTC 1, 2 & 7 - their freefall collapse into their own footprints stretching from extremely unlikely to downright impossible without the input of a highly professional team and hi-tech explosives in the opinion of the majority of architects and demolition experts I've seen interviewed on the matter. This tallies perfectly with multiple expert eye witness accounts (ie the Fire Fighters) not to mention the widely available video evidence.
    I would invite you to go and read the full transcripts of the testimony of the firefighters. I'm assuming you refer predominantly to Gregory and Evangelista? If its others please let me know. The full transcripts do not support your assumptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by basehibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Whatever impacted the Pentagon was not an airliner piloted by some kind of enthusiastic amatuer - the manouvres carried out are just too extreme - and too perfect! - and the hiding of video evidence which would support this claim does nothing to discourage my disbelief.
    You seem to hold lot of store by eye-witness accounts. I found this one. Maybe you could tell me why this one isn't of the same value as others:


    Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "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?"
    Last edited by Ozymandias; 15-11-2017 at 07:13 PM.

  11. #250
    @hibs.net private member RIP's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    6,608
    So back to the Football Lads Alliance.

    Sounds like they shat it?
    Working for a Scottish Labour Government in an Independent Scotland

    https://www.facebook.com/labourforindependence/

  12. #251
    Coaching Staff hibsbollah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    46
    Posts
    17,404
    Quote Originally Posted by RIP View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So back to the Football Lads Alliance.

    Sounds like they shat it?
    Like Levein in 86.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
hibs.net ©2012 All Rights Reserved