9/11 what really happened?

Originally Posted by Spiderman

C'mon Lyn, please dont lower the tone of what so far has been a calm and sensible discussion. Why is the above "twaddle" to you?

Because none of it has any factual basis that can be verified. And all of it springs from sources as equally biased against the governments as they accuse the media is for being biased for the governments. I've yet to see anything from a conspiracy theory website that has any actual factual basis.

To give you an example on theorist on visordown would not believe the many people who said it rained on July 7th last year. He got the weather from an internet site that said it was sunny and dry so decided that the government were covering something up and hosing down the pavements. No amount of pointing out from 50 people who said it rained could disuade him.

And dont get me started about his conspiracy of the number 30 bus bomb. He wouldnt accept that with Kings Cross closed all buses from Euston were diverted down Tavistock Rd. Oh no, despite people saying to the contrary it was only that bus and was sent that way by the government. You may also start to understand why I have little patience with most conspiracy theorists. Because no matter how much you point out the truth, which can be verified factually they would rather take the unfactual, anti government view.

The fact is the conspiracy theory "facts" are often no more than hearsay or rumour and very little can actually be proven. People happily cut an paste this stuff without stopping to question what theyre reading anywhere near as much as they question the government line.

My pov is that neither are correct. That the truth is often the first casualty or war or terrorism, but the government are neither the persecuted saints they portray, neither the persecuting evil devils the conspiracy theorists would believe.

The moment some actual hard evidence surfaces, Ill happily change my viewpoint. Until then, I will question the conspiracy theorist as much as I question everything else.

End of the day, you believe what you WANT to believe even if not one person can provide a shred of evidence. In 30 years time when the National Archive release the documents for the public record, even if all the FCO/Cabinet Office papers support the "official" version the conspiracy theorists will just accuse them of being edited.

Originally Posted by Spiderman

The IRA have a history that dates back a very long time, some would say to 1916s Easter Rising and have always had one goal, an Independant Ireland free from colonial rule of the Brits. They also took responsibilty for their actions in statments under their name. And were deeply infiltrated by the brit intellegence services. they had a clear rank and file approach like that of an army. Quite a diffrent matter to what Al-Qaeda is, no?

Al-Qaead only really came about after 9/11 as an entity to blame. Hostility towards the west from the Arab countries has been there for a long time too, under various names but this "catch-all" name suited the purpose of the fanatics in the bush camp and allowed them to never have their focus on one target. Any target they wanted to add as being part of Al-Qaeda only made the organisation more credible to the media and the masses.

Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Quaeda for starters as a good summary. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3618762.stm for further reading.
Just because Al Qaeda is a loose network and not a formal structure as the IRA is doesnt mean it doesnt exist. And you fundamentally have forgotten that Bin Ladens group which is generally accepted as being Al Qaeda have been on a bombing campaign since the late 80s. After all, the 9/11 attack on the WTC was their SECOND attack on the buildings following a bomb in 1993.

Originally Posted by Spiderman

As for you conspiracy theory stuff, i dont wanna lead you in the wrong direction and get acused of one sidedness so do a search for Odigo and Amdocs. Some results will be to your liking as they attempt to knock the fact, others you wont like cos the rest of the page is full of anit Israeli stuff.
Fact remains that Odigo did send messages warning of the attacks hours before they happened. Nothing you can say or find will change that fact. Someone knew and told select people. Fact.

All the searches come back to conspiracy theory/anti US/Israel sites. Not exactly a source I would say is unbiased or factual.

You say its fact at the end. Go ahead and prove that without using any form of hearsay or rumour from a clearly biased site. :P

Even if I remotely conceed a possibility its true what exactly does it tell us?
To a conspiracy theorist it equals US involvement and knowledge.
To me, it just means some poor sod in the CIA fecked up and didnt take Mossad supplied intelligence seriously or act upon it or pass it on to the people who could act upon it. Seriously between the two which is more probable?

Originally Posted by Spiderman

Also to this day Bin Laden has not taken responsibilty for the attacks. All he has ever said is he was pleased it happened and praised those that did it. And i'm sure if he or his crew had misterminded the entire operation they would be advertising that fact till they were blue in the face.

Not necessarily. Unless youre admitting to being a terrorist and truly understanding how their cells work. :P While I take the point a number of bombings have been attributed to them which may not have been their work, there has been plenty of info on Al jazeera to happily gloat on a number of bombings which is probably where the US government got the idea it was them.

Haven't had time to watch the clip yet...... but there are alot of unanswered questions from 9/11.

[Spiderman]

Originally Posted by akbarhussain

Haven't had time to watch the clip yet...... but there are alot of unanswered questions from 9/11.

Its about 1hr 20mins so a little longer than a "clip" but i'm sure you'll find a lot of intrest in their.


Lyn....

All the searches come back to conspiracy theory/anti US/Israel sites. Not exactly a source I would say is unbiased or factual.

You say its fact at the end. Go ahead and prove that without using any form of hearsay or rumour from a clearly biased site.

if you bothered to read any of these sites you came across you would have found this...Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two workers received the messages and immediately after the terror attack informed the company's management, which immediately contacted the Israeli security services, which brought in the FBI.

"I have no idea why the message was sent to these two workers, who don't know the sender. It may just have been someone who was joking and turned out they accidentally got it right. And I don't know if our information was useful in any of the arrests the FBI has made," said Macover.

or

Two weeks after 9/11, Alex Diamandis, Odigo's vice president, reportedly said, "It was possible that the attack warning was broadcast to other Odigo members, but the company has not received reports of other recipients of the message."

The Internet address of the sender was given to the FBI, and two months later it was reported that the FBI was still investigating the matter. There have been no media reports since.

So confirmation from CEOs or VPs of the company mean nothing to you?

As for your comment of

While I take the point a number of bombings have been attributed to them which may not have been their work, there has been plenty of info on Al jazeera to happily gloat on a number of bombings which is probably where the US government got the idea it was them.

On the day this happened i remember many South American countries' peoples dancing and cheering in the streets. They waved banners and burned american flags. So by this definition it could have been them too, yeh?

I'm sorry Lyn, but i feel at this point that you dont want to look at anything other than what you "know" and anything that you dont agree with is from a "biased/ conspracy theory site". Mainstream media dont print or show the facts as others see or know them yet you want me to find a mainstream media source so that you'd believe it???

Anyway, please dont waste your time posting on this one for my benefit anymore as i find this comment deeply offensive....

Unless youre admitting to being a terrorist and truly understanding how their cells work.

You see, this is why we shouldn't have these types of post on this forum....

It does nothing to add to the community, just drives a wedge between people. It's completely pointless on a bike forum and those that start the threads should know better.

.

Originally Posted by Jelster

You see, this is why we shouldn't have these types of post on this forum....

It does nothing to add to the community, just drives a wedge between people. It's completely pointless on a bike forum and those that start the threads should know better.

.

Your posts with akbar and GYKD have hardly been condusive to the forum or harmonious or constructive. You knew full well your replies would wind GYKD up yet you still made them. Tbh, I cant think of a bigger wedge recently than you and GYKD.

And how was the "you will do as I say" thread you put up in the Soho massive adding to the community? IIRC it pretty much got peoples backs up with your arbitary dictate of what we should or shouldnt do. I seem to recall that creating a bit of a wedge in the soho forum then.

End of the day, if you dont like whats discussed in IB, dont come in the forum. IB is NOT a bike forum its the general topics for discussion. If you want to talk bikes you have all the other forums to do that in.

Quite simply, if you dont like it, dont read it and dont reply to it. Besides, you arent aware of whats being said by PM so are hardly in a position to actually judge whether there really is a wedge.

End of the day, its the internet. Things get misinterpreted and misunderstood - it happens to us all. But to start on about unconstructive posts and driving wedges - youve not exactly done the opposite of your complaint recently either.

Originally Posted by lynw

IB is NOT a bike forum its the general topics for discussion. If you want to talk bikes you have all the other forums to do that in.

Quite simply, if you dont like it, dont read it and dont reply to it.

Well said! I know a lot of guys in Combat 18 and The National Front and I've said that the free-ness of this site is a perfect place for them to air their views.

[fizzwheel]

Originally Posted by M.Ockx

I know a lot of guys in Combat 18 and The National Front and I've said that the free-ness of this site is a perfect place for them to air their views.

WTF

No its not. Any of that b*ll*cks on here and you'll get your thread / post deleted as quick as.

Originally Posted by lynw

Your posts with akbar and GYKD have hardly been condusive to the forum or harmonious or constructive. You knew full well your replies would wind GYKD up yet you still made them. Tbh, I cant think of a bigger wedge recently than you and GYKD.

And how was the "you will do as I say" thread you put up in the Soho massive adding to the community? IIRC it pretty much got peoples backs up with your arbitary dictate of what we should or shouldnt do. I seem to recall that creating a bit of a wedge in the soho forum then.

End of the day, if you dont like whats discussed in IB, dont come in the forum. IB is NOT a bike forum its the general topics for discussion. If you want to talk bikes you have all the other forums to do that in.

Quite simply, if you dont like it, dont read it and dont reply to it. Besides, you arent aware of whats being said by PM so are hardly in a position to actually judge whether there really is a wedge.

End of the day, its the internet. Things get misinterpreted and misunderstood - it happens to us all. But to start on about unconstructive posts and driving wedges - youve not exactly done the opposite of your complaint recently either.

Actually Lynn, I was aked to read it by another forum member who said they felt that it was going down the same route. Funny that you mention 2 forum members, 1 who has been banned and the other who has had a stern talking to as well, so maybe I'm not the only one who feels this way but I'm just the type to tell you what I think (and don't worry about what others think either).

I stand by what I said: In my opinion this type of post has no place on this forum, but I don't make the rules.

M.Ockx, please remember that why there maybe a certain level of "freedom of speech" on this forum, sv650.org is not a democracy and those that have the power will turn off that "freedom" if they feel it goes to far.

Lyn, you have your views, I have mine. Please don't tell me what to read, and if I don't like what I read I'm free to comment, whether you like it or not. Sorry if that upsets you but that's life.

.

Seen all the conspiracy videos.

What I don't understand is:

Supposedly these where commercial airlines/flights. So there were loads of people on that plane. Therefore the terrorists where hugely outnumbered.

Now regardless of what weapon exactly they had - 1 person can't fight off 20 people at a time. Not even if he has a Handgun. (Beretta they have maximum 22 rounds)

When you are in a life death situation your basic instincts kick in - the urge to live.

People knew that the plane has been hijacked - WHY DID NOBODY ON THE PLANE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT????

Originally Posted by fizzwheel

WTF

No its not. Any of that b*ll*cks on here and you'll get your thread / post deleted as quick as.

Originally Posted by Jelster

M.Ockx, please remember that why there maybe a certain level of "freedom of speech" on this forum, sv650.org is not a democracy and those that have the power will turn off that "freedom" if they feel it goes to far.

Oh, thanks for that guys....as the new boy here, when I was supporting Lynn's ideas of free speech I wasn't quite sure of the rules. So, if I have this right: you can get away with loads of anti-American, anti-Israeli stuff and pro-Arab stuff, but if it strays into the pro-British area, it gets wiped, right?

I'll probably stick to biking things, but just for my info, what's the official line on Anarchy - is that OK?