Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

9/11 Attacks

Options
1…2728303233…36

Comments

  • Options
    #872
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Lets not get sidetracked into Widgery/Saville.

    Answer my question though, has Saville given rise to any discernible level of disquiet?
    Yes or No? It's very simple.


  • Options
    #873
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    I'm not getting sidetracked.

    You were going to present evidence as to why you disagreed with the OP's contention?
    The entire operation was funded organised and carried out by fanatical fundamentalist Al Qaeda terrorists, and was not supervised or arranged by any western intelligence agency.


  • Options
    #874
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    I'm not getting sidetracked.

    You were going to present evidence as to why you disagreed with the OP's contention?


    And he gets desperater and desperater to avoid the questions that will reveal.:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #875
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    And he gets desperater and desperater to avoid the questions that will reveal.:rolleyes:

    Avoiding the question? Coming from poster who's used any excuse to sidetrack the debate.


  • Options
    #876
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Two evasions.......shock and awe!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #877
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Lets not get sidetracked into Widgery/Saville.

    Read your own posts?


  • Options
    #878
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Lets not get sidetracked into Widgery/Saville.

    Answer my question though, has Saville given rise to any discernible level of disquiet?
    Yes or No? It's very simple.

    Okay, try it this way, why in your opinion, was the Saville Inquiry set up?
    What brought about a Government (previously happy with and vociferiously supportive of the Widgery Report) to instigate a new inquiry?
    And is there any reason for another one, now?


  • Options
    #879
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Lets not get sidetracked into Widgery/Saville.

    Answer my question though, has Saville given rise to any discernible level of disquiet?
    Yes or No? It's very simple.

    Okay, try it this way, why in your opinion, was the Saville Inquiry set up?
    What brought about a Government (previously happy with and vociferiously supportive of the Widgery Report) to instigate a new inquiry?
    And is there any reason for another one, now?

    For starts there were massive issues with the Widgery inquiry from the , Politicians from both North and South, as well as the UK rejected it's foundings, from the get go. Widgery ignored serious evidence, eye witness testimony, and dozens of accounts.

    Now I'm sure you'll try and use this as triumphalism, see if Widgrey was flawed, therefore the 911 Commission could be. New Investigation.

    Apparently the major evidence that you've put forward on this thread is "there was something suspicious about one passport" and "Able Danger didn't testify".

    Thats in no way comparable to ignoring eyewitnesses, and photographic evidence that the army was intentionally murdering civilians


  • Options
    #880
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Di0genes wrote: »
    For starts there were massive issues with the Widgery inquiry from the , Politicians from both North and South, as well as the UK rejected it's foundings, from the get go. Widgery ignored serious evidence, eye witness testimony, and dozens of accounts.

    Now I'm sure you'll try and use this as triumphalism, see if Widgrey was flawed, therefore the 911 Commission could be. New Investigation.

    Apparently the major evidence that you've put forward on this thread is "there was something suspicious about one passport" and "Able Danger didn't testify".

    Thats in no way comparable to ignoring eyewitnesses, and photographic evidence that the army was intentionally murdering civilians

    I think you'll find you answered your own question there, now try answering mine.


  • Options
    #881
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Anybody hear the sound of arguments crumbling or was it a controlled demolition. :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #882
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Anybody hear the sound of arguments crumbling or was it a controlled demolition. :D

    When you have to be your own cheerleader, you're not winning the argument, you just think you are.

    Tell you what lets keep it simple. Please list the top three things you'd like a new 911 Commission to investigate.


  • Options
    #883
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Okay, try it this way, why in your opinion, was the Saville Inquiry set up?

    For a variety of reasons. A big one was a new inquiry in blood sunday was a element during the good friday talks.
    What brought about a Government (previously happy with and vociferiously supportive of the Widgery Report)

    Please show me where the labour party under Tony Blair defended the Widgery Report. In fact considering Blair wasnt even in College when the Widgrey report came out, suggesting that a monolithic government has been in charge and happy with the Widgrey report for three decades is patiently false.
    to instigate a new inquiry?

    The Good Friday agreement.
    And is there any reason for another one, now?

    What? Seriously? What? the F does this have to do with 911?


  • Options
    #884
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Anybody hear the sound of arguments crumbling or was it a controlled demolition. :D

    Yeah - maybe you'd get back to the actual topic at hand.

    Your evidence?


  • Options
    #885
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Di0genes wrote: »
    For a variety of reasons. A big one was a new inquiry in blood sunday was a element during the good friday talks
    .
    And why was that? Did Gerry just wake up one day and say, 'lets ask for a new inquiry?' Was it not because of the years of protest and lobbying by for a new inquiry by the families and others?


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Please show me where the labour party under Tony Blair defended the Widgery Report. In fact considering Blair wasnt even in College when the Widgrey report came out, suggesting that a monolithic government has been in charge and happy with the Widgrey report for three decades is patiently false.
    .

    By not acceding to the requests of the family and others for a new inquiry subsequent goverments including Blair's tacitly approved of Widgery.


    Di0genes wrote: »
    The Good Friday agreement.

    The quest for truth became a disgraceful bargaining chip. No kudos for the British government there.


    Di0genes wrote: »
    What? Seriously? What? the F does this have to do with 911?
    Well you raised it first but since you ask, it has everything to do with my position.
    If you could go the extra mile an answer this bit you might see that
    Why is it that Saville hasn't given rise to any discernible level of disquiet?


  • Options
    #886
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    it has everything to do with my position.

    Utterly devoid of supporting evidence relating to the subject at hand?


  • Options
    #887
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Alastair you have declined to answer, thats you out of the debate.


  • Options
    #888
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    simpsons_nelson_haha2.jpg


  • Options
    #889
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    simpsons_nelson_haha2.jpg

    The Simpsons is it?
    Perish the thought that you would use anything outside of 9-11 to illustrate your point Alastair.


  • Options
    #890
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    .
    And why was that? Did Gerry just wake up one day and say, 'lets ask for a new inquiry?' Was it not because of the years of protest and lobbying by for a new inquiry by the families and others?

    The difference between the the circumstances is that the families of victims of the attacks aren't demanding anew inquiry into 911.

    By not acceding to the requests of the family and others for a new inquiry subsequent goverments including Blair's tacitly approved of Widgery.

    A post ago Blair's government was "vociferously" defending the inquiry, thats dropped to tact approval.


    The quest for truth became a disgraceful bargaining chip. No kudos for the British government there.

    Again what does this have to do with 911?

    Well you raised it first but since you ask, it has everything to do with my position.
    If you could go the extra mile an answer this bit you might see that
    Why is it that Saville hasn't given rise to any discernible level of disquiet?

    No. This is an absurd off topic tangent. Please restrict yourself to the events of 911.


  • Options
    #891
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    The Simpsons is it?
    Perish the thought that you would use anything outside of 9-11 to illustrate your point Alastair.

    Why the Simpsons is more topical to 911 than you think

    18simpsons911.jpg

    But for ****s and giggles, what is your point happyman?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #892
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Di0genes wrote: »



    No. This is an absurd off topic tangent. Please restrict yourself to the events of 911.

    And it was looking so hopeful there for a while.
    The rest of your post was semantics.


  • Options
    #893
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Why the Simpsons is more topical to 911 than you think

    18simpsons911.jpg

    That's not topical that's a cheap joke.


  • Options
    #894
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    And it was looking so hopeful there for a while.
    The rest of your post was semantics.

    Asking you to explain the connection between Bloody Sunday and 9/11 isn't semantics.


  • Options
    #895
    The Recliner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,630 ✭✭✭The Recliner


    Lads less of the pics and more discussion please


  • Options
    #896
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Asking you to explain the connection between Bloody Sunday and 9/11 isn't semantics.

    This is getting painful.
    When did I make that connection between Bloody Sunday and 9-11?

    I asked you
    'Why hasn't the Saville Report given rise to any discernible level of disquiet'


    I have said it all along that I and others have issues with the Commission Report, my question is pertinent as I am trying to demonstrate that Inquiries (properly conducted) can get to the truth. You are evading the only answer to my question because you know what it means to your argument.
    I'm not sure who you think you are codding here as I'm new to CT, but you aren't codding me.
    So answers please or we are done with this and folk can draw their own conclusions.


  • Options
    #897
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    This is getting painful.
    When did I make that connection between Bloody Sunday and 9-11?

    I asked you
    'Why hasn't the Saville Report given rise to any discernible level of disquiet'


    I have said it all along that I and others have issues with the Commission Report, my question is pertinent as I am trying to demonstrate that Inquiries (properly conducted) can get to the truth. You are evading the only answer to my question because you know what it means to your argument.
    I'm not sure who you think you are codding here as I'm new to CT, but you aren't codding me.
    So answers please or we are done with this and folk can draw their own conclusions.

    This isn't the issue. Inquires can work and do work. This thread is about 9/11. One of the arguments I've put forward is the 9/11 Commission report. You're now arguing that the Saville Inquiry is a good report. No one is disputing the fact. However you've not put forward any compelling reason as to why the 9/11 commission report is flawed and requires a new investigation.

    If you're going to keep bull****ing on about Saville find another thread for it.


  • Options
    #898
    Soveriegn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Soveriegn


    Di0genes wrote: »
    This isn't the issue. Inquires can work and do work. This thread is about 9/11. One of the arguments I've put forward is the 9/11 Commission report. You're now arguing that the Saville Inquiry is a good report. No one is disputing the fact. However you've not put forward any compelling reason as to why the 9/11 commission report is flawed and requires a new investigation.

    If you're going to keep bull****ing on about Saville find another thread for it.


    Here is the reason, I have posted it before, of course you are choosing to ignore it.

    Stop going on about the stupid failed commission report !!!! :mad:
    The commission members were appointed by George W. Bush as well as Congress, which led to the criticism that it was not a commission truly independent from the U.S. government whose actions it was supposed to review. The commission stated in its report that "[their] aim has not been to assign individual blame," a judgment which some critics believed would obscure the facts of the matter in a nod to consensus politics.
    In addition, commissioners believed that key agencies of the U.S. government, including The Pentagon, the FAA and NORAD were deliberately deceiving them,[15] and that the CIA was deliberately impeding the work of the commission.[16] On the whole, the chairmen of the commission believed the commission was set up to fail.[14]


  • Options
    #899
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Di0genes wrote: »

    The entire operation was funded organised and carried out by fanatical fundamentalist Al Qaeda terrorists, and was not supervised or arranged by any western intelligence agency.

    Again.....I disagree with the statement above because the latter hallf of that statement has not been properly investigated and therefore is not proven.

    You're attempts to take the ball home when somebody has you in a corner is getting boring as I'm sure others will agree.
    There are a few posters here who can accept things, you just evade direct questions which is kinda useless in furthering a debate.

    Do you have any idea what the below adds to the thread, coz I don't
    Di0genes wrote: »
    This thread is about 9/11. One of the arguments I've put forward is the 9/11 Commission report.


  • Options
    #900
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Soveriegn wrote: »
    Here is the reason, I have posted it before, of course you are choosing to ignore it.

    Stop going on about the stupid failed commission report !!!! :mad:


    Failed do you even know what Hamiltion's position on the 911 Commission Report was

    The 9/11 Commission was created by statute. We had two responsibilities - first, tell the story of 9/11; I think we've done that reasonably well. We worked very hard at it; I don’t know that we’ve told the definitive story of 9/11, but surely anybody in the future who tackles that job will begin with the 9/11 Commission Report. I think we’ve been reasonably successful in telling the story. It became a best seller in this country and people showed a lot of interest in it.

    Reasonably Well does not sound like a failure.

    Our second task was to make recommendations; thus far, about half of our recommendations have been enacted into law, the other half have not been enacted. So we've got a ways to go. In a quantitative sense, we’ve had about 50% success there. In a qualitative sense, you could judge it many different ways. But we still have some very important recommendations that we think have not yet been enacted that should be.
    [/QUOTE]



    http://web.archive.org/web/20070108233707/http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html





    And this is for Happyman


    Hamilton wrote:
    When you conduct a major investigation, you cannot possibly answer every question, you just do the best you can. But for every question you leave unanswered, you create an opening to a conspiracy theory, and a good many of them have popped up here.



    The only thing I ask in the future is that the conspiracy theory people do not apply a double standard. That is to say, they want us to make an airtight case for any assertion we make. On the other hand, when they make an assertion they do it often on very flimsy evidence.


    But conspirators are always going to exist in this country. Tom Kean and I got a flavour of this everytime we'd walk through an audience - they would hand us notes, hand us papers, hand us books, hand us tapes, telling us to investigate this, that or the other. You cannot possibly answer all these questions, you just do the best you can.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #901
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Again.....I disagree with the statement above because the latter hallf of that statement has not been properly investigated and therefore is not proven.

    Unfortunately you've not shown what exactly the 9/11 commission didn't cover.
    You're attempts to take the ball home when somebody has you in a corner is getting boring as I'm sure others will agree.
    There are a few posters here who can accept things, you just evade direct questions which is kinda useless in furthering a debate.

    You might be asking direct questions but you're asking direct questions about something irrelevant to the discussion.
    Do you have any idea what the below adds to the thread, coz I don't

    Can you explain what two pages of bull**** about the Saville inquiry adds to debate about 911?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement