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

911 conspiracy theorists. What would convince you 911 WASNT a inside job

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Witness retracts uncomfortable statements after FBI harrasment :eek:

    Here is more evidence of these crazy unfundementalist "fundamentalists"
    Can you explain what this entails for the conspiracy theory?
    Did the conspirators just pick these guys randomly without background checks or covering up stuff like this?


  • Options
    #63
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    Can you explain what this entails for the conspiracy theory?
    Did the conspirators just pick these guys randomly without background checks or covering up stuff like this?
    Huh?

    Do "fundamentalist" Muslims go out on the piss days before their martyrdom? Yes or No would be preferable.


  • Options
    #64
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Huh?

    Do "fundamentalist" Muslims go out on the piss days before their martyrdom? Yes or No would be preferable.
    I don't know. I can't give you a yes or no answer.
    I don't buy into the strawman you are trying to build. There are complex reasons why these guys would be motivated to commit terrorism beyond the stereotype of the religious fanatic you think we all must picture. And I don't think these guys drinking means that they did not commit terrorism.

    I'm just asking you to explain how this fits into the conspiracy which to me makes less sense than a fundamentalist being able to drink.

    Why did the conspirators pick these guys instead of more devout Muslims or not just invent terrorists wholesale?
    Why if they had to pick these guys did they allow these stories to leak out or "cover them up" in such an obvious way?


  • Options
    #65
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    I don't know. I can't give you a yes or no answer.
    I don't buy into the strawman you are trying to build. There are complex reasons why these guys would be motivated to commit terrorism beyond the stereotype of the religious fanatic you think we all must picture. And I don't think these guys drinking means that they did not commit terrorism.

    I'm just asking you to explain how this fits into the conspiracy which to me makes less sense than a fundamentalist being able to drink.

    Why did the conspirators pick these guys instead of more devout Muslims or not just invent terrorists wholesale?
    Why if they had to pick these guys did they allow these stories to leak out or "cover them up" in such an obvious way?

    I can give you the answer. It's NO. If you knew any Muslims you'd know that if they have even had alcohol spilled onto them they have to purify themselves as it is an intoxicant and strictly forbidden.


  • Options
    #66
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I can give you the answer. It's NO. If you knew any Muslims you'd know that if they have even had alcohol spilled onto them they have to purify themselves as it is an intoxicant and strictly forbidden.
    Ok, we have established that you aren't interested in considering other points on this
    I am now asking you to expand on this conclusion and detail how this fits into the conspiracy.

    If it is so obvious that these guys are not fundamentalists and couldn't have been involved why id the conspirators pick them over more devout muslims or ones they could make appear more obviously dangerous or even ones made up entirely who wouldn't have awkward back-stories that call the conspiracy into question?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Who said they couldn't be involved? Not I.

    Alcohol, gambling and strip clubs means they are not fundamentalist Muslims. In fact it suggests the complete opposite.


  • Options
    #68
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Who said they couldn't be involved? Not I.

    Alcohol, gambling and strip clubs means they are not fundamentalist Muslims. In fact it suggests the complete opposite.
    So how were they involved and why did the conspirators portray they as fundamentalist Muslims when they weren't instead of just pointing at some real fundamentalist Muslims, getting fundamentalist Muslims involved in the same way or just inventing fake people?


  • Options
    #69
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    So how were they involved and why did the conspirators portray they as fundamentalist Muslims?
    Please follow the chain of comments that lead to this point.

    I was responding to this OP.
    What would convince you that 19 fundamentalists hijacked 4 planes to attack the pentagon the twin towers and a 4th plane that crashed into a field in Pennsylvania?

    It appears that many of the hijackers weren't fundamentalists at all. That is my point.


  • Options
    #70
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Please follow the chain of comments that lead to this point.

    I was responding to this OP.

    It appears that many of the hijackers weren't fundamentalists at all. That is my point.
    Ok, so you have no opinion or thoughts on how this actually fits into the conspiracy theory?


  • Options
    #71
    Busted Flat.
    Registered Users Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭Busted Flat.


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Please follow the chain of comments that lead to this point.

    I was responding to this OP.


    It appears that many of the hijackers weren't fundamentalists at all. That is my point.

    They just went out on the piss the night before, and then had a Ferris Builler day off, is that what what you mean.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok, so you have no opinion or thoughts on how this actually fits into the conspiracy theory?
    I'm not sure what this "the conspiracy theory" you are referring to actually is. You are forcing me to repeat myself but as I've said I was questioning the "fundamentalist" part of the statement in the OP.


  • Options
    #73
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Busted Flat. wrote: »
    They just went out on the piss the night before, and then had a Ferris Builler day off, is that what what you mean.
    Some time ago I lived in Cairo. I had Muslim friends there who weren't especially religious, ignored the call to prayer etc. It was possible to be served alcohol in some of the Hotels and so on, especially with me, a European, though they would never consider it. They take the teachings of Mohammed very seriously and to be intoxicated is a grave sin. Likewise, I used to frequent a casino there in the Nile Hilton (I think). Security checked passports at the entrance to prevent Muslims entering there though the would never have gambled in any case. And these were liberal, moderate, progressive Muslims. To think that any "fundamentalist" Muslim i,e, hardcore, dogmatic, considers even Music to be haraam would be visiting strip clubs and getting drunk in bars is so completely absurd it's laugable.


  • Options
    #74
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I'm not sure what this "the conspiracy theory" you are referring to actually is.
    The conspiracy theory that the US government planned the attack.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    You are forcing me to repeat myself but as I've said I was questioning the "fundamentalist" part of the statement in the OP.
    And I am doing the same only for the conspiracy.
    I cannot see any plausible or sensible way your conclusion can actually fit into any explanation.
    It doesn't make sense that they would these guys if they so obviously give the game away and when they could have picked other people or made people up entirely.

    So I am asking for such an explanation as you are with your questioning.


  • Options
    #75
    Busted Flat.
    Registered Users Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭Busted Flat.


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Some time ago I lived in Cairo. I had Muslim friends there who weren't especially religious, ignored the call to prayer etc. It was possible to be served alcohol in some of the Hotels and so on, especially with me, a European, though they would never consider it. They take the teachings of Mohammed very seriously and to be intoxicated is a grave sin. Likewise, I used to frequent a casino there in the Nile Hilton (I think). Security checked passports at the entrance to prevent Muslims entering there though the would never have gambled in any case. And these were liberal, moderate, progressive Muslims. To think that any "fundamentalist" Muslim i,e, hardcore, dogmatic, considers even Music to be haraam would be visiting strip clubs and getting drunk in bars is so completely absurd it's laugable.

    What the fook has that to do with people flying planes into buildings, did I miss something.


  • Options
    #76
    Colgem
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 67 ✭✭Colgem


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Witness retracts uncomfortable statements after FBI harrasment :eek:

    Please give evidence of FBI harassment.

    It's quite clear Amanda's original claims do not match with Atta.

    It's also quite clear from the other 9/11 thread you believe any evidence that contadicts your claims must be because of government intimidation.

    Government intimidation you can't prove.

    Her "Mohammad Atta" was
    as about 25, 5 feet 10 inches, 160 pounds, had "dark, perfect" skin, and was clean cut and "very polite."

    While in reality. Mohammad Atta was in his early 30s and was 5'7

    Amanda dated Mohamed Arajaki

    Here is more evidence of these crazy unfundementalist "fundamentalists"

    The article is a rethread of a 2005 piece, unfortunately at the time they were supposed to be doing this, they were already on their way to Baltimore.

    Which is a neat trick.


  • Options
    #77
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Busted Flat. wrote: »
    What the fook has that to do with people flying planes into buildings, did I miss something.

    Probably. The point is that moderate Muslims don't go to casinos, strip clubs and bars., nevermind fundamentallists. Atta apparently did. Therefore Atta isn't a "fundamentalist". Hope that clears things up.


  • Options
    #78
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »

    So I am asking for such an explanation as you are with your questioning.
    And why are you asking me?


  • Options
    #79
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Colgem wrote: »
    Please give evidence of FBI harassment.

    It's quite clear Amanda's original claims do not match with Atta.

    It's also quite clear from the other 9/11 thread you believe any evidence that contadicts your claims must be because of government intimidation.

    Government intimidation you can't prove.

    Her "Mohammad Atta" was



    While in reality. Mohammad Atta was in his early 30s and was 5'7

    Amanda dated Mohamed Arajaki



    The article is a rethread of a 2005 piece, unfortunately at the time they were supposed to be doing this, they were already on their way to Baltimore.

    Which is a neat trick.
    (September 12, 2001-2002): FBI Intimidates Witnesses Who Saw Atta in Venice; Tells Them to Keep Quiet

    edit.png

    A number of witnesses who claim they saw Mohamed Atta living in Venice, Florida in early 2001 later allege that, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, they are intimidated by the FBI and told to keep quiet about what they knew. Amanda Keller, who claims to have lived with Atta during early 2001 (see (February-April 2001)), later says that, even after she moved away from Venice, FBI agents called her every other day for several months after the attacks. She tells investigative reporter Daniel Hopsicker about “intimidation by the FBI” that she suffered, adding, “They told me not to talk to anybody, to keep my mouth shut.” Stephanie Frederickson, who remembers Keller and Atta living next door to her in the Sandpiper Apartments in Venice, later recalls, “At first, right after the attack, [the FBI] told me I must have been mistaken in my identification. Or they would insinuate that I was lying. Finally they stopped trying to get me to change my story, and just stopped by once a week to make sure I hadn’t been talking to anyone. Who was I going to tell? Most everyone around here already knew.” Charles Grapentine, the manager of the Sandpiper Apartments, also confirms Atta having lived with Keller. He says that, after 9/11, the FBI “called me a liar, and told me to keep my mouth shut.” URL="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0970659164/centerforcoop-20"]Hopsicker, 2004, pp. 62-63, 65 and 88-89[/URL According to the FBI’s account of events, Atta had left Venice by late December 2000 or early January 2001. Its account makes no mention of him returning there later. URL="http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_hr/092602mueller.html"]US Congress, 9/26/2002[/URL A former manager at Huffman Aviation, the Venice flight school attended by Atta in late 2000 (see July 6-December 19, 2000), also later alleges that the FBI intimidated him and told him to keep quiet. He says the FBI was “outside my house four hours after the attack.” He claims his phones were bugged after 9/11, and adds, “I thought these guys [Atta and his associates] were double agents. Why is that so incriminating?” URL="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0970659164/centerforcoop-20"]Hopsicker, 2004, pp. 149-150[/URL


  • Options
    #80
    Colgem
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 67 ✭✭Colgem


    Ah Daniel Hopsicker friend to holocaust deniers.

    Again Amanda dated a different Mohammed, she claimed it was Atta but then admitted it was Mohammed Aejacki.

    She seems like a troubled woman who turned her live around.


    Again this thread is supposed to be about what would convince you that 9/11 wasn't a inside job.


  • Options
    #81
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Colgem wrote: »
    Ah Daniel Hopsicker friend to holocaust deniers.

    Again Amanda dated a different Mohammed, she claimed it was Atta but then admitted it was Mohammed Aejacki.

    She seems like a troubled woman who turned her live around.


    Again this thread is supposed to be about what would convince you that 9/11 wasn't a inside job.
    Ah playing the guilt by association card when you ask for evidence and then are given it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Colgem wrote: »
    It's also quite clear from the other 9/11 thread you believe any evidence that contadicts your claims must be because of government intimidation.
    .
    Total rubbish. :)

    I don't accept your solitary example as it's ridiculous on the face of it and very much looks to be the result of a plea deal reached with the government to keep his mother out of prison.


  • Options
    #83
    Colgem
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 67 ✭✭Colgem


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Total rubbish. :)

    I don't accept your solitary example as it's ridiculous on the face of it and very much looks to be the result of a plea deal reached with the government to keep his mother out of prison.

    Any evidence to support this?







    Didn't think so.


  • Options
    #84
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    And why are you asking me?
    Because it's a discussion forum, you presented this apparent flaw in the official story and hold that there was a government conspiracy of some form and I am interested to see if there is an explanation that fits a conspiracy.

    But since there isn't and you cannot provide one, is it reasonable to conclude that you likewise don't believe that these guys not being fundamentalists is as much of a point against the conspiracy theories as you believe it is against the official story?
    If not, why not?


  • Options
    #85
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    Because it's a discussion forum, you presented this apparent flaw in the official story and hold that there was a government conspiracy of some form and I am interested to see if there is an explanation that fits a conspiracy.

    But since there isn't and you cannot provide one, is it reasonable to conclude that you likewise don't believe that these guys not being fundamentalists is as much of a point against the conspiracy theories as you believe it is against the official story?
    If not, why not?

    That doesn't explain why you are asking me. Them not being religious fundamentalists doesn't mean that they didn't hijack the planes.

    There is not much more to debate unless you disagree with any of the following:

    1. Islamic fundamentalist may commit acts of terror
    2. Islamic fundamentalists by definition don't go to strip-clubs, casinos and get drunk in bars.
    3. People who go to strip clubs and bars may commit acts of terror to make a political statement.
    If Atta and his drinking buddies committed 911 then it is not because they were religious fundamentalists.

    If religious fundamentalists carried out 911 it was not Atta and his drinking buddies.


  • Options
    #86
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    That doesn't explain why you are asking me. Them not being religious fundamentalists doesn't mean that they didn't hijack the planes.
    So what other reasons would they have for committing the attacks and how do these cast doubt on the official story?


  • Options
    #87
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    So what other reasons would they have for committing the attacks and how do these cast doubt on the official story?

    Maybe they were like the guy in the other thread and they were really pissed that someone from the grassy knoll shot Kennedy :D Out of interest did you disagree with any of the numbered points above?


  • Options
    #88
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Maybe they were like the guy in the other thread and they were really pissed that someone from the grassy knoll shot Kennedy :D Out of interest did you disagree with any of the numbered points above?
    Yes, the second one.
    There could be hundreds of reasons for them doing so, but these aren't really relevant to the questions I would like addressed and would move the discussion forward.

    So again, why do you think they might have committed the attacks and why does this cast doubt on the official story?


  • Options
    #89
    RGDATA!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,324 ✭✭✭RGDATA!


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Some time ago I lived in Cairo. I had Muslim friends there who weren't especially religious, ignored the call to prayer etc. It was possible to be served alcohol in some of the Hotels and so on, especially with me, a European, though they would never consider it. They take the teachings of Mohammed very seriously and to be intoxicated is a grave sin.

    Convenient as it sounds, I had drinks with a muslim friend tonight (Identifies as muslim, certainly not an athiest, though obviously isn't strictly observant.) Anyway, while I understand that alcohol is prohibited, I didn't think it was controversial to believe that some muslims sometimes drink. In fact, I understood that in Egypt alcohol is fairly widely sold and consumed by some, obviously not strictly observant, muslims.

    More to the point, even if the 9/11 story was complete fiction, I would still find Atta a plausible character just as someone who was motivated and inspired by his beliefs towards a goal, yet privately fell short of the most basic of those beliefs. Typical flawed human behaviour.
    Maybe he faltered under the weight of his goal, maybe he figured he was entitled to a sample of what was coming to him, that he'd purify himself before the day and be saved anyway.

    Plenty of zealots and revolutionaries everywhere guilty of the most basic private failings and contradictions, while still being motivated by and certain in their beliefs


  • Options
    #90
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,482 ✭✭✭weisses


    Colgem wrote: »
    A unique situation.

    Yeah that's also a way to distance yourself from at least trying to explain things

    Colgem wrote: »
    I posted the link to the article in another post.

    Do you want to discuss the points or where they are written.

    I made several points but if you keep answering them as above there is not much to discuss with you i think

    I like to discuss also points referring to WHO wrote them yes ... bit different then how you like it to be


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Colgem
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 67 ✭✭Colgem


    weisses wrote: »
    Yeah that's also a way to distance yourself from at least trying to explain things

    We point out another building of the same design as the WTC 7, that was on fire for nearly 6 hours, with no attempt to fight the fires, that sustained serious damage from the collapse of surrounding buildings that started fires across several floors, and that survived.
    I made several points but if you keep answering them as above there is not much to discuss with you i think

    I like to discuss also points referring to WHO wrote them yes ... bit different then how you like it to be

    Who wrote that list invalids the list? Interesting.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement