1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

911 conspiracy

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by conundrum, Jan 29, 2006.

  1. phykell

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 4,410

    You say you know what happened, you've been called on it, and you refuse to answer. It's as simple as that right?

    I won't push, in fact I'm just going to ignore any claim you make about you knowing what actually happened.

    You're right, enough time has been wasted on a claim you've made which you refuse to provide any evidence for.
     
  2. SexyGreyFox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 29, 2003

    Posts: 49,741

    :eek:

    Its all making sense.
    My sister heard from a bloke in Morrisons who was talking to a shelf stacker that he'd got a friend in America who had been told by a toilet cleaner that the day before 9/ll which was 8/11 that Misinformation Agents had been set up around America and its obvious that Sequoia is one of them.
    You're rumbled.
     
  3. Sequoia

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 15, 2005

    Posts: 2,948

    I haven't refused to answer after being called on it. I said I wasn't going to give any detail right up front and I'm not, whether "called" on it or not. But people push despite that. Well guess what, I'm doing exactly what I said I was going to do and not giving ANY further explanation. People seem to think they have a right to demand any clarification they like, despite being told none is coming. Well, they don't and shouldn't be surprised if I do exactly what I promised and refuse further comment. If people want to ask for what they've been told is not going to be provided, they're wasting their time. But hey, it's their time.

    You mean you won't push again. I told you I wasn't saying any more about it, and even after Dirtydog had queried it and I confirmed I wasn't saying anything else, you asked for more. You just had to ask anyway.

    Go right ahead and ignore it. I didn't expect anything else. And said so. I'm not, as I've said, trying to convince anybody of anything. I'm stating why I refuse to give missile theories, etc, any credence at all. I'm not trying to convince you, or anybody else, to believe me. I merely stated why I hold the view I do. I'm absolutely indifferent to whether the point I made is ignored or not.
     
  4. Curio

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Mar 14, 2004

    Posts: 7,970

    Location: Brit in the USA

    Sure, that could be true. The point is that information is manipulated to serve the government. Why isn't all the video evidence of the 757 hitting the Pentagon released yet? Probably because they want to wait for a time when the government needs a boost in the ratings or something. I'm merely saying that neither of us can take the governments word on anything....it cuts both ways. I might be wrong....you may be right....or visa versa.

    And you didn't answer my question: Do you think the government was involved in any way?

    Yes, yes, we're all nuts. I get the picture. This is SC not GD you know...

    Sequoia - why not just say "I was in Washington for an IT conference that day and saw what I believe to be a 757 hit the Pentagon". Instead you have to make out "I can't say anything else....cos I'm all mysterious and stuff" :p
     
  5. phykell

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 4,410

    I hardly think that's fair. I didn't ask you for any more at all, and I don't think you can say I was "pushing" you, I merely responded to you telling us why you weren't prepared to say "any more". I was pointing out why I disagree with you, I was not demanding your knowledge on the subject.

    Sequoia, I don't wish to give you the wrong impression. I don't want to insult you or aggravate you in any way. You are more than welcome to exercise your right not to give any details out on why you think you know what you think you do. However, I expect you to reciprocate that courtesy and accept that without any evidence to back your claim up, I/we have no choice but to completely dismiss it. Even the wildest conspiracy theories usually have some sort of "evidence" to back them up, yet this is more than I believe you have provided. This is my final comment on the matter as I'm enjoying reading this thread and I don't want to contribute any further to it straying O/T.
     
  6. SexyGreyFox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 29, 2003

    Posts: 49,741

    Two planes crashing into the Towers, plane crashing into the Pentagon and 4th plane crashing - definitely no.

    Do I think that spies/inside men in the USA Govt were involved - possibly because spies are everywhere.

    I'm just finishing off the Loose Change documentary.
     
  7. Sequoia

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 15, 2005

    Posts: 2,948

    I'll deal with that bit first, which was your second point in the last post.

    I'm not aggrated or insulted in any way at all, Phykell, and I hope it doesn't come across that way.

    I'm indifferent to whether anyone believes me or not or dismisses the remark or not because, as I said ages ago, I wouldn't be convinced by what I said if someone else had said it. I'm not upset or annoyed at anything you've said, and certainly not insulted. Phykell, it's hard to tell how someone means something in a post, because you have no body language or tone of voice. My 'tone of voice', which you don't have the benefit of hearing, in all this has not been upset or aggressive, but completely calm and unoffended. I don't feel insulted at all. I understand you saying you dismiss my statement, because it's what I'd do in your shoes. But consider, I keep saying it, I'm not trying to convince anyone. Why, then, would I be upset or offended if someone isn't convinced by what I said? I don't expect anyone to be, and that wasn't why I said it.

    And so to the first point ....

    Okay. It's the semantics of interpretation. I said I wasn't saying why I said it, and Dirtydog picked up on that and said if it was because of what Harley said, he wasn't convinced by that. I assume this is because Dirtydog has made no secret of the fact that he thinks I am Harley. I've dealt with subject that several times before, and I'm not going there again. So have the Mod team.

    So I repeated that I wasn't explaining the statement, and said why, and that includes confirm or denying any form of speculation, be it that I'm Harley or be it that I'm .... what was it Curio somewhat lightheartedly (I hope ;)) said, a "secret agent". You then said
    I interpret that as asking for more. After all, you ask "why not give them ...." when I've already explained why not, in post 286.

    Maybe it being "nice if we knew" is a statement, not a request. Maybe "why not give them genuine answers that they can believe" is rhetorical, though it looks to me like a straight request, despite me having said, and repeated, that I'm not going to do that and that I have good reason for not doing so.

    Was that asking for more, or pushing? It looks like it to me. I certainly think it's a fair interpretation, and that saying it's pushing, seeing as it comes after two clear statements that I'm not going to give more, and having explained some of the reasons why.

    But I repeat, I'm not upset or offended, and I'm not looking for a fight. I'm simply saying I know what hit the Pentagon and it was an AA airliner. I don't expect anyone else to change their view based on my bald assertion, but it should be understood that given that, I'm not changing mine based on conspiracy theories originally produced, usually, by people with an axe (be it financial, political or whatever) to grind. Anyone reading this can make of that what they will, and I'm not in the slightest bit bothered by what they choose to make of it.
     
  8. Sequoia

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 15, 2005

    Posts: 2,948

    Perhaps ..... because I wasn't in Washington for an IT conference, maybe? What are you suggesting ... that lying to stop questions is better than just refusing to answer them, having said, right up front, that I wasn't going to answer them?

    I'm not making out anything to be mysterious, Curio. I'm just not saying, period. Nothing more, Nothing less. Simple as.

    If you read that as mysterious, you're reading something into it that simply isn't there. And that's not my problem. Not everything is a conspiracy. But I have my reasons and I can't explain all of them without totally negating why I won't say any more. If you want to imagine all sorts of fanciful things beyond that, I can't help that. Just understand that it's you inferring it, not me implying it.

    Don't let your imagination get the better of you.
     
  9. Treefrog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Nov 7, 2004

    Posts: 2,828

    Location: Up a tree - where else?

    You're a transvestite rent boy who was giving Rumsfeld a Lewinsky and saw it happen over his shoulder? :eek: :eek:
    Too late! :D
     
  10. Sequoia

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 15, 2005

    Posts: 2,948

    I can recommend (though not, I hasten to add, from first hand experience) a good psychiatrist to help you. :D
     
  11. Treefrog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Nov 7, 2004

    Posts: 2,828

    Location: Up a tree - where else?

    :D
    All the other possible explanations I could think of for you being in a position to actually see it were boring though.

    If you don't mind me asking (and you feel able to answer without compromising anything) how far away were you? And for how long did you have the aircraft in sight? And what exactly did you see?

    Harley's account is what gives me the most pause for thought since I always found his posts to be extremely informative, well written and credible.
     
  12. Sleepy

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,394

    Location: Leicestershire

    Ewww, someone pass me the brain bleach please.
     
  13. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Dec 2, 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    That's my view on it too. I'm convinced the planes were the cause of all the damage, but I'm not convinced that the government didn't know about it and fail to prevent it happening, or possibly even have a hand in arranging it.
     
  14. Sequoia

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 15, 2005

    Posts: 2,948

    The thing is, I haven't said I saw anything at all, or that I was there, and I'm afraid I'm not going to confirm or deny the possibility. In fact, I'm not saying anything at all beyond what I've aready said.

    It's pointless, Treefrog. Assume, just for a moment, I say I was there. All it amounts to is an unconfirmed and uncorroborated account that could be God's own truth, total fabrication or anything in-between. Even if I was there, and were to relate what I think I saw, it won't tell anybody what actually happened. Ever read the accounts of how half a dozen eye-witnesses can watch the same event and give wildly different accounts of what they saw?

    If I did give an eye witness account (and this is hypothetical, remember), all it amounts to is an account that could be anything from outright fabrication to well-meaning and honestly given misinterpretation. It comes down to how people assess my honesty, and my observational skills. As nobody here actually knows me, how could they reasonably do either? Dirtydog already pointed out that he doesn't believe Harley's account, yet it seems you do. That illustrates the problem in assessing eye-witness accounts. It's totally subjective.

    Or, actually, to be fair to Dirtydog, I think what he actually said he didn't give that account 'much credibility', meaning he either thinks it's lies, or it's just unreliable as an account. But either way, it shows the problem with eye witness accounts. If I were a witness, and if I described what I saw, it won't actually help anyone here know what happened.

    This could all probably be taken to mean that I'm hinting that I saw it, and won't discuss it for these reasons. I'm not hinting that at all. This is strictly hypothetical, and I'm neither commenting nor hinting in any way at my own situation. I am simply saying nothing more about that, I'm afraid.
     
  15. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    That isn't quite what I meant, but I see no point in expanding further here and dragging this thread off topic. I suggest to all that we drop this discussion about what Sequoia knows or doesn't know because it isn't going to achieve anything positive, so let's move on.
     
  16. Treefrog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Nov 7, 2004

    Posts: 2,828

    Location: Up a tree - where else?

    Fair enough. It was your comment that "The reason I give them no credibility is because I know what did hit the Pentagon." that made me think you witnessed it
     
  17. Sequoia

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 15, 2005

    Posts: 2,948

    I understand why you might think that, but I just tried to phrase it in such a way as to say or imply nothing at all about what or how.

    Dirtydog is right. This is all going nowhere.
     
  18. Indy11

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 6, 2004

    Posts: 270

    Location: New York, NY

    Yes, that's right I am not counting the fuel load. The plane's maximum take off weight is 255,000lbs. The take off weight number of 220,000 lbs. is to describe the jet under the load necessary to put it into flight.


    The fuselage's width is 12.4 feet. The extent of wall opening varies between the ground floor and the floor above it. The upper floor's opening is estimated to have been about 18 feet wide. The ground floor opening is varyingly estimated, some are as high as 90+ feet. I will stay with the extrapolation figure. And, again, the plane did not hit perpendicular to the wall of the building but at an angle.

    That's the thing about eyewitnesses. However, I presented them only to show you that there are eyewitnesses who say that they saw a very large passenger plane hit the building. Why those eyewitnesses are supposed to be any less credible than yours is my point of objection.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2006
  19. SexyGreyFox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 29, 2003

    Posts: 49,741

    During the late 80's I took part in a BBC studio audience on observation. There were 200 of us and we were given little 6 button gizmos to do our voting. We were setup before the program started and later in the program we were asked a question about it. An argument broke out on stage between the stage hands and one person took a strike at another and others had to part them.
    I think Nicky Campbell about two hours later asked us questions on what we saw and he said that this is the statement you are giving to the police - only vote if you are sure.

    The questions were eg
    Press number 1 if big man hit woman
    Press number 2 if big man hit small man
    Press number 3 if small man hit woman
    Press number 4 if woman hit big man
    Press number 5 if woman hit small man
    Press number 6 if small man hit big man

    When they played back the recording only one person in the audience had got it right and it wasn't me.
    199 people had given false witness accounts.
    It was number 4.
     
  20. Mickey_D

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 9, 2003

    Posts: 6,204

    Location: Gone......

    Ok. For those that keep saying that the planes that hit the World Trade center must have fired missiles, and for those that say there were explosives that brought the buildings down, I give you this clip. I dare you to find any video evidence in there of missiles hanging under the wings or any evidence of explosives detonations in the building, causing it to fall. Don't bother, there isn't any. All it is is a plane plowing into a building, and the building subsequently falling apart due to the stresses involved in the impact and the resultant fire.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    And as such, so is the attack on the Pentagon.

    But, knowing you lot, you'll STILL find ways to pick holes in it......