9/11 Conspiracy Theory - Very interesting stuff

[Bruce Rioja]

I was questioning the fact that they'd be allowed in to the jump seat because they were pilots, which they weren't (at least not employed ones).

Whereas Gertie's mate that works for Air Miles ranks alongside Amy Johnson, obviously!

[blurred]

I was questioning the fact that they'd be allowed in to the jump seat because they were pilots, which they weren't (at least not employed ones).

Whereas Gertie's mate that works for Air Miles ranks alongside Amy Johnson, obviously!

I deal with the Air Miles company through my work, www.airline-network.co.uk, and they are the biggest bunch of townie scally brainless whores I have ever had the misfortune to speak to. They have not got a clue so I would close my pretty little ears when she next speaks.............

[Bruce Rioja]

I was questioning the fact that they'd be allowed in to the jump seat because they were pilots, which they weren't (at least not employed ones).

Whereas Gertie's mate that works for Air Miles ranks alongside Amy Johnson, obviously!

I deal with the Air Miles company through my work, www.airline-network.co.uk, and they are the biggest bunch of townie scally brainless whores I have ever had the misfortune to speak to. They have not got a clue so I would close my pretty little ears when she next speaks.............

Yes, so there you go. Why have you highlighted these quotes? Blurred, either I've misread this or you've just totally gone against yourself!

You were saying that you have to be a pukker pilot to get into the jumpseat, yet you've just highlighted the points that point out that that's clearly not the case, or at least it wasn't before 9/11.

Mate, I'm not looking for a row here. I'm just passining on info that I was told from the closest possible source. I really don't think that the guys that I was talking to had any reason to make up a tale for the benefit of a bloke in a Kensington hotel bar that they'll never see again or that has any media connections whatsoever!

[communistworkethic]

is he saying amy johnson is a brainless scallie whore?

[Gertie]

is he saying amy johnson is a brainless scallie whore?

Didn't Amy Johnson name her aeroplane Jason after a boy in Take That... Atta girl!!!

Mine would be named Wee Markie.

The girl I knew who worked for Air Miles was quite irritating. She was very rich and only worked for pocket money. She did travel in the jump seat but this was all prior to 9-11.

There's only 1 jumpseat so I don't see how all the hijackers fitted in it though, it would have been a bit of a squash.

[blurred]

Yes, so there you go. Why have you highlighted these quotes? Blurred, either I've misread this or you've just totally gone against yourself!

You were saying that you have to be a pukker pilot to get into the jumpseat, yet you've just highlighted the points that point out that that's clearly not the case, or at least it wasn't before 9/11.

Mate, I'm not looking for a row here. I'm just passining on info that I was told from the closest possible source. I really don't think that the guys that I was talking to had any reason to make up a tale for the benefit of a bloke in a Kensington hotel bar that they'll never see again or that has any media connections whatsoever!

This appears to have got quite convoluted. Let me try to clarify. My point is that I doubt, even before 9/11, that pilots would let just anyone into the jumpseat for a flight, and that they would have to be bona fide pilots for major airlines with credentials for this to be even considered. This of course does not allow for either force or fraud, either of which could gain access to the cockpit for the would-be hijacker. I used Batman's quote to highlight that those who Gertie referred to were probably talking shite about the use of the jumpseat too (I don't believe that Airmiles employees would be flown in this fashion for one second, even if the flight was full), and that you should not put necessary credence in their story (as you seemingly endorsed it by the Amy Johnson comment). That was the point I was making.

Anyway, this has all gone a long way to confusing everyone (myself included). I still find it highly highly doubtful that these random Arab fellas on September 11th would have been allowed in the cockpit just because they had a pilot's license, they would have needed to at least appear to be airline personnel with associated documentation - there would have to be some large scale fraud/deception going on for them to pull it off in this manner. Anyway, I'm glad that there is now extra security surrounding such things.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Interestingly differing views of Portillo.

Potted biography

Portillo served in a number of government posts under Margaret Thatcher and John Major and was a hate figure of the left. He lost his parliamentary seat in the 1997 election and the announcement of that came third in a poll of the most memorable TV moments (ahead of the Kennedy assassination).

After regaining a place in parliament he stood for leadership of the Conservative party, and was defeated, despite being clearly the best candidate. Confessions of homosexual experiences when young, probably did for him.

My opinion, is that whilst good at projecting an air of gravitas, he was essentially a political lightweight; a view that is shared by Norman Tebbit. It’s easy to see how he could appeal to someone young, right wing and impressionable.

Now back to aeroplane talk.

It's clear that I have upset you somewhere along the line, but would you please stop talking about me like we're at a party and you're not talking to me, but would like me to overhear.

I have read Portillo's column in the Sunday times and have watched 'This Week' on a Thursday every week for years, and have now met him in person. In my opinion, he is no lightweight. Norman Tebbit's comments about Portillo (6 years ago) were partially inspired by homophobia, and partially inspired by the fact that he preferred Portillo as the right-wing ideologue he matured out of being.

As an aside, I particularly enjoyed Boris Johnson's performance at the Cambridge Union this evening, and was disappointed that the Government couldn't manage to find a spokesperson to come and defend the glorification of terrorism laws. But then, I am a young impressionable right winger so I would.

[communistworkethic]

Yes, so there you go. Why have you highlighted these quotes? Blurred, either I've misread this or you've just totally gone against yourself!

You were saying that you have to be a pukker pilot to get into the jumpseat, yet you've just highlighted the points that point out that that's clearly not the case, or at least it wasn't before 9/11.

Mate, I'm not looking for a row here. I'm just passining on info that I was told from the closest possible source. I really don't think that the guys that I was talking to had any reason to make up a tale for the benefit of a bloke in a Kensington hotel bar that they'll never see again or that has any media connections whatsoever!

This appears to have got quite convoluted. Let me try to clarify. My point is that I doubt, even before 9/11, that pilots would let just anyone into the jumpseat for a flight, and that they would have to be bona fide pilots for major airlines with credentials for this to be even considered. This of course does not allow for either force or fraud, either of which could gain access to the cockpit for the would-be hijacker. I used Batman's quote to highlight that those who Gertie referred to were probably talking shite about the use of the jumpseat too (I don't believe that Airmiles employees would be flown in this fashion for one second, even if the flight was full), and that you should not put necessary credence in their story (as you seemingly endorsed it by the Amy Johnson comment). That was the point I was making.

Anyway, this has all gone a long way to confusing everyone (myself included). I still find it highly highly doubtful that these random Arab fellas on September 11th would have been allowed in the cockpit just because they had a pilot's license, they would have needed to at least appear to be airline personnel with associated documentation - there would have to be some large scale fraud/deception going on for them to pull it off in this manner. Anyway, I'm glad that there is now extra security surrounding such things.

internal US flights had next to no security pre 9/11. Hijackers take planes by force, taking weapons on board was hardly an issue. Ignore the jumpseat argument, they didn't need to be there to get in the cockpit and hijack the plane, if that were the case how could planes have been hijacked before? All in the jumpseat? Perhaps not.

[blurred]

internal US flights had next to no security pre 9/11. Hijackers take planes by force, taking weapons on board was hardly an issue. Ignore the jumpseat argument, they didn't need to be there to get in the cockpit and hijack the plane, if that were the case how could planes have been hijacked before? All in the jumpseat? Perhaps not.

Oh indeed, I entirely agree - force is always the most likely in that event, all I was doubting was the fact they'd be in the jumpseat to begin with. US airline and airport security pre-9/11 was best summed up by one of America's greatest exports (Mickey Mouse). I don't doubt that it was possible for planes to be taken by force, and even post-9/11 it's still possible to get weapons/dangerous items onboard.

Personally I like Michael Moore's idea. Take on a baseball and a sock. That's a reasonable weapon. Or my personal favourite, would be a book of matches and a deodorant can. So much is made about not having nail clippers or tiny scissors or whatever, but the truth is a weapon can be made out of just about anything, and you're never going to stop the most prepared and determined of hijackers.

Oh, and random 9/11 trivia - September 11th 2001 was my Mum's 50th birthday. Quite a weird one, that...

[Bruce Rioja]

All I can say, Blurred, is that you believe what you want to and I'll believe what I was told. We're just running round in circles here.

[CrazyHorse]

I think that it is highly unlikely that a plane hijack could happen again though no matter what weapons were in the hands of terrorists. I would expect that the passengers would stop any attempt as soon as it started. I mean I know I wouldn't sit there during an attempted hijack knowing that if someone didn't do something there'd be a real possibility that they'd fly the plane into a building.

Besides, isn't it world-wide airline policy since the 11th of Spetember that the pilots don't open the cockpit door no matter what threats are made to them?

[Gertie]

Yes, so there you go. Why have you highlighted these quotes? Blurred, either I've misread this or you've just totally gone against yourself!

You were saying that you have to be a pukker pilot to get into the jumpseat, yet you've just highlighted the points that point out that that's clearly not the case, or at least it wasn't before 9/11.

Mate, I'm not looking for a row here. I'm just passining on info that I was told from the closest possible source. I really don't think that the guys that I was talking to had any reason to make up a tale for the benefit of a bloke in a Kensington hotel bar that they'll never see again or that has any media connections whatsoever!

This appears to have got quite convoluted. Let me try to clarify. My point is that I doubt, even before 9/11, that pilots would let just anyone into the jumpseat for a flight, and that they would have to be bona fide pilots for major airlines with credentials for this to be even considered. This of course does not allow for either force or fraud, either of which could gain access to the cockpit for the would-be hijacker. I used Batman's quote to highlight that those who Gertie referred to were probably talking shite about the use of the jumpseat too (I don't believe that Airmiles employees would be flown in this fashion for one second, even if the flight was full), and that you should not put necessary credence in their story (as you seemingly endorsed it by the Amy Johnson comment). That was the point I was making.

Anyway, this has all gone a long way to confusing everyone (myself included). I still find it highly highly doubtful that these random Arab fellas on September 11th would have been allowed in the cockpit just because they had a pilot's license, they would have needed to at least appear to be airline personnel with associated documentation - there would have to be some large scale fraud/deception going on for them to pull it off in this manner. Anyway, I'm glad that there is now extra security surrounding such things.

Blurred I know my opinion counts for nothing... But, a company I used to deal with ran big incentive schemes for employees and Airmiles was one of the suppliers. The girl I knew from Airmiles was my account handler and would travel to meet me in Manchester to discuss the incentive schemes and tatical campaigns.

Whilst Batman would have a pretty fair account of the Airmiles girls, my account handler was a nice girl, filthy rich and a bit of Sloane Ranger... but she gave a very accurate description of having to fly in the jumpseat when flights from Gatwick to Manchester were full saying that employees of British Airways can do this if necessary.

I will admit to being a bit dim, very gullible but I don't see how a townie girl could have made up such a convincing and elaborate tale - and she certainly didn't make it up to impress me. Telling me about her walk in dressing room in her Tower Brige apartment, with a whole wall dedicated to shoes in boxes with polaroids on the front so you know which shoes are in which box impressed me waaaaaay more than sitting up front with the driver on an BA flight of less than an hour.

If she did make it all up then I fell for it... I just hope that she wasn't making up the story about the dressing room. I sometimes dream at night that I have a dressing room like that.

[blurred]

If she did make it all up then I fell for it... I just hope that she wasn't making up the story about the dressing room. I sometimes dream at night that I have a dressing room like that.

Nah, that bit was real. Hold on to your dreams

[blurred]

All I can say, Blurred, is that you believe what you want to and I'll believe what I was told. We're just running round in circles here.

Indeed. *manly shake of hands, wander off in search of a pint and a new topic of conversation*.

[Nozza]

*ahem, clears throat*

I've seen quite a few documentaries on the subject of 9/11 and the possibility of it being an inside job. There is one kicking about on Google Video called "Loose Change", it's interesting, and thought provoking without being filled with jargon and the like, so mere mortals like me can actually understand it AND still have our own opinion at the end of it.

A few points:

In the 1970's (I think...) a top US government official came up with the idea of making a series of false terror raids across the US and putting them in a jail in a little island just off the American coast. What was the name? Guantanamo Bay. Said official also came up with the idea of staging a series of 'hi-jackings'. The purpose of which would set alight the blue paper the US govt. needed to get the terror raids done. This was rubbished, as being ridiculous. The official was fired.

Travel forward to 1998. And the US govt. decides randomly that they are going to test out a Boeing 747 to see what it would be like if it was to crash into certain things. Such as water, buildings, other planes, sky scrapers etc. The results shocked the US govt. to the core. Could a Boeing 747 really do that much damage to a building?

Aaaaanyway...travelling forward again. 2 weeks before 9/11, the owner of the WTC insured them, for a massive $2.9 BILLION. Before this, the cover did NOT include terrorist attacks, which was silly after the basement bombs. So, 2 weeks before, he decides that he needs it. He also laid off half his security staff and removed all dogs from the building. The dogs purpose was to sniff out bombs, and the like.

The day before 9/11, Condeleeza Rice phoned several govt. officials and told them not to fly that day as she could sense something happening. Now either Ms. Rice is secretly Mystic Meg, or somethings up.

On the day of 9/11, we did see an act of terrorism on the WTC, but I am not entirely sure it was by members of any Islamic, or otherwise terrorist organisation. Why? I'll start with the 2 other planes. The plane that crashed into the Pentagon, why is there no footage, other than 4 frames, or 1 second of footage? Why won't the US govt. release the tape of the plane crashing into the Pentagon? They won't do it because there was no plane that crashed into the Pentagon. The hole that was left in the Pentagon wall was 16 foot in diameter. Now, can anyone seriously tell me that a passenger plane is seriously going to leave a 16 foot, perfect circle in a wall? No, it's silly. And why was there no wreckage? Well...there was, but its been proven that the one engine that remained did not come from a plane that supposedly slamed into the Pentagon at over 500 mph. Thats some speed eh? Almost enough to make a passenger plane disintigrate on impact...bollocks. Nothing disintigrates that quickly. There was no wreckage, no sign of luggage, no sign of an dead bodies, nothing. And why, a whole 2 minutes after this, did govt. officials deem it was right to go to the gas station and Sheraton Hotel adjacent to the Pentagon and conviscate all footage? Also, the direction in which the plane was travelling meant it would have gone over a highway. How comes none of the drivers saw a plane? Remember, it was rush hour. What was spotted however, was a military jet.

And the plane that crashed in Pittsburg (?). This also managed to just disintigrate into thin air upon impact with a field...a field ffs! No-one saw any planes, nothing. Again, there was no wreckage, no sign of any bodies, nothing.

Finally, the WTC. Before anyone says anything, I am not trying to deny this happened, because the evidence is there for all to see, two planes DID slam into the two towers. What I am denying, however, is that there was any involvement from any middle-eastern, Islamic extremists. As I have said, the owner of the WTC decided to remove all dogs from the building 2 weeks prior to the attacks. This would mean that someone could come in with relative ease and plant a bomb. This is, in my mind, exactly what happened. In "Loose Change", we hear from the WTC janitors, the firemen and several others who heard a loud bang seconds before the first plane went into the tower, this happened in the other building too. Smaller detonations were then set off as the plane hit the building. Why? To soften the steel. I think I saw someone say that steel melts at 1500oC and kerosene at 450. Correct. There is no way on earth that the steel used in the WTC could have melted in such a quick time. Then, once the tower did start to collapse, if you watch carefully you will see white flashes all the time as the tower implodes on itself. Each flash is about 10-15 floors below where the falling tower is, thus making the steel softer (as the bombs would have been on the outer shell of the building) and easier for it collapse on. From the plane, there was no black box. In almost every plane crash ever since the BB was invented, it has been recovered. Why not from this? And there was a passport found on the road next to the WTC, supposedly of one of the hijackers. So, now the US govt. expects us to believe that the black box can't survive but a flimsy bit of paper can? Sorry, it doesn't work.

The US govt. is a murderous one. Killing innocent civilians (yes, I know the British are guilty too...) in Iraq and Afganistan was bad enough, but killing it's own people is down right sick.

***Disclaimer - I am in no way associated with "Loose Change" or any of its affiliated programmes. This post was made entirely of my own opinion of what happened on Sept. 11 2001. I, in no way, do not wish to restrict anyone from having a differing opinion from myself***

[Muse]

Hey welcome back hoolio

[a1]

*ahem, clears throat* loadsa stuff

A, i think guantanomo bay has bin rented by america for ages- before fidel was in .. now fidel is in , he still must like the rent cheque ... now i'm sure that might point to a flaw in how communist economics is executed compared to what it says it is .. but thats something else .. they had use of that bay for a long time before the dates you state , i think... i've not checked it out yet ...

B, answer this i asked before but no one in this thread , who believes it was a set up , answered me ... if 'keroscene' burns at 700 degrees , and steel melts at 1500 why sciencewise does a match made out of wood that burns at 451 degrees burn buildings to the ground and everything in the building like carpets , paint , turps , wallpaper , keroscene , dvd players - get destroyed too ? ...

the 'maths' of going " that burns at X degrees less than Y degrees , that means B cannot be set on fire ", is clearly not true in that simple 'these numbers explain my answer' way .. so something somewhere not right ..

and if somebody is accusing some goverment of covering it all up , by spinning these crude A minus B equals Not Possible maths to prove they are .. then when people with some sort of maths or science questions ask for answers the 'hippy bastards' do the very same thing that theyre accusing the government of.. ie , not giving answers ... i just want an answer ..

C, hasnt 'loose change' bin in trouble lawsuit style with those french documentry makers who where there filming it all , mainly saying stuff like "theyve spun our documentry into a propaganda film , all we were doing was filming a fireman fix a drain? "

D, didnt lloyds of london nearly go bankrupt over not being able to afford to pay the owners back , so the US government stepped in somewheres and everybody 'wrote off' what they owed / what they where owed ... so if it was an insurance scam it didnt work because everybody lost ?

now i'm no genius , but i'll bet the US taxpayers - initially anyway - bear most of the 'cost' , if your gonna skam people for $$ you do on the sly (or maybe do it like them enron dicks if your stupid) you dont do it in the most televised thing ever , where theres that many people involved theres gonna be a fair shitload of whistle blowing do gooder sorts , that would have more brains to put forward a case (each whistleblower on there 'own' not a group of them , to make sure the 'truth' gets out from at least one of them ) so even the goverment cant 'snipe' them all else it'll look suss... but instead of college educated liberal do gooder clever bastards that know their shit with friends in high places getting "the truth" out , weve got nerdy crank hippies that can not even answer why 1500 minus 700 equals Still Burns Anyway ...

D, that pentagon plane , i know even less about this , but if a plane crashes into a building , all sorts of shit could happen maybe 16 square foot of wall just gave way and it fell over .. maybe the 'nose' of the plane 'punched' through a load of walls and the wall your looking at is the last wall that got 'damaged' ... kinda like when you stab a pen though a paper pad - the initial sheets of paper have holes in going smaller each time, the ones after that have dents in , the ones after that are ok...

E , now its going back to the 1500 minus 700 maths bollocks , now youre asking us why a building fell down but a paper passport was found and this cant be true because paper burns before steel melts ... this is the opposite to before when youre asking us why plane fuel burns at less than 700 can melt sturdy steel that melts at 1500 .. youre believing the temperature theories one way when it suits and the other way when that suits ...

F , that plane in pittsburg , when the us government were doing these tests you claim crashing them into things for testing perposes , you say they were shocked at the damage ... well wouldnt these factors come into play when one of them hits a field full on ... arent black boxes still magnetic (either tape or hard disk drive) when i dropped my hard drive once it fecked it proper i had about 2 days of it pinging and twanging i bought a fresh one and copied it to the new one befor it died .. i dropped it about 9 inch onto a carpet , it didnt fall from the sky...

that last bit about the muderers is taking the piss , go back to russia / cuba queue up for about nine week for half a loaf of bread , with all your moldy potato eating mates ... YA FEEL IT

its covering old shit now nearly everything holly-io said got said before except maybe now i'll get an answer to my keserone verses steel temperature quandry in 'B' but i doubt it...

SHOUT OUT TO MY MAINS PLUG !!

[Frankie Wanderer]

And the plane that crashed in Pittsburg (?). This also managed to just disintigrate into thin air upon impact with a field...a field ffs! No-one saw any planes, nothing. Again, there was no wreckage, no sign of any bodies, nothing.

After watching United 93 - I definately thought that was the directors point..

[Nozza]

*ahem, clears throat* loadsa stuff

A, i think guantanomo bay has bin rented by america for ages- before fidel was in .. now fidel is in , he still must like the rent cheque ... now i'm sure that might point to a flaw in how communist economics is executed compared to what it says it is .. but thats something else .. they had use of that bay for a long time before the dates you state , i think... i've not checked it out yet ...

B, answer this i asked before but no one in this thread , who believes it was a set up , answered me ... if 'keroscene' burns at 700 degrees , and steel melts at 1500 why sciencewise does a match made out of wood that burns at 451 degrees burn buildings to the ground and everything in the building like carpets , paint , turps , wallpaper , keroscene , dvd players - get destroyed too ? ...

the 'maths' of going " that burns at X degrees less than Y degrees , that means B cannot be set on fire ", is clearly not true in that simple 'these numbers explain my answer' way .. so something somewhere not right ..

and if somebody is accusing some goverment of covering it all up , by spinning these crude A minus B equals Not Possible maths to prove they are .. then when people with some sort of maths or science questions ask for answers the 'hippy bastards' do the very same thing that theyre accusing the government of.. ie , not giving answers ... i just want an answer ..

C, hasnt 'loose change' bin in trouble lawsuit style with those french documentry makers who where there filming it all , mainly saying stuff like "theyve spun our documentry into a propaganda film , all we were doing was filming a fireman fix a drain? "

D, didnt lloyds of london nearly go bankrupt over not being able to afford to pay the owners back , so the US government stepped in somewheres and everybody 'wrote off' what they owed / what they where owed ... so if it was an insurance scam it didnt work because everybody lost ?

now i'm no genius , but i'll bet the US taxpayers - initially anyway - bear most of the 'cost' , if your gonna skam people for $$ you do on the sly (or maybe do it like them enron dicks if your stupid) you dont do it in the most televised thing ever , where theres that many people involved theres gonna be a fair shitload of whistle blowing do gooder sorts , that would have more brains to put forward a case (each whistleblower on there 'own' not a group of them , to make sure the 'truth' gets out from at least one of them ) so even the goverment cant 'snipe' them all else it'll look suss... but instead of college educated liberal do gooder clever bastards that know their shit with friends in high places getting "the truth" out , weve got nerdy crank hippies that can not even answer why 1500 minus 700 equals Still Burns Anyway ...

D, that pentagon plane , i know even less about this , but if a plane crashes into a building , all sorts of shit could happen maybe 16 square foot of wall just gave way and it fell over .. maybe the 'nose' of the plane 'punched' through a load of walls and the wall your looking at is the last wall that got 'damaged' ... kinda like when you stab a pen though a paper pad - the initial sheets of paper have holes in going smaller each time, the ones after that have dents in , the ones after that are ok...

E , now its going back to the 1500 minus 700 maths bollocks , now youre asking us why a building fell down but a paper passport was found and this cant be true because paper burns before steel melts ... this is the opposite to before when youre asking us why plane fuel burns at less than 700 can melt sturdy steel that melts at 1500 .. youre believing the temperature theories one way when it suits and the other way when that suits ...

F , that plane in pittsburg , when the us government were doing these tests you claim crashing them into things for testing perposes , you say they were shocked at the damage ... well wouldnt these factors come into play when one of them hits a field full on ... arent black boxes still magnetic (either tape or hard disk drive) when i dropped my hard drive once it fecked it proper i had about 2 days of it pinging and twanging i bought a fresh one and copied it to the new one befor it died .. i dropped it about 9 inch onto a carpet , it didnt fall from the sky...

that last bit about the muderers is taking the piss , go back to russia / cuba queue up for about nine week for half a loaf of bread , with all your moldy potato eating mates ... YA FEEL IT

its covering old shit now nearly everything holly-io said got said before except maybe now i'll get an answer to my keserone verses steel temperature quandry in 'B' but i doubt it...

SHOUT OUT TO MY MAINS PLUG !!

After reading it 3 times...I still can't work out whether you agree with me or not!

[Montreal Wanderer]

Welcome back, Hoolio - I enjoyed your football posts.
Can't say I agree with your conspiracy theory and cannot even think how I'd discuss the points you raise in any rational fashion. It seems to me you are reporting a bunch of unfolunded paranoid assertions that go round the internet like so many urban legends.
I believe the Americans have owned Guantonamo Bay since the Spanish American War - that would be 1898.
If Al Quaeda was not involved, why did they take credit for it?
To accept some of your theories is to accept the fact that the US government at many different levels is run by megalomaniac lunatics who are so clever that we haven't noticed since the 1970s. Perhaps it's part of an Opus Dei plot?
Too much for me to swallow.