OT - Über's Open Debate Thread

Why is it such a surprise that the identity of the 911 perpetrators were known within a week of 911, Dave? As I understand it, and can well imagine, so big was this outrageous event that significant manpower from just about every agency the world over was applied in finding out whatever they could about it. Given that they were on a suicide mission the perpetrators had no need to travel under aliases - surely it would not have been too difficult to have checked the backgrounds of every passenger on every flight within 7 days, given this manpower and technology available? It would not have taken long to have discovered when these murderers entered the US, from where they travelled, who they travelled with etc. It can't have taken long to have found that some had taken rudimentary flying lesson in the US either.

As for pictures from checkpoints, as I recall, a number of the pictures shown by the media at the time looked to me like CCTV stills taken of people passing through departure lounges.

Please send your links to the other conspiracy stuff that you claim as fact; I love to read some of it. I hope its not that **** that comes out of that Alex Jones bloke. Christ, what a ****er that guy is. Seldom have I seen a guy so much on 'transmit' and so little on 'receive'. Doesn't this prick realise that if he is to bring people around to his way of thinking he needs to engage with them and take them on a journey? Staying in 'shouty' mode 24-7 is neither helpful to us or himself. What a knob-end that man is.

 

Blimey, don't get the present holder of the title Mr Uber on this subject, Col. The silly mare believes in ghosts, psychic mediums, angels and that Di was knocked off by 'Phil the Greek'. Why she won't add the Tooth Fairy, Father Christmas and Cornish piskies to that list, God only know... oh, yeah, and God!

Accident.

 

No way was that an accident.
Only a few months ago we have 'Soldier N' breaking ranks and telling of his roll in the assassination of Diana and Dodi.

Definately Assasinated !!

 

Google 'Soldier N' Col.

As above.......Assasinated

 

I've just wasted a few seconds googling that mate. Wind up artist!

 

Is this the same, reliable, 'Soldier N' that stands accused of smuggling thousands of pounds of stolen money into Britain after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, Stainesy?

****! I've just read more about this chap. He was convicted, acquitted and the re-convicted for possessing illegal firearms and ammunition. His claims that the SAS killed Diana don't come as a first-hand account, i.e. that he was one of the team wot dun it, but from a colleague whispering "I can't believe we killed her" into his shell-like.

As testimonies go, it could be a little more... meatier.

 

...you clearly read further than me,I only got as far as 'his ex-wife claims he told her...'. Which one is Walter Mitty?

 

There's more than that (see my edit above).

It might be my imagination, Stan, but it strikes me that people predominantly fall into two camps; those that reject every conspiracy theory as ludicrous baloney, and those that believe every single one of them. It looks to be that binary. Is there anyone out there that (say) believes Diana was murdered by Prince Stavros, but rejects the suggestion that the CIA was behind 911 and that the LBJ had JFK done in?

 

No and No.

But I believe all politicians of all colours from all nations are corrupt !! Why else would they do the job

 

I believe it was Gore Vidal that said "any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so." You could be tempted to apply the sentiment to anybody looking to run for office anywhere, really. As Karl Marx put it, "absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Whilst I am very interested in politics and stuff (no ****, I hear you chorus) I prefer this quote from Karl's brother, Groucho; "I don't want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its members."

 

I'm all for healthy skepticism, and searching questioning, but still hold that the most likely explanation of something ('a bunch of religious nutters flew some planes into buildings', 'the ex Princess' driver was drunk') is the one to run with until someone with slightly more credibility than a darkened room internet blogger comes up with an alternative, with evidence. The perfect example of just how hard it is to cover anything up is the WMD fiasco, it was blown wide open very quickly (sadly not quickly enough) once some forensic testing has been applied. And that was much easier to hide than a conspiracy to destroy several enormous buildings.

The one that intrigues me is the Kennedy assassination.. Not the conspiracy theory nuts stuff, but the simple fact that there are a number of diverse groups that could potentially think they would benefit from his death, and that no one has ever credibly claimed responsibility. My vote goes to an unholy alliance of the Mafia and right wing Cuban exiles, pissed off that he was disinvesting in 'regime change' in Cuba, which denied the exiles their home and the mafia their casinos. But that's only because its whats in one of James Ellroy's excellent novels.

 

My brain hurts when I overload on this ****ty world ... I love Otters close up they make me cry

 

The JFK one is fascinating, I agree. But the fact that nothing tangible has ever come out to prove a conspiracy theory despite the passage of fifty years suggests that this was nothing more that one 'high school dropout' with a rifle. I think the conspiracy theory myth has festered because of a number of things: Marilyn Monroe's death conspiracy theory, Ruby's gunning down of Oswald, Bobby Kennedy's assassination (years later), and sheer disbelief that it could have happened at all amongst others. Throw all this sort of stuff into the mix and some people are more prepared to believe the fantastic and the fanciful over the simple and likely.

I found this quite interesting:
http://news.yahoo.com/ten-facts-you-don-t-know-about-the-jfk-assassination-131736202.html

 

Thanks Dave; Sea-, African Clawless-, or all of them?

 

Number 8 says...

Oliver Stone’s "JFK" damaged history. “Oliver Stone is a great filmmaker,” Meltzer says. “But his film 'JFK' did a great disservice to history by mixing fact and fiction. For the 20 million people that saw it in theaters, and the millions who have seen it afterward, that became the official record of the assassination.” Meltzer notes that several characters in the movie were created for the purposes of storytelling and had no relation whatsoever to real events.

The comment in bold, of course, dovetails nicely into our discussions earlier.

 

.

 

Stan,

I'm a bit of a slow and easily distracted reader, as this break to tap out this note only goes to reinforce, so am still only about 75% through, but thoroughly enjoying, 'Flashman & The Mountain of Light'. The reason for the break here was noting mention in the novel of one Adjutant-General Lumley. I guess it comes as no real surprise to learn that this is the great-great grandfather of Our Joanna, champion of the Ghurkas and the subject of many of my adolescent ****s.

I wonder how people consider her championing of the Ghurkas' rights to settlement here? Mrs Uber's mother, who lives in Farnborough, tells me that the town has seen a large influx of Nepalese families in recent years, resulting in (primarily) their adult males taking to squatting down and ****ting in the park or wherever takes their fancy, sometimes in full view of young mothers and their children.

Ayo Ghurkali!

 

Sorry mate but Im all ovee this topic and nothing posted there makes any diffrence to the consipancy theory.
the tests were undertaken with newer rifles.
What happened to the 4 itallian males seen arrested and marched away by the police (and photgraphed). they were never charged and no-one knows who they are or where they are from.
I'm a mechanical engineer by trade and the only way that single bullet could have done all of that damage to both men would be if they were both screwed op in a cardboard box wrapped around each other. Laying to one side? really? Enough of our board posters have served enough to know thats bull.
Sop all the witnesses that said they saw another shooter are lieing then?
why were all camera confiscted by the police
etc etc..it just goes on

To much evidence around JFK to believe anything other that it was a hit.
Who by? is the real question as most people with any sense can see it just doesnt match up. Shooting the president within site of the FBI, KGB and secret service..come on really ?

If you use Cols methodolgy then you have to conclude that so many could not be involved in a cover up could they? it would leak and come out....and it has..!

 

It's funny you say that Über. It's been proven that there are a lot of people whose brain makes them more susceptible to believe in conspiracy theories. Same goes for people who find learning a foreign language no problem, there is a certain part of the brain that is enlarged in these people therefore they can learn another language easily.

As I'm obviously susceptible to conspiracy theories I'm looking for the inner meaning of the above

 

I bow to your undoubtedly superior knowledge of the subject, Queens. But for me it's seems a simple matter of how much data, evidence, hearsay and expert testimony an individual requires in order to be convinced of something, I suppose. I'm afraid that I just require more than perhaps others.

If all the pieces were now there in front of everybody, I would have thought that 'the world' would have put together the jigsaw by now and there would be one universally accepted explanation of what went on the day in Dallas 50 years ago.

There isn't.

I would be interested to get your view on why this is the case.