Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: WhiteHawk on September 05, 2004, 05:38:18 AM
-
"It is the Oil, Stupid!" by Joseph Clifford Mr. Joseph Clifford
contributed above article to Media Monitors Network (MMN) from James Town, Rhode Island.
The Russians got into their Vietnam (Afghanistan)
right after US got out of theirs? Isn't that strange?
US supported Bin Laden and the Talibans for years, and viewed them as freedom fighters against the Russians? Isn't that strange?
As late as 1998 the US was paying the salary of every single
Taliban's official in Afghanistan? Isn't that strange?
There is more oil and gas in the Caspian Sea area than in Saudi
Arabia, but you need a pipeline through Afghanistan to get the oil
out. Isn't that strange?
UNOCAL, a giant American Oil conglomerate, wanted to build a 1,000 mile long pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea. Isn't that strange?
UNOCAL spent $10,000,000,000 on geological surveys for pipeline construction, and very nicely courted the Talibans for their support in allowing the construction to begin. Isn't that strange?
All of the leading Taliban officials were in Texas negotiating with
UNOCAL in 1998. Isn't that strange?
1998-1999 the Talibans changed its mind and threw UNOCAL out of the country and awarded the pipeline project to a company from Argentina. Isn't that strange?
John Maresca, VP of UNOCAL testified before Congress and said no pipeline until the Talibans was gone and a more friendly government was established. Isn't that strange?
1999-2000 The Talibans became the most evil people in the world. Isn't that strange?
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July (2000) that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October (2000). Isn't that strange?
9/11 WTC disaster.
Bush goes to war against Afghanistan even though none of the
hijackers came from Afghanistan. Isn't that strange?
Bush blamed Bin Laden but has never offered any proof saying it's a "secret". Isn't that strange?
Talibans offered to negotiate to turn over Bin Laden if we showed
them come proof. We refused; we bombed. Isn't that strange?
Bush said: "This is not about nation building. It's about getting the terrorists." Isn't that strange?
We have a new government in Afghanistan. Isn't that strange?
The leader of that government formerly worked for UNOCAL (Hamid Karrzai). Isn't that strange?
Bush appoints a special envoy to represent the US to deal with that new government, who formerly was the "chief consultant to UNOCAL" (LakhdarIbrahimi). Isn't that strange?
The Bush family acquired their wealth through oil !! Isn't that
strange?
Bush's Secretary of Interior was the President of an oil company
before going to Washington. Isn't that strange?
George Bush Sr. (Father) now works with the "Carlysle Group"
specializing in huge oil investments around the world. Isn't that
strange?
Condoleezza Rice worked for Chevron before gong to Washington. Isn't that strange?
Chevron named one of its newest "supertankers" after Condoleezza. Isn't that strange?
Dick Cheney worked for the giant oil conglomerate Haliburton before becoming VP of USA. Isn't that strange?
Haliburton gave Cheney $34,000,000,000 as a farewell gift when he left Haliburton. Isn't that strange?
Haliburton is in the pipeline construction business. Isn't that
strange?
There is $6 Trillion dollars worth of oil in the Caspian Sea area.
Isn't that strange?
The US government quietly announces Jan 31, 2002 we will support the construction of the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline. Isn't that strange?
President Musharref (Pakistan), and Karrzai, (Afghanistan - Unocal) announce agreement to build proposed gas pipeline from Central Asia to Pakistan via Afghanistan. (Irish Times 02/10/02) Isn't that strange?
"It's the Oil, Stupid!"
(And all the while we were told it was about terrorism and freedom)
-
I could check my crystal ball to see what answers you will get here... but I don't think I need to.
-
yea..no answers necessary unless somebdy can offer information that makes these statements false. Those are welcome. I know some of the monetary figures are false, but htye are probably typos.
Some other interesting research, the Pipeline through afganastain was going to be used to power the Nat Gas fired power plant in Dubhal, India. This plant was going to run a large portion of Indias electricity needs.
Why is is this strange also?
1.) Without the nat gas from the caspian sea to Dubhal, India, the $3 billion + plant would soon fail, along with the company that financed it.
2.) The comapny that financed it desparately courted top politicians in order to gather popular support to find a way to get the pipeline installed and operationg, in a big hurry.
3.) The company that financed it was a little company called Enron.
:mad:
Those of you who lost money in that company can rest easier knowing what these people did to try to save your investment:lol
-
The Russians got into their Vietnam (Afghanistan)
right after US got out of theirs? Isn't that strange?
US supported Bin Laden and the Talibans for years, and viewed them as freedom fighters against the Russians? Isn't that strange?
Why is that strange?
As late as 1998 the US was paying the salary of every single
Taliban's official in Afghanistan? Isn't that strange?
Source?
There is more oil and gas in the Caspian Sea area than in Saudi
Arabia, but you need a pipeline through Afghanistan to get the oil
out. Isn't that strange?
UNOCAL, a giant American Oil conglomerate, wanted to build a 1,000 mile long pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea. Isn't that strange?
Why is it strange that there is oil in the Caspian sea? Why is it strange that an oil company would want to exploit those oilfields?
UNOCAL spent $10,000,000,000 on geological surveys for pipeline construction, and very nicely courted the Talibans for their support in allowing the construction to begin. Isn't that strange?
All of the leading Taliban officials were in Texas negotiating with
UNOCAL in 1998. Isn't that strange?
What is strange with that?
1998-1999 the Talibans changed its mind and threw UNOCAL out of the country and awarded the pipeline project to a company from Argentina. Isn't that strange?
John Maresca, VP of UNOCAL testified before Congress and said no pipeline until the Talibans was gone and a more friendly government was established. Isn't that strange?
Why is that strange?
1999-2000 The Talibans became the most evil people in the world. Isn't that strange?
Not really, since they enforced their mideaval version of sharia on themselves, stoning their women, destroying thousand year old Budha statues, generally yanking Afghanistan back to a 7th century AD level of civilization. Is it strange that they are considered evil after that? Not in my book.
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July (2000) that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October (2000). Isn't that strange?
Source
Bush goes to war against Afghanistan even though none of the
hijackers came from Afghanistan. Isn't that strange?
Not particularily, considering that Al Quaeda had its entire infrastructure in Afghanistan.
Bush blamed Bin Laden but has never offered any proof saying it's a "secret". Isn't that strange?
Link me to a speech by Bush claiming to have secret evidence against Bin Laden. Didnt Bin Laden claim responsibility for 9-11 btw?
Talibans offered to negotiate to turn over Bin Laden if we showed
them come proof. We refused; we bombed. Isn't that strange?
Bush said: "This is not about nation building. It's about getting the terrorists." Isn't that strange?
We have a new government in Afghanistan. Isn't that strange?
What exactly is strange about it?
The leader of that government formerly worked for UNOCAL (Hamid Karrzai). Isn't that strange?
Bush appoints a special envoy to represent the US to deal with that new government, who formerly was the "chief consultant to UNOCAL" (LakhdarIbrahimi). Isn't that strange?
Not really.
The Bush family acquired their wealth through oil !! Isn't that
strange?
Bush's Secretary of Interior was the President of an oil company
before going to Washington. Isn't that strange?
George Bush Sr. (Father) now works with the "Carlysle Group"
specializing in huge oil investments around the world. Isn't that
strange?
What is strange about it? If the Bush family made their fortune through oil, what is strange with having Bush Sr work with oil?
Condoleezza Rice worked for Chevron before gong to Washington. Isn't that strange?
Chevron named one of its newest "supertankers" after Condoleezza. Isn't that strange?
What is strange with that? Could there be a correlation between the two? She worked there, they named a tanker after her because they felt she did a good job?
Dick Cheney worked for the giant oil conglomerate Haliburton before becoming VP of USA. Isn't that strange?
Why is that strange? Are VPs not allowed to have other jobs before they take office?
Haliburton gave Cheney $34,000,000,000 as a farewell gift when he left Haliburton. Isn't that strange?
34 billion dollars? Im gonna call BS on that one.
Haliburton is in the pipeline construction business. Isn't that
strange?
Not really since they are in the oil business. Or maybe you disagree? Maybe it is TRULY STRANGE that an oil company also works with oil pipelines?
There is $6 Trillion dollars worth of oil in the Caspian Sea area.
Isn't that strange?
Havent you said that already? What is so strange with that? Geology class might be educational for you in this regard. Newsflash: Oil exists underground at various locations, this is quite normal.
The US government quietly announces Jan 31, 2002 we will support the construction of the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline. Isn't that strange?
President Musharref (Pakistan), and Karrzai, (Afghanistan - Unocal) announce agreement to build proposed gas pipeline from Central Asia to Pakistan via Afghanistan. (Irish Times 02/10/02) Isn't that strange?
Why is that strange?
"It's the Oil, Stupid!"
(And all the while we were told it was about terrorism and freedom)
All I see is alot of tinfoil...not much substance.
-
I agree. The dollar amounts are off, but, due to my recent flare up of paranoid psychosis, I decided to check to see if there were any US interests in Afghanistan prior to, during, or after Sept, 2001.
I ran across this, I am not saying that anything is strange about it, I just wonder if anybody can offer any links that may refute or make these statements false. I know the dollar amounts ore off. The 10 gazillion dollars in research in the caspian sea has to be 10 million, and Cheneys severance package is 40 million, not 38 bazillion. I know oil companies are in the oil business and are prone to look out for their own interests, I am just trying to put the rest the idea that oil companies are running our military.
The idea that our children are being ground into burger in a foriegn country to ensure that our (US) vital interests are protected is not shocking to me nor is it outrageous. Sacrifices must be made for us to enjoy the standard of living that we enjoy. The idea that some deception or missinformation has been massaged in to our minds to justify the real reason we are making these sacrifices is troubling, to say the least.
I just wonder what $150,000,000,000.00 for research into alternative fuel sources would yeild?
_____________________________ ______________________
Link me to a speech by Bush claiming to have secret evidence against Bin Laden. Didnt Bin Laden claim responsibility for 9-11 btw?
_____________________________ _______________________
Actually, it was condoleeza Rice that claimed to have secret evedince against Bin Laden, to be released in 'Due Time' that is a fact.
I see you are from sweden Hortlund, Let me ask you this, how would you feel if the US stormed your country threw, out your govt, installed its own govt, proceeded to mine its naural resources to enrich itself, based on the 'alleged' word of one of your politicians, who isnt even a Swedish citizen and just happen to be working with the CIA a few years earlier? Wouldnt you ask yourself, 'why didnt they just get the perp, AFTER, a trial?
That is strange to me. Thanks for your reply by the way.
-
the world and the ppl in Afghanistan are better today ... isn't that strange
-
Some interesting facts there Whiteshark.
Btw, what are you doing in Kabul?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Some interesting facts there Whiteshark.
Btw, what are you doing in Kabul?
Research :)
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Research :)
on what?
-
What is strange about paying one group to oust another worse one and then havbing the group you funded turn out to be just as bad or worse? When you are dealing with insane and eviol groups you gotta be able to turn on a dime.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Eagler
the world and the ppl in Afghanistan are better today ... isn't that strange
Its tomorrow that worries me:eek:
-
Originally posted by lazs2
What is strange about paying one group to oust another worse one and then havbing the group you funded turn out to be just as bad or worse? When you are dealing with insane and eviol groups you gotta be able to turn on a dime.
lazs
In fact, it is quite helpful to be insane and evil yourself.
-
Bush blamed Bin Laden but has never offered any proof saying it's a "secret". Isn't that strange?
Isn't it strange that you missed the Bin Laden video tape?
The Osama bin Laden video: a viewer's guide (http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/targetterrorism/backgrounders/schwartz_binladen011213.html)
A few minutes later bin Laden says:
"The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes.
Isn't it incredibly strange that you folks take all of the above as "facts" without checking any them out?
Not so strange, I guess. Considering who is flocking to this particular banner.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Condoleezza Rice worked for Chevron before gong to Washington. Isn't that strange?
Chevron named one of its newest "supertankers" after Condoleezza. Isn't that strange?
I just had to laugh at this one. She was also a member of the boards of directors for the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco. So maybe we should link all of the other places where she was a board member and somehow blame it on oil?
:rofl
Oh and by the way, oil is more expensive today than in 2002. "Its the oil stupid!"
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Its tomorrow that worries me:eek:
Yes, I'm sure you are worried. After all, On October 9, 2004, Afghanistan is scheduled to hold its first presidential elections after Taliban rule. Parlimentary elections are to be held separately next April or May, according to the latest timetable.
You must find this terrifying. Especially considering that the driving force behind this huge change in Afghanistan's degree of freedom was the Evil Amreeka.
Since the registration effort began in December 2003, some 4,200 registration sites throughout the country have been established, registering some 8.6 million voters, of whom 3.5 million or 41 percent are women. Afghan election authorities estimate there are between 9.5 and 9.8 million potential voters in the Central Asian state.
Terrifying isn't it? People being allowed to select there own government!! Yikes!!
What's next? Women going to school? OMG! What if women start to wear colorful scarves on their heads? It's The END of the WORLD!
-
I can't prove that the enquirers story about aliens mooning the pope is not true either....
isn't that strange?
lazs
-
There's undeniable proof that there's Aliens amongst us, however. It's in the first post in this thread.
-
toad... I believe that whitewash is afraid that there may be free eolections and in the mideast and he is also afraid that the socialist will lose the election here really really badly.
isn't that strange?
lazs
-
Didnt this WhiteHawk guy post a thread called "Osama Bin Laden is Innocent" just a few days ago?
-
Whitehawk, I like editorials, one can form their own opinion around it.;)
It’s Not About Oil
Robert F. Eaton
Those opposed to the American liberation of Iraq validate their beliefs with poignant arguments. One cannot help but stop to reflect when confronted with the assertion that the looming war puts American lives at risk only to ensure access to cheap oil. More pragmatic objectors contend that an American invasion of Iraq will distract from and even set back the War on Terror, as well as the crisis on the Korean peninsula. These are inflammatory arguments indeed, but they are misleading and largely inaccurate.
If the Middle East were bereft of oil, dictators like Saddam would not wield the power they do, and we would not be going to war. But in reality, where the Middle East has bountiful oil reserves that fund tyrants and terrorists, it is incorrect to assume causality between Iraqi oil and an American attack. Were America motivated exclusively by the desire for inexpensive oil, a decade of sanctions and the threat of war would not be reasonable policies. Stifling Iraqi oil production for twelve years, and introducing into the oil market the uncertainly of war only increases the price of oil. Furthermore, once America liberates Iraq, ownership of Iraqi oil reserves does not thereby transfer to our nation. Rather, the administration has repeatedly said that oil revenue will be used to rebuild Iraq.
Conspiracy theories about an American desire to control the world oil market are as much nonsense as the accusation that the Afghan war served to ensure construction of a gas pipeline. It is much less of a stretch to say that France, Germany, and Russia -- all heavily invested in Iraq -- oppose the war for economic reasons than to accuse America of supporting war for the same reason.
More powerful than the oil controversy is the possibility that a war with Iraq will undermine America’s war on terror. It is often said that we are attacking Saddam simply because he is easier to find than Osama and his cronies. The recent arrest of top al-Qaida leaders, however, contradicts the notion that America cannot concurrently wage war against terrorists and tyrants in the Middle East. Opponents insist that an attack on Iraq has little to do with the war on terror, for it fails to address the root causes of resentment and anger among Muslim populations -- namely, the absence of freedom, and American support of dictatorships. If those are indeed the goals, then a liberation and democratization of Iraq will do a great deal to attain them, by bringing a real Muslim democracy to the Middle East, and lessening American reliance upon the region’s unscrupulous regimes.
It is easy to point out the flaws in others’ arguments, especially when said arguments are so intrinsically flawed, but it is more important to identify what this war is about, rather than what it is not. This war should be carried out for two reasons: one noble, both necessary. The liberation of Iraq will result in the creation of the first liberal, secular democracy in the Middle East besides Israel, and it will send a message to those who fund and foment terror that the consequences of continuing such actions are severe.
Although post-modernism tells us that no government is “better” than another, I nonetheless declare that Western democracy is a superior system to any endemic to the Middle East. The citizens of Iraq, and of the world, would be far better off with a secular, liberal democracy than a dictatorship. In a police state, however, it is virtually impossible for a popular rebellion to manifest, much less to succeed. The men and women who could become an Iraqi Washington or Jefferson are jailed or murdered well before they can pose a threat to the tyrannical government. Thus, without the chance for an internal impetus, a revolution in Iraq must come from without, and the only nations willing to risk their sons and daughters for the freedom of others are America and her allies.
The Bush administration sees the liberation of Iraq as the fulfillment of America’s commitment to protect and extend democracy throughout the world, and as the beginning of a global revolution whereby the nations that subjugate their own citizens and threaten their neighbors will no longer be permitted to do so with impunity. This is a daunting task of immeasurable magnitude, but one that is necessary if the inalienable rights guaranteed to Americans are to be returned to people worldwide whose leaders have taken them away.
More immediate concerns also underlie the defeat of Saddam Hussein. Weakness and strength, defeat and victory are far different in the Middle East than in the West. At the conclusion of the Gulf War, Saddam declared himself a victor despite his shattered armies and decimated nation. The same is true of Yasser Arafat, who emerges from a leveled presidential compound without an ounce of legitimacy in the eyes of his own people and world, yet nonetheless flashes the “V” for victory sign (note: that’s not a peace sign). Anything less than absolute victory is the Middle East is taken a sign of weakness on the part of the enemy, as an invitation to continue defiance.
The last two years of suicide bombings began when Israel withdrew from Lebanon, an act interpreted as weak rather than strategic or conciliatory. America’s failure to respond to terrorist attacks before Sept. 11 sent the message that we were unable and unwilling to address the threat terrorists posed. Carter’s botched attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran, Clinton’s failure to adequately punish the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center attack, the assault on the USS Cole, and the embassy bombings emboldened terrorists to continue their assault. The liberation of Iraq and destruction of Saddam Hussein will send a clear message that America will no longer tolerate individuals, organizations, and nations threatening us, and that the consequences of doing so will be severe. [/size]
War, by its very nature, is bad. But it is not always wrong.
source (http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N11/eaton_col_.11c.html)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Isn't it strange that you missed the Bin Laden video tape?
The Osama bin Laden video: a viewer's guide (http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/targetterrorism/backgrounders/schwartz_binladen011213.html)
Isn't it incredibly strange that you folks take all of the above as "facts" without checking any them out?
Not so strange, I guess. Considering who is flocking to this particular banner.
Just as you, Toad, take the Bin Laden tape as absolute evidence .
There is a huge difference, both logically and legally, between claiming responsiblliity and perpetrating. What if bin laden was just pounding his chest. What self respecting evil terrorist wouldnt want to take credit for this?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
on what?
geological formations:D
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Just as you, Toad, take the Bin Laden tape as absolute evidence .
Two points.
The intelligence agencies and news media have researched it extensively. That's the conclusion they draw from it. I think it has a very high probability of being correct, especially when one considers the earlier attack on the WTC.
Second, it's far more reliable "evidence" than most of what you posted. Far, far more.
But hey, you tinfoil hat guys have to have some thing to talk about at the AlIeNs and WiZaRdS ExPoSiTiOn.
-
wherever this guy comes from the whole newstand must look like the one at the checkout line at safeway.
lazs
-
Off topic
-
Whitehawk, are you any relation or close collaboration to Ryan Anderson? (http://www.kptv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2240850) My gut feeling says you are.
-
*puts crystal ball in the closet*
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
I ran across this, I am not saying that anything is strange about it, I just wonder if anybody can offer any links that may refute or make these statements false.
The burden of proof should be on the accuser here.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Holy Moonbats Batman! Who let the conspiracy theorist out of his cage.
I agree, this 'OBL did it alone' is one of the goofiest conspiracy theories ive ever heard
:D
-
Originally posted by Sox62
The burden of proof should be on the accuser here.
How quick we are to bring out the american justice system when we are trying 'conspiracy kook'. Lets let the murder of 3000 men women and children rest on the word of a cave dwelling towel head. I am up for a trail,myself. What if he had help?
-
uhh... no... conspiracy theories don't allow for anyone doing anything "alone"... what you are saying o' tinfoil hatted one is that the people who believe oswald shot kennedy are the conspiracy theory guys.
The real truth is that kerrie and jane fonda hired left wingers to crash into the WTC but that it is all being covered up...
you can't find any iunfo on this anywhere on the internet even. Isn't that strange?
lazs
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
How quick we are to bring out the american justice system when we are trying 'conspiracy kook'. Lets let the murder of 3000 men women and children rest on the word of a cave dwelling towel head. I am up for a trail,myself. What if he had help?
Who cares if he had help? What's your point?
-
Tom Cruises character: Rainman, how big do you think Cheney’s farewell gift was when he left Haliburton?
Rainman: Bout 34 billion dollars.
eskimo
-
Hahaha, its from Rhode Island. We're such liberals.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Who cares if he had help? What's your point?
wow martlet. You just made one of em.
-
its even funnier when you think about who was president at the time...
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
wow martlet. You just made one of em.
Care to explain, or are you going to continue making cryptic remarks in absence of compelling evidence to support your wild accusations?
-
Off topic
-
Actually, silverstein never said that. You also falsely state that the collapse wasn't investigated. It was, and FEMA concluded the building was lost to fires.
Why do you keep changing topics when you are backed into a corner on your previous statements? After having to bail from so many claims due to lack of facts, I would think you'd realize most of us now understand you don't know what you're talking about.
-
whitehawk - think you better check your koolaid - LOL
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Toad, I, up until 3 weeks ago, was right on board with everybody else. Let me ask you this, If I can prove that the owner of the WTC admitted to having building 7 demolished,
I would like to see that.
-
Off topic
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Actually, silverstein never said that. You also falsely state that the collapse wasn't investigated. It was, and FEMA concluded the building was lost to fires.
Why do you keep changing topics when you are backed into a corner on your previous statements? After having to bail from so many claims due to lack of facts, I would think you'd realize most of us now understand you don't know what you're talking about.
OK martlet, i'll bite. First, realize that I cant argue with everybody, I have to pick up the ones who are able to argue. Calling me names and ridiculing is expected. But I cant waste any time on them.
You say, silverstien never said that. I have seen with my own eyes that silverstien said (there was to much damage), '...so I ordered the building pulled..'. I can prove that, but again, I am not going to waste my time if you arent going to concede that this is verry strange. If I find the link and post it, am I going to hear, 'well, even though 'pulled' is a slang term used to describe the controlled demolition of a building, it can also mean a tow truck 'pulled' it down'. or are you going to concede that is highly strange and conflicting with any media or investigative commissions conclusions. ?
2.) You got me, FEMA, did investigate and concluded that #7 was brought down just as the towers. I thought I have mentioned that along with the fact that FEMA needed more information to be certain. I didnt say that it was never investigated.
3) on your comment, ' who cares if he (OBL/Al-Queada) had help.
You have to be kidding? Its not IF he had help, its WHO helped him! When I say you just made one of my points, I mean that youre saying Who cares who did it? Or am I missing something?
4) And where exactly was I backed in a corner? At the top of this thread, I simply asked for somebody to give any information that may confirm or debunk the article I ran across on the web.
Then here come the American Flags sticks bashing in my skull.
Let me know if you want the link to the PBS silverstien interview and I'll post it.
Or if you like I can email it to you, I dont want to upset anybody inadvertantly.
-
I have seen with my own eyes that silverstien said (there was to much damage), '...so I ordered the building pulled..'. I can prove that, but again, I am not going to waste my time if you arent going to concede that this is verry strange.
You don't have to prove that. I know it to be true. They also said the same thing about building 6. They didn't only say because of damage, but loss of life. "Pulled" meaning remove all fire fighters and rescue personal out of the building since it was a loss.
When I say you just made one of my points, I mean that youre saying Who cares who did it?
no, I'm saying if he had help, how does that in any way effect today's situation or our past actions.
-
Prediction, by the end of next year, the ole National Security rule will be all over this one.
-
no, I'm saying if he had help, how does that in any way effect today's situation or our past actions. Once again, its not IF he had help it is WHO helped him?
And the 'pulled' thing. OK, that is a good point. I guess it can mean that but, evacuated would be a bit less confusing.
So, I'll grant you that neither one of us can argue what he really mean or didnt mean. Just make sure we scrutinize the convicting bin laden tape as harshely. Does he speak English?
By the way there was no jet fuel in building 7 and the building came down due to fires? Never before seen on modern skyscraper. Hmmm..I imagine the insurance companies are going to rewrite the book on skyscraper construction.
Did you notice how the building came down so precisely? Hmmm, an office fire melted the supports on every side of the buidling at exactly the same moment or it wouldve fallen sideways. What luck. I guess if it hadnt fallen so perfectly, the word pulled wouldnt mean anything to anybody.
Anyway, you have riased a reasonable doubt in my mind about that issue, and give you the arguemnt. There is more, are you interested?
-
its not IF he had help it is WHO helped him?
I don't know if he had help or not. Again, what's your point? Should we have done something differently?
So, I'll grant you that neither one of us can argue what he really mean or didnt mean.
Sure I can. He was asked that question and explained himself. FEMA agreed.
By the way there was no jet fuel in building 7 and the building came down due to fires? Never before seen on modern skyscraper.
You've never seen a skyscraper burn? Watch the news sometime.
Did you notice how the building came down so precisely? Hmmm, an office fire melted the supports on every side of the buidling at exactly the same moment or it wouldve fallen sideways.
Yep, I noticed. I also noticed the other buildings come straight down, too. Of the three buildings I saw video of falling that day, all three of them fell straight down. Two of them I SAW burning. I guess that's how burning sky scrapers of that design fall.
There is more, are you interested?
Sure. Post whatever you want. I'm not one to buy most conspiracy theories, though. That's a liberal trait. I'll have fun poking holes in them for you.
-
Off topic
-
There aren't many skyscraper fires, period. However, recent collapses include one in Hunan Province, China and Cairo. Both this year.
More to the point, though, is the fact that there were over 40,000 gallons of generator fuel at building 7. You haven't seemed to factor that into your conspiracy theory.
Question: What authority does Mr silverstein have over the rescue personel and firefighters?
Absolutely none. It is, however, his building. He gave the ok. More directly, what authority would he have to demolish it without the necessary permits?
Question: was mr silverstien inside building #7 to check the condition of the building? If so, was he qualified to make the decision to evacuate the building as the wounded be left for dead? If they knew there were no wounded what were the rescue personnel doing in there?
You don't seem to have researched this very much. He was not in the building. He was receiving reports from rescue personel who were trying to save his building. No one was killed when it collapsed. There were no people trapped in it. The only rescue workers in the building were trying to contain the blaze. His comment about too many lives lost today was making note that the building was heavily damaged and it wasn't worth the risk of lives to try and save it.
Burning skyscrapers arent supposed to fall at all. The fact the the first 3 modern skyscrapers that ever fell due to fire fell in the same day is a little odd, isnt it
Odd? You think it's odd? They had freaking jets flown into them. What's odd is they didn't crumble immediately. It's amazing to me how daft some people are. The lengths you go to trying to support your whacked out theory is simply astonishing.
-
Off topic
-
Personal attack
-
Personal attack
-
Personal attack
-
Off topic
-
So you are trying to convince us that Bush is in bed with the Saudis, especially the Bin Ladens.. And vthat they habe some special friendship.. OK...
And you are also hinting that Bush did something fishy about the 911 attacks and, as you said, without evidence blamed the attack on who of all people in the world, a Bin Laden?
Hmm.. Isn't that strange?
You see WhiteHawk, little problems like that are what make people doubt your sanity...
-
Off topic
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So you are trying to convince us that Bush is in bed with the Saudis, especially the Bin Ladens.. And vthat they habe some special friendship.. OK...
iI just quoted the Wall street Journal, who alledgedly , quoted a Bush aide shortly after the attacks. Youre the one who has drawn that conclusion.
I know better than to offer my opinions on the subject, I am a paranoid psyho. You, an the other hand, are all to eager to tell me what my opinion needs to be, in order to justify your beliefs.
This is quite normal and expected. Discredit the messanger.
Of course I am not in any position to determine the relationship with the Bush's and Saudia Arabia. I couldnt give a rats arse. They both do oil, and it wouldnt surprise me if they have some kind of business relationship. What does that prove? Nothing. Thats why I discarded the information until eagler brought it. He pointed it out in his multiple choice question above. I got it right, he got it wrong.
-
If you don't care about it, why do you keep bringing it up?
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
By the way there was no jet fuel in building 7 and the building came down due to fires? Never before seen on modern skyscraper.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've never seen a skyscraper burn? Watch the news sometime.
See what I mean there martlet, I say '..and the building came down due to fires..?' You say, 'Youve never seen a skyscraper burn? Watch the news sometime.' You hole poker you;)
let me simplify the question, 'Martlet, if you want to poke a hole in my story, find me a skyscraper that has collapsed from fire?' Your ball.
Try to make it a relatively modern one, at least 1950+.
Another point about building #7 after listeinign to Mr silverstien again he says, "There has been such tremendous loss of life today, maybe the best thing to do would be to pull it, and we all watched the building collapse."
You say, he meant evacuate the building of rescue personel and firefighters or I guess theis is the FEMA report...
Question: What authority does Mr silverstein have over the rescue personel and firefighters?
Question: was mr silverstien inside building #7 to check the condition of the building? If so, was he qualified to make the decision to evacuate the building as the wounded be left for dead? If they knew there were no wounded what were the rescue personnel doing in there?
You ask what is my point if he help or not? If he had help, then it is a conspiracy, and , god willing, the guilty be brought to trial. Does anybody else care who did it? I bet so.
You guess thats how burning skyscrapers of that design fall???!!
Burning skyscrapers arent supposed to fall at all. The fact the the first 3 modern skyscrapers that ever fell due to fire fell in the same day is a little odd, isnt it? Yea I know, 2 of em were hit by airplanes, those two falling wouldnt be odd, if wasnt for the 3rd one falling, but remember, none of these buildings officially fell due to the impact of the aircraft, they all fell from fire officially.
I earned a degree in fire science in Honolulu Hawaii well before 9/11. Honolulu has its fair share of high rises, so we studied all kinds of fires including tall structures. The program included a building construction class, of which the primary focus was learning to recognize when a structure was at risk of collapse. If there is one thing that I recall about my studies of building construction and collapse, it is that buildings of all types and sizes can and will collapse from structural damage caused by fire. Its not a matter of can a tall building collapse from fire, its when it will collapse and can the fire be put out before it get close to that point. Direct fire impingement on steel structural members can cause collapse in as little time as 15 minutes. Structural steel is coated with fire protective foam to help prevent the steel from reaching temperatures where it can become soft in a fire. This foam, however, can deteriorate or break off over time or burn away in a fire. It would be insane to build skyscrapers the way we do today without fire sprinkler systems, without them skyscraper collapse would not be all that uncommon (except that we probably wouldn’t build them anymore in the first place). Fire officers are trained to recognize and predict building collapse; it is usually the biggest concern at any structure fire. The fire officers at the WTC should have pulled their crews long before the towers fell; the towers lasted longer than should have been expected. Building seven was in serious threat of collapse; the integrity of the foam insulation and sprinkler systems had to be considered. Building seven had also withstood the force of debris from the two massive towers collapsing near it. The New York Fire Department had just had the greatest reminder in our history of how costly building collapse can be. They didn’t want to, and didn’t need to, risk any more lives unnecessarily.
Quite often, clearing out and letting a building fall is by far the safest thing to do.
After reading portions of this thread I did a search and found a few articles that make similar claims; that something fishy happened with building seven. I also found that many New York Firefighters and other “experts’ were surprised that the twin towers collapsed from fire and suspect otherwise. I’m baffled that their studies differed so much from mine. Just because no major skyscraper had collapsed from fire, does not mean that it is not very possible. Countless smaller steel buildings have collapsed from fire. Several tests have been conducted that show that steel beams can give way in as little as 15 minutes of direct fire impingement. When I turned on the TV on 9/11 and saw towers burning, I expected them to fall. They actually lasted a bit longer than I expected. Once again, I was trained to expect severely burned buildings to fall.
I read the FEMA report on building seven and find it to be a reasonable account.
The articles that contradicted the FEMA report contain many ideas that are borderline silly.
eskimo
-
WhiteHawk, are you going to source the damn quotes or are you just shooting a bunch of hot air?
-
Off topic
-
Martlet,
The 40,000 or whatever you said gallon holding tanks in WTC#7 were found intact by FEMA's own report. They were not the sorce or fire in WTC#7.. No JP4 or Diesel burned in WTC#7...
Whitehawk,
Salute dude.. Been sometime since I've seen you round these parts. Excellent trail at the beginning of the thread. I did not know some of the things you pointed out.
Strk,
Bro! Good to see you again! (Saw you in the other thread) Didnt know you got banned.. haha Carful next time and I know some here make it really hard to be.. hehe Have not seen Pbear in sometime.
kappa
-
Eskimo2. I do respect your reply and educational input. It is above the name calling and rediculing. We all know that there have been many high rise fires. Some of them infernos. Fully engulfed. I am in no position to argue about archetechture or structural design or the limits of steel when exposed to heat.
I will give it to you that, theoretcially, a modern high rise can collapse due to fire. Can u give an example of one that has, besides the 3 that collapsed due to fire on sept 7? This is the question that needs to answered. Talking theory and possibilities are for engineers prior to collapse, not investigators searching for the truth.
My point, if no modern high rise has ever collapsed due to fire, ( i cant think off hand of a modern high rise that has collapsed due to anything, other than controlled demolition) it strikes me as anomolous, (statistically improbable) that 3 of them collapsed due to fire in 1 day.
is it possible? Possible is a big word, just as big as impossible.
I say, yes it is possible. If we were able to work the the US justice system, we would be talking in terms of reasonable doubt.
In my paranoid crippled mind, i am not convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that building #7 collapsed due to fire.
Particulary given the owners (Silverstein) statemnet that he ordered the building pulled, just prior to its collapse.
-
Off topic
-
Hiya, kappa. Good to hear ya. Ive been busy lately and havnt been able to fly. I couldnt think of a better wingman to have at a time like this either. If you really want to dive in deep, get the
Power hour video "in plane sight". Jeezus, its scary.
http://www.thepowerhour.com. Its 20 bucks but has some video that has never been aired since 9/11. The huge explosion (building 6) captured on live film.
They screwed up that one. The building blew up BEFORE the dang towers fell.
Hopefully, within a year or so , I will be able to fly aces high2 again. (under an assumed name). Take care and make sure you have your antivirus and firewall running at all times. I spent all morning getting rid of a virus. Those sites are bugged.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
WhiteHawk, are you going to source the damn quotes or are you just shooting a bunch of hot air?
which quotes thrawn? The one that says WSJ 27 sept 2001?
-
WhiteHawk, if you are in Kabul, as you alluded earlier, then how is it you are posting from the St. Louis area of the U.S.?
I await your answer before determining if this is a troll/flame bait.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
WhiteHawk, if you are in Kabul, as you alluded earlier, then how is it you are posting from the St. Louis area of the U.S.?
I await your answer before determining if this is a troll/flame bait.
Actually I am not in Kabul afghanistain. As you can see by the spelling of afghanistain, it is an inside joke.
Skuzzy, If the topic here is too sensitive to post. I will understand and step down.
What is a troll/flame bait anyway?
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
I could check my crystal ball to see what answers you will get here... but I don't think I need to.
:rofl
-
These are not my quotes. they are not my words I offer no opinion here. This is a copied and paste from another article, probably a manaicl propaganda specialist who has succeeded in brainiwashing me. This passage gives the wource for the silverstien comment.
===========================================
In a stunning and belateddevelopment concerning the attacks of
9/11 Larry Silverstein, thecontroller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBSdocumentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish theSolomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon ofTuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.
This admission appeared in a PBSdocumentary originally aired in Sept. of 2002 entitled"Rebuilding America, A Year at Ground Zero". MrSilverstein's comments came after FEMA and the Society of CivilEngineers conducted an extensive and costly investigation intothe curious collapse of WTC 7. The study specifically concludedthat the building had collapsed as a result of the infernowithin, sparked, apparently, by debris falling from the crumblingNorth Tower.
In the documentary Silversteinmakes the following statement;
"...Iremember getting a call from the fire department commandertelling me they were not sure they were going to be able tocontain the fire...and I said, 'Well, you know, we've had suchterrible loss of life...maybe the smartest thing to do is, is 'pull'it...and they made that decision to 'pull'...uh,and we watched the building collapse."
Mr. Silversteins comments stand indirect contradiction to the findings of the extensive FEMAreport. They even negate Kevin Spacey's narrative in the verydocumentary in which they appear; "WTC 7 fell afterburning for 7 hours." If it had been generally known thatthe building was "pulled" wouldn't Mr. Spacey havephrased it that way?
In the same program a cleanupworker referred to the demolition of WTC 6; "...well, we'regetting ready to "pull" buildingsix." There can be little doubt as to how theword "pull" is being used in this context
-
If it is not a troll/flame bait, it is pointless paranoia. However, we seem to have left that off the list of rules.
The structural and architectural engineers of the WTC said the building did exactly what the mathematical model predicted they would do in thier design.
They were designed to collapse on themselves if structural failure occurred anywhere in the building.
The engineers breathed a sigh of relief. If the buildings had not done what they were designed to do, then many more deaths would have resulted.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
If it is not a troll/flame bait, it is pointless paranoia. However, we seem to have left that off the list of rules.
I will be expecting it soon.
Your staments above are all true. they speak of the design of the building and how well it performed. I look at it and see a building that collapsed due to fire. My paranoid mind tells me 'it didnt perform very well'. did the engieneers calculate there may be people in that building? So any part of the structure that fails wipes out the entire population inside of it? Its a good darn thing these engineers didnt do the Murrah building in OK city.
Or the twin towers themselves ('93 bombing of the towers), or that thing would have come down smashing thousands.
Pointless? I can inmagine being one of the firefighters on the 40th floor of one of the towers and hearing the roar above me and knowing its all over. Thier wives and children, mothers and fathers, friends.
In my paranoid mind, there is reasonable doubt that Al queda did this alone. There was no trial. Do we need a trail? We have attas wallet pulled out of the wreckage with his al queada membership card inside. Good thing it didnt melt, because there isnt a whole lot else, is there?
And thats all for me. I hope and pray I am wrong, because we are soon going to need to justify disarming the evildoers of nukes.
Good luck to all and i sincerely apologize if this has upset anybody.
.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Good luck to all and i sincerely apologize if this has upset anybody.
.
Every morning I get out of bed and thank the good Lord that you only get one vote.
-
Sooo.... do you think it was the democrats that caused it to try and make Bush and the republicans look bad?
even so.. I wasn't gonna vote democrat anyway... but... thanks for the heads up.
lazs
-
You do not get it. A structural failure means the building or a major part of the building was going to collapse.
You could not build it where every member could support the entire weight of the building. The force/inertia of a floor collapsing onto another floor will cause every tall building to collapse. And once the first one goes, the rest will follow.
If you allowed the building to topple over, even the upper half of the building, the death count could have been much higher.
-
Man i hate getting to a thread late in the game, having all the juicy stuff skuzzified, so all i can do is imagine what transpired
LOL
Skuzzy, just mentioning i always miss the "good stuff" LOL