Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: redman555 on September 06, 2008, 05:48:48 PM
-
So, for years now, there has been people saying there was explosives put in the building, to help it go down, and so forth, what is all of your opinions on 9-11? conspiracy's? or just terrorists?, personally, i belive it was just from the impact, i mean, thing about it, 100 ton aircraft-500+mph, and 10,000+ gallons of jet fuel=BOOM
-BigBOBCH
-
(http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa223/Skyrock67/stirthepot.gif)
-
(http://www.entertainmentworlds.com/dftt.gif)
Amen.
Be seated.
ROX
-
No feeding the trolls! :furious
-
:huh
-BigBOBCH
-
:confused:
-
:uhoh
:noid
-
:cry
Speaking of 9/11...did anyone catch Olbermann right after the 9/11 video was shown at the RNC?
OLBERMANN: Tom, Chuck, great. Tom Brokaw and Chuck Todd, we'll be back with you later on in the broadcast. I'm sorry. It's necessary to say this, and I wanted to separate myself from the others on the air about this. If at this late date any television network on its own accord showed that much videotape and that much graphic videotape of 9/11, I speak as somebody who lost a few friends there, it we would be rightly eviscerated at all quarters perhaps by the Republican party itself for exploiting the memories of the dead and perhaps even for trying to evoke that pain again. If you reacted to that videotape the way I did, I apologize. It is a subject of great pain for many of us still and was probably not appropriate to be shown. We'll continue in a moment.
This guy leaves me speechless.
-
people that where in the buildings,that came out alive, have been quoted as hearing explosions in the lower levels minutes before the collapse.
but no... it couldn't have been done by our "government" they wouldn't do that. :lol
typical American=buncha robots... oh wait didn't time(insert magizine, or tv show) magazine do a study and prove it was not by the "government" :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/fc/hiding.gif)
-
people that where in the buildings,that came out alive, have been quoted as hearing explosions in the lower levels minutes before the collapse.
but no... it couldn't have been done by our "government" they wouldn't do that. :lol
typical American=buncha robots... oh wait didn't time(insert magizine, or tv show) magazine do a study and prove it was not by the "government" :rofl :rofl :rofl
I think the tattoo ink has seeped into someones gray matter.
-
:noid quick,take cover they are attacking the most important things in america.
oh no they just got the electronic store how will we go on? :cry
-NEARY :noid
-
:cry
Speaking of 9/11...did anyone catch Olbermann right after the 9/11 video was shown at the RNC?
This guy leaves me speechless.
why did they show video of 9/11?
-
why did they show video of 9/11?
I guess it was to exploit the memories of the dead and perhaps try to evoke that pain again. :rolleyes:
That's what you wanted to hear....right?
-
I think the tattoo ink has seeped into someones gray matter.
:lol
nope my gray matter is just fine, works the way God intended, to be able to see through the lies and delusions, and to think for myself !!
and just because you don't/do believe something don't make it so. no matter what you have read or have been told, or saw for that matter.
history is written by those that won the war, and they will play it out like they are the "good guy"
war on terror? ya ok so why the f we in Iraq, oh wait our "government" wants to bring democracy to those "savages", they use differant words but the meaning is the same.
oil, power,greed, money, these are the reasons we are in Iraq,
and if you don't believe that, but instead believe that we are there to "Help" or "democratize" there contry, look in the mirror
your "government" loves you, you are a perfect robot, er... i mean citizen.
-
We went to war with Iraq 2 years after September 11. No significant importance in Afghanistan except that there were terrorists there. Osama bin-laden claimed he did it, and there's TONS of videos that it happened. Lets see, lets put the word of people who werent even there over millions of people who actually saw it.
-
:lol
nope my gray matter is just fine, works the way God intended, to be able to see through the lies and delusions, and to think for myself !!
and just because you don't/do believe something don't make it so. no matter what you have read or have been told, or saw for that matter.
history is written by those that won the war, and they will play it out like they are the "good guy"
war on terror? ya ok so why the f we in Iraq, oh wait our "government" wants to bring democracy to those "savages", they use differant words but the meaning is the same.
oil, power,greed, money, these are the reasons we are in Iraq,
and if you don't believe that, but instead believe that we are there to "Help" or "democratize" there contry, look in the mirror
your "government" loves you, you are a perfect robot, er... i mean citizen.
It must be very difficult to be the only non-sheeple person in America, huh? :rolleyes:
Your arrogance is only matched by your ignorance.
-
people that where in the buildings,that came out alive, have been quoted as hearing explosions in the lower levels minutes before the collapse.
Just for argument sake....what good would explosions in the lower levels have done?
The buildings collapsed from the top down.
Explosions at the bottom would not cause the failure at the top. Instead we would have seen the bottom collapse first or at the same time as the top.
-
Your arrogance is only matched by your ignorance.
Matched? I would counter that his ignorance far exceeds his arrogance, but not for lack of effort.
-
It must be very difficult to be the only non-sheeple person in America, huh? :rolleyes:
Your arrogance is only matched by your ignorance.
arrogance has nothing to do with it,
and trust me there are others who will except the truth no matter how harsh it is.
i wish i was ignorant, because it is bliss,
sorry to say you are very blissfull.
let me guess
you would probably take the blue pill wouldn't ya.
-
Just for argument sake....what good would explosions in the lower levels have done?
The buildings collapsed from the top down.
Explosions at the bottom would not cause the failure at the top. Instead we would have seen the bottom collapse first or at the same time as the top.
donzo, that is exactly what i tell ppl, if it was a controlled demolition, from wat ive seen, we would have seen bottom collapse first, it is totally clear, the top lvls above aircraft came down
-BigBOBCH
-
Just for argument sake....what good would explosions in the lower levels have done?
The buildings collapsed from the top down.
Explosions at the bottom would not cause the failure at the top. Instead we would have seen the bottom collapse first or at the same time as the top.
Donzo the buildings fell at freefall speed, in less than two seconds the building was down,
i bet if you think about it you can answer your own question.
-
I think the tattoo ink has seeped into someones gray matter.
what gray matter?
-
donzo, that is exactly what i tell ppl, if it was a controlled demolition, from wat ive seen, we would have seen bottom collapse first, it is totally clear, the top lvls above aircraft came down
-BigBOBCH
it was a controlled demolition, that is the only way for a building to fall in its own "footprint"
which all three buildings did.
-
what gray matter?
and i can say the same about you, but i feel more saddened by how much this system has disillusioned society.
-
Donzo the buildings fell at freefall speed, in less than two seconds the building was down,
i bet if you think about it you can answer your own question.
Ink, seriously, did you actually watch them fall...have to seen the video?
They fall from the top down. The bottom is not affected UNTIL the top has progressively collapsed into the bottom.
-
Ink, seriously, did you actually watch them fall...have to seen the video?
They fall from the top down. The bottom is not affected UNTIL the top has progressively collapsed into the bottom.
i watched them,
they fell so fast all supports where taken out at the same time, they didn't fall progressively, they fell instantaneously.
-
Here, look for yourself, the building was made with flaws, which has been proven many times to. There werent explosives at the bottom. What looks like explosives on each floor (where the debris is shooting out) is the debris from the top floors sending it out the window.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u9kieqGppE&feature=related
Go ahead and watch, decide for yourself. I'm 100% certain a bunch of pissed off terrorists did this, there is no reason for Bush to go into Afghanistan, and I seriously doubt he was planning to go into Iraq by 2001.
Idiots started getting this idea, and started 'seeing things' and started assuming.
-
i watched them,
they fell so fast all supports where taken out at the same time, they didn't fall progressively, they fell instantaneously.
You must be right! Obviously there were huge teams setting the demo charges on every support on every floor just like you said. Its not like gravity or inertia could possibly overwhelm each succeeding floor. Physics are way overrated when you know your right.
-
Hell even PBS's frontline covered how/why and how they fell. They're no friend of this administration.
-
Now, this is a creepy conspiracy, even as you watch the footage, you can see it briefly, then it pauses to show you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XcYAMR3PoU&feature=related
-
:lol
nope my gray matter is just fine, works the way God intended, to be able to see through the lies and delusions, and to think for myself !!
and just because you don't/do believe something don't make it so. no matter what you have read or have been told, or saw for that matter.
history is written by those that won the war, and they will play it out like they are the "good guy"
war on terror? ya ok so why the f we in Iraq, oh wait our "government" wants to bring democracy to those "savages", they use differant words but the meaning is the same.
oil, power,greed, money, these are the reasons we are in Iraq,
and if you don't believe that, but instead believe that we are there to "Help" or "democratize" there contry, look in the mirror
your "government" loves you, you are a perfect robot, er... i mean citizen.
Why are the Iraqi people now called "savages"? Oil is NOT why we are there. Why not bring up China's deal with Iraq? You trying to "pile on to the BBS posters" and spewing this crap is no better. You obviously have just as much "hatred" of a people who did NOTHING to you personally. Had "cigar boy" done the right thing and taken that POS out when he could have, MAYBE it'd be a little different. But, it's GWB's fault.
I bet you'll tell me that my cousin whose desk as in the wing of the Pentagon when the airliner crashed into it, didn't SEE the airliner? Instead she saw a "missile" right? Had she not been called to a last minute meeting, my cousin would not be walking the Earth today.
Or maybe my Grandfather was full of caca del toro when he talked about the treatment of our POW's in WWII?
Please enlighten me.
-
Why are the Iraqi people now called "savages"? Oil is NOT why we are there. Why not bring up China's deal with Iraq? You trying to "pile on to the BBS posters" and spewing this crap is no better. You obviously have just as much "hatred" of a people who did NOTHING to you personally. Had "cigar boy" done the right thing and taken that POS out when he could have, MAYBE it'd be a little different. But, it's GWB's fault.
I bet you'll tell me that my cousin whose desk as in the wing of the Pentagon when the airliner crashed into it, didn't SEE the airliner? Instead she saw a "missile" right? Had she not been called to a last minute meeting, my cousin would not be walking the Earth today.
Or maybe my Grandfather was full of caca del toro when he talked about the treatment of our POW's in WWII?
Please enlighten me.
obviously something hit the pentagon, and i don't blame bush ether, i blame the individual who is in charge of this system, who is the "god" of this world.
who's greatest trick was to make people think he doesn't exist.
well this is fun, but we have had this argument before and no one is going to change anyones mind except themselves, and that will most likely never happen, that's why i give it to God its in his hands, Yahaveh will be done with this world soon enough and it will no longer matter and those who are responsible for ALL the heinous acts man kind has done to each other. will drink there cup.
-
Why are the Iraqi people now called "savages"? ...
and if you cant figure out why i used the word "savages"
well,... we will just leave it there before i say something i will regret.
-
and if you cant figure out why i used the word "savages"
well,... we will just leave it there before i say something i will regret.
Religion can be a terrible thing... just look at the Crusades...
-
The buildings fell exactly as they were designed to fall, in their own footprint.
I watched the towers fall that day, it wasn't instantaneous, it was a progressive collapse. There are any number of videos on youtube that show the towers collapsing. They show the exact same thing that I watched happen live on CNN that horrible day.
Besides, if it was a government conspiracy, why go to the trouble of flying airliners into the towers? Why not just set explosive charges at night when everyone is gone? Sure it'd take weeks to accomplish that, but the effect would be far greater....ie, larger body count. You could still blame it on the terrorists.
Besides all of that, we have tapes of Osama bin Turdhead himself taking the credit for the attacks and he was proud of it.
-
It's that time of year again... :noid :uhoh :mad:
Stop discussing about it!
1. People who lost relatives will feel hurt and angry.
2. People who don't believe that the terrorist will start flam wars with people who do.
3. It happened 8 years ago, give it a rest, stop remembering bad and painful stuff, and look at our present day and our future.
-
3. It happened 8 years ago, give it a rest, stop remembering bad and painful stuff, and look at our present day and our future.
Fail.
-
it was a controlled demolition, that is the only way for a building to fall in its own "footprint"
which all three buildings did.
Are you at this again?
Perhaps you forgot the last time when I proved you wrong? Or was I not brutal enough?
-
Besides all of that, we have tapes of Osama bin Turdhead himself taking the credit for the attacks and he was proud of it.
That never works with conspiracy theorists.... any evidence that comes out against their failed logic, scientific or otherwise, will immediately be labeled as manufactured government propaganda. Anybody who comes out against the theories is a puppet of the government.
-
It's that time of year again... :noid :uhoh :mad:
Stop discussing about it!
1. People who lost relatives will feel hurt and angry.
2. People who don't believe that the terrorist will start flam wars with people who do.
3. It happened 8 years ago, give it a rest, stop remembering bad and painful stuff, and look at our present day and our future.
People who did that call our troops nazis and say that they're worse than Suddam Hussein.
-
obviously something hit the pentagon, and i don't blame bush ether, i blame the individual who is in charge of this system, who is the "god" of this world.who's greatest trick was to make people think he doesn't exist.
well this is fun, but we have had this argument before and no one is going to change anyones mind except themselves, and that will most likely never happen, that's why i give it to God its in his hands, Yahaveh will be done with this world soon enough and it will no longer matter and those who are responsible for ALL the heinous acts man kind has done to each other. will drink there cup.
It sure feels great to be "counter culture" and "In the know" beyond everyone else but the reality is here:
(http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/HPM/HM36~Drugs-Are-Bad-Posters.jpg)
-
It's that time of year again... :noid :uhoh :mad:
Stop discussing about it!
1. People who lost relatives will feel hurt and angry.
2. People who don't believe that the terrorist will start flam wars with people who do.
3. It happened 8 years ago, give it a rest, stop remembering bad and painful stuff, and look at our present day and our future.
stop discusing it? ya thats the thing to do, ignore the fact that someone in our government mudererd our friends and family, it does not matter why they did it but that fact that they did, the fact that they went down is the only reason we went to war, they F#@king lied to us they still are lying to us, they have killed NO murdererd us
and you want to stop talking about it, ya thats excactly what they want us to do,
while they make "silver dollars" of the twin towers, and sell them at the low price of , more ways to make money off of our dead.
wake the F......... up.
-
A bunch of pissed off muslims did that. Prove to me how the government did it. The Demolition thing with the debris has already been proven wrong COUNTLESS times.
-
Are you at this again?
Perhaps you forgot the last time when I proved you wrong? Or was I not brutal enough?
:rofl :rofl
-
...if the government can't cover up a stealth fighter, a hotel break-in, an oval office hummer, a toe tap in an airport bathroom or a coupla hundred grand in a garage freezer....
ah, well; never mind. They're brilliant. We're screwed.
Anybody notice the water is tasting funny lately?
-
A bunch of pissed off muslims did that. Prove to me how the government did it. The Demolition thing with the debris has already been proven wrong COUNTLESS times.
ya its been proved if your a robot. they always believe what there masters tell them.
-
A bunch of pissed off muslims did that. Prove to me how the government did it. The Demolition thing with the debris has already been proven wrong COUNTLESS times.
No, it was 'proven wrong' by government sheep paid to fabricate false evidence!!!!!!!1`111one!!!
When will you see the light and blindly give in to the failed logic that people like ink try to shove down your throat?
-
And we didn't land on the moon. :noid
-
It's that time of year again... :noid :uhoh :mad:
Stop discussing about it!
1. People who lost relatives will feel hurt and angry.
2. People who don't believe that the terrorist will start flam wars with people who do.
3. It happened 8 years ago, give it a rest, stop remembering bad and painful stuff, and look at our present day and our future.
1. I am willing to bet that the people who lost relatives and friends have and will deal with this in their own way. I also bet that you cannot even begin to speak for them.
2. That happens day in and day out on these boards and many others over a vast range of subjects. So what's your point?
3. If you wish to "give it a rest" then do so...that's your deal. Remembering the bad and painful stuff is sometimes necessary when looking at our present day and future and if you cannot accept that then you should "give it a rest" and quit thinking you know what's best for others.
-
ya its been proved if your a robot. they always believe what there masters tell them.
No idiot, when a building collapses the way it did, the debris will also FALL inside on itself before it falls outside itself. It's been proven and it's obvious.
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,239704.msg2910592.html#msg2910592
Just because I absolutely KNOW you will ignore it again, this is where I described in detail how you are wrong.
-
No idiot, when a building collapses the way it did, the debris will also FALL inside on itself before it falls outside itself. It's been proven and it's obvious.
oh ya the debris the proof :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
oh ya the debris the proof :rofl :rofl :rofl
You one of the guys who thinks there was no debris found at the Pentagon (simply because you read it on some website... because everything on the internet is true, yaknow) even though pictures containing watermelon loads of aircraft debris is easy to find?
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,239704.msg2910592.html#msg2910592
Just because I absolutely KNOW you will ignore it again, this is where I described in detail how you are wrong.
Here, even easier for him:
First off, leave Jesse Ventura out of this. He's gone off the deep end. And I don't mean I only think he's weird because he switched from Republican to Democrat.
I mean he's 2 computer beeps away from smearing feces on his face and re-enacting Romeo and Juliette in a one man play naked in Central Park. Dude's masking crazy.
Second? I ain't just an engineer. I'm an architectural engineer. That means I know exactly how to design buildings. I know exactly how to build them. I know exactly what causes failures.
Past that, I've been studying Fire Protection, with my Thesis being designed to PREVENT steel failure due to fire.
The failure wasn't some great mystery that the government is hiding from us. First off, the building was designed to survive the impact force of smaller jet. However the engineers did not consider that the impact would blow all of the Spray On Fireproofing off of the columns.
Steel itself is a great structural material. Hell, without Steel concrete itself would be useless. The problem is that steel has VERY poor thermal properties in relation to heat. That's why we use Metal for pots and pans and not wood. The structural steel with fire proofing could last many hours, perhaps even days. Without fire proofing, it would be lucky to hit half an hour.
Most steel is only loaded to 50%-75% of the capacity (the latter being if the loading properties are EXPLICITLY known). 60-65% is a good average for us to work with. Now if you take the thermal properties of steel, it hits 65% capacity at about 1000 degrees fahrenheit.
But when you consider that roughly 1/8 of all the steel columns were severed on the buildings, suddenly all the other columns must carry the load. Not taking into account wind loading due to asymmetrical column loading, the columns were loaded up 85-90%. This failure occurs at 850 degrees Fahrenheit.
And in case you can't figure out what this information means, it means that steel doesn't have to melt to fail. And just for poops and giggles, at 1450 degrees Fahrenheit, most steel becomes roughly the consistency of soft gum.
Second, the pancake analogy for how these numbnuts think that a building should fail is childish at best. Each individual floor is only designed to hold roughly 100 pounds per square foot at MAX. However, they are not designed to hold the actual weight of the building above it. And for every second the building is falling, the force of the section doubles. So in roughly that first 3/4 of a second it took for the first failure to fall to the next, not only would that floor NOT be able to hold it, but it would have to hold 175% of the total weight. It wasn't just the weight of the next floor up that was falling. It was the weight of MANY floors. In the next second of fall it has roughly 300% the force, or it's hitting 2x HEAVIER than the top section itself.
As to the damage to the other WTC buildings? Well that ain't hard to figure out. Many millions of tons of FLAMING WRECKAGE fell upon a complex of buildings all near the base of what were some of the tallest buildings known to man. Again, it is simply childish to think that a falling person wouldn't crush a few ant hills when he hit the ground.
-
And we didn't land on the moon. :noid
Please tell me you destroyed the "sound stage footage"? :uhoh
-
Please tell me you destroyed the "sound stage footage"? :uhoh
:noid
-
Just for argument sake....what good would explosions in the lower levels have done?
The buildings collapsed from the top down.
Explosions at the bottom would not cause the failure at the top. Instead we would have seen the bottom collapse first or at the same time as the top.
actually it appeared as if what was left of them imploded.
just sayin.....
-
The buildings fell exactly as they were designed to fall, in their own footprint.
I watched the towers fall that day, it wasn't instantaneous, it was a progressive collapse. There are any number of videos on youtube that show the towers collapsing. They show the exact same thing that I watched happen live on CNN that horrible day.
Besides, if it was a government conspiracy, why go to the trouble of flying airliners into the towers? Why not just set explosive charges at night when everyone is gone? Sure it'd take weeks to accomplish that, but the effect would be far greater....ie, larger body count. You could still blame it on the terrorists.
Besides all of that, we have tapes of Osama bin Turdhead himself taking the credit for the attacks and he was proud of it.
well, if you really want an answer........
IF the govt was responsible, thenflying airliners into the towers left a MUCH bigger impression than just blowing them up would. remember, they want to create terror. what better way than to show the sheeple that they can take control of an airliner so easily, and strike them where they feel the safest?
-
It's that time of year again... :noid :uhoh :mad:
3. It happened 8 years ago, give it a rest, stop remembering bad and painful stuff, and look at our present day and our future.
those that forget the past are doomed to repeat it.
-
I seriously doubt he was planning to go into Iraq by 2001.
:rofl
-
I don't think he is trying troll I think hes just stupid/naive(sp?).
-
:rofl
In my opinion, he shoulda just gone then... :rolleyes:
-
I don't think he is trying troll I think hes just stupid/naive(sp?).
I'm sorry but am I the only one finding it funny that someone calls an another poster stupid and then uses (sp?) because he's unsure of his spelling and too lazy/ignorant to check it out?
-
well, if you really want an answer........
IF the govt was responsible, thenflying airliners into the towers left a MUCH bigger impression than just blowing them up would. remember, they want to create terror. what better way than to show the sheeple that they can take control of an airliner so easily, and strike them where they feel the safest?
I dunno, an explosive demolition of the towers could have killed upwards of 50,000 people. It would not have given any one time to evacuate. It would have been just as spectacular.....in a morbid sort of way.
-
actually it appeared as if what was left of them imploded.
just sayin.....
:confused:
-
(http://www.dontfeedthetroll.de/images/dftt.gif)(http://premium1.uploadit.org/chewpilla/emocions/image11.gif)(http://www.cosgan.de/smiliegenerator/ablage/166/378.png)
-
In my opinion, he shoulda just gone then... :rolleyes:
Just saying, it's on the record, Rummy and W were licking their chops even before they got in to go into IRAQ. :aok
-
While I haven't bothered reading all the posts in this thread, has it ever occurred to some of the conspiracy minded that things like floors and large steel beams collapsing could possible sound like "explosions" to a scared and untrained office worker or two?
I can be considered naive I suppose, but I think those who think 9/11 was a US govt conspiracy are looney. All positive evidence points to the contrary.
-
ya its been proved if your a robot. they always believe what there masters tell them.
OK, I'm game... "The Matrix", fiction or non?
-
OK, I'm game... "The Matrix", fiction or non?
(http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p167/anthem2521/agent_smith_poses04.jpg)
"Which Part?"
-
Jet fuel has an energy equivalent of over 135,000 Btu per gallon. Wow!! That burning and igniting other chemicals in the building structure could easily reach the half way point to steel melting and weaken it considerably.
Just in case you were wondering.
-
Just saying, it's on the record, Rummy and W were licking their chops even before they got in to go into IRAQ. :aok
I dont think George W relished sending men into battle. I think he understood the need to demonstrate American military power but I wouldn't accuse him of not caring about the welfare of our troops. Rumsfeldt is kinda a strange fish and difficult to understand. Its very dangerous to have a Sec/Def who thinks he understands more about War then his Generals. Robert McNamara was like that.
Even still the overthrowing of Saddam was well executed. What they screwed up was what to do with the place after.
Saddam had to go. Our stupidity at leaving him in power after Gulf-1 had to be one of the stupidest decisions in our history.
-
Me and O'reilly think it was "Michael Moore". :noid :uhoh
-
Just saying, it's on the record, Rummy and W were licking their chops even before they got in to go into IRAQ. :aok
Regime change in Iraq was national policy during the Clinton administration. It carried over to the Bush administration. Rumsfeld wanted to go into Iraq for regime change for quite a long time.
-
Even still the overthrowing of Saddam was well executed. What they screwed up was what to do with the place after.
Saddam had to go. Our stupidity at leaving him in power after Gulf-1 had to be one of the stupidest decisions in our history.
Lets also not forget that the first Gulf War didn't end. It was a cease fire with conditions. Saddam repeatedly broke those conditions [firing on our planes in the no fly zone] which gave us the right to go in and take him out.
-
Just saying, it's on the record, Rummy and W were licking their chops even before they got in to go into IRAQ. :aok
Just saying, prove it. Show us the record where this was documented.
If you can, great. If you can't, my opinion of your posts will be lower than Bush's approval rating.
-
I dont think George W relished sending men into battle. I think he understood the need to demonstrate American military power but I wouldn't accuse him of not caring about the welfare of our troops. Rumsfeldt is kinda a strange fish and difficult to understand. Its very dangerous to have a Sec/Def who thinks he understands more about War then his Generals. Robert McNamara was like that.
Even still the overthrowing of Saddam was well executed. What they screwed up was what to do with the place after.
Saddam had to go. Our stupidity at leaving him in power after Gulf-1 had to be one of the stupidest decisions in our history.
Woulda been much better to have eased up on the sanctions immediately after GW-1, Got him back in line as an American ally, and used him to help us in the War on Terror-Even with the kurds he killed, even with his invasion of Kuwait, it would have been far better to put up with him in power in Iraq, than to take on the task of doing everything in the region ourselves; His regime in Iraq helped keep the Iranians' in check, and could have, for quite some time to come. He was a Muslim himself, but he was pretty non-secular, and he kept those factions' in Iraq at bay.
I'm afraid that we are going to find that REMOVING Saddam was one of our stupidist decisions in history.
-
So, for years now, there has been people saying there was explosives put in the building, to help it go down, and so forth, what is all of your opinions on 9-11? conspiracy's? or just terrorists?, personally, i belive it was just from the impact, i mean, thing about it, 100 ton aircraft-500+mph, and 10,000+ gallons of jet fuel=BOOM
-BigBOBCH
I've heard all kinds' of 9/11 conspiracy theories; One of the wildest ones was that it was actually a stealth fighter or bomber hitting the WTC's with cruise missiles... :rofl
The entire "building rigged with explosives" theory is almost as ludicrous. It would be impossible to conceal such a plot, with the building active 24/7.
What has been seen on TV is what happened. There were too many cameras, too much film shot, for any kind of editor for the government conspiracy to try to suppress. Hell, I doubt that even the old Soviet propaganda machine would have been able to do that job.
The only conspiracy theory that even remotely would hold any water, would be that Mohammed Atta and his cohorts were aided in their task by any such gov't. conspiracy, in the form of money and pre-arranged security "hiccups" that allowed his group to travel through the U.S., get flight training, and be able to slip through airports, even though they were on the terrorist-watch list. This one would be believable if there was any proof of a conspirator on the inside, arranging things. But, IMHO, the only one that could hold water.
-
Woulda been much better to have eased up on the sanctions immediately after GW-1, Got him back in line as an American ally, and used him to help us in the War on Terror-Even with the kurds he killed, even with his invasion of Kuwait, it would have been far better to put up with him in power in Iraq, than to take on the task of doing everything in the region ourselves; His regime in Iraq helped keep the Iranians' in check, and could have, for quite some time to come. He was a Muslim himself, but he was pretty non-secular, and he kept those factions' in Iraq at bay.
I'm afraid that we are going to find that REMOVING Saddam was one of our stupidist decisions in history.
It's pretty easy to keep factions at bay with genocide.
I'm not passing judgment on whether or not we should have gone in.... I'm just saying that it would be very easy to argue with the liberals in America if I can knock off 60% of them on a whim.
-
It's pretty easy to keep factions at bay with genocide.
I'm not passing judgment on whether or not we should have gone in.... I'm just saying that it would be very easy to argue with the liberals in America if I can knock off 60% of them on a whim.
Oh, I know...And I might be abusing hindsight on this. I'm thinking about the mess we've found ourselves in now, and the problems we face dealing with more current events, such as the crisis in Georgia, and new developements with N.Korea's nuclear ambitions, as well as an increasingly hostile Iran, instability in Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., etc.
I also won't argue Saddam's brutality, even towards his own people. But, he's not the first Middle Eastern ruler to be that way. Hell, the Royal family in Saudi Arabia enforces a bunch of ridiculous sharia laws, and we actively support them... :eek:
-
Oh, I know...And I might be abusing hindsight on this. I'm thinking about the mess we've found ourselves in now, and the problems we face dealing with more current events, such as the crisis in Georgia, and new developements with N.Korea's nuclear ambitions, as well as an increasingly hostile Iran, instability in Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., etc.
I also won't argue Saddam's brutality, even towards his own people. But, he's not the first Middle Eastern ruler to be that way. Hell, the Royal family in Saudi Arabia enforces a bunch of ridiculous sharia laws, and we actively support them... :eek:
But there will always be problems. There always have been problems. Even in Clinton's time. Even in Reagan's time. And for every president before them. Our problems are no worse than what we faced yesterday. But many people who want power would have you believe that crap is getting worse daily.
-
I'm almost certain that every person in the USA who believes 911 was perpetrated by our own government is a LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE. It is more a political assertion than anything else.
-
And not to mention, the buildings started to fall exactly where the planes hit them. The building did not start to fall from lower levels with explosions. If anyone thinks they had a pilot hit the building where they had explosives rigged....................... ..
-
I'm sorry but am I the only one finding it funny that someone calls an another poster stupid and then uses (sp?) because he's unsure of his spelling and too lazy/ignorant to check it out?
Yes, you are.
-
IIRC, someone posted this one before, but it certainly bears repeating.
http://www.thehowdydoodyuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons (http://www.thehowdydoodyuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons)
-
I dunno, an explosive demolition of the towers could have killed upwards of 50,000 people. It would not have given any one time to evacuate. It would have been just as spectacular.....in a morbid sort of way.
true, it would have. but the way i'm looking at it, is that quite a few people have a bit of a fear of flying. they also see airliners everyday.
-
Jet fuel has an energy equivalent of over 135,000 Btu per gallon. Wow!! That burning and igniting other chemicals in the building structure could easily reach the half way point to steel melting and weaken it considerably.
Just in case you were wondering.
this is true......but the fireball that eminated from the impact would have been the majority of the jet fuel. what was still burning in the building was most probably furniture, walls, anything flammable that was already in there........
-
Saddam had to go. Our stupidity at leaving him in power after Gulf-1 had to be one of the stupidest decisions in our history.
didn't we put him there to begine with
?
-
I'm almost certain that every person in the USA who believes 911 was perpetrated by our own government is a LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE. It is more a political assertion than anything else.
Must be the same liberal progressives who believe the government wants to steal all their guns so that their government can round them all up to be stuck in a socialist state ...or communist... nuts that is what they are... dammmm those liberal progressives
-
Just saying, prove it. Show us the record where this was documented.
If you can, great. If you can't, my opinion of your posts will be lower than Bush's approval rating.
It is not very hard for you to do. If you really don't believe it, then just google it. It was talked about, in memo's even. Some were "secret" and others were openly discussed even down to who would get oil exploration contracts in IRAQ afterwards, this was in Feb. '01.
-
Funny thing is, china has the big drilling thing now... :rolleyes: Yea, the US totally were after oil.
-
Looks like ink took his ball and went home.... :(
-
(http://img130.echo.cx/img130/5329/bestthreadever5cw.gif)(http://www.dvcreators.net/discuss/images/smilies/sarcasm.gif)
-
Views on 9-11
From the window of a technical school that i was attending in manhattan as i watched the 2nd plane hit.
From the ground walking towards the subway when the 1st tower collapsed.
-
Appearently ink poisoning can cause brain damage.
:rolleyes:,
Wab
-
IIRC, someone posted this one before, but it certainly bears repeating.
http://www.thehowdydoodyuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons (http://www.thehowdydoodyuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons)
Interesting read. I call, owned.
-
Must be the same liberal progressives who believe the government wants to steal all their guns so that their government can round them all up to be stuck in a socialist state ...or communist... nuts that is what they are... dammmm those liberal progressives
Like Doctor Theodore John "Ted" Kaczynski, aka the Unibomber?
-
didn't we put him there to begine with
?
Yeah, thats another good one. "America made Saddam" :rofl I bet that rumor is believed by billions in this world but not a one of them can say how we "made him".
Because the truth is Saddam's vehicle to power was the emerging Pro-Soviet/Anti-American Pan-Arab BAATH party movement that swept the Arab world in the '60s and '70s. Along with this vehicle was his own personal brutality and ruthlessness in a military dictatorship that was always hostile to America and was a Soviet client state. Remember up to the 1973 Yom Kipurr war the entire Arab world was hostile to America, most of all Iraq. Also the entire Arab world was basically a client state of the Soviet Union. It wasn't until after the '67 war, which crushed Nasser's hopes of one socialist Pan Arab state, and the 1973 war, which crushed Arab hopes of murdering every Jew in the MidEast, that Arab states, some of them, figured they had made a mistake siding with the Soviets.
But Saddam was never one of them. The Soviets and the French "made Saddam" far, far more then we did. And they were also his main weapons suppliers. But the truth is its truly underestimates Saddam Hussein to say anyone "made him". He murdered his way to power. He "made" himself.
Its true that during his war again Iran, remember?, the US did supply him with some unarmed helicopters and trucks, as well as some Intel on the disposition of Iranian forces. But compared to the support and arms he got from the Soviets, from France, and from his Arab brothers, the US assistance was a drop in the bucket.
But its sounds good doesn't it? "The US made Saddam"? It gives this moronic world another thing to blames us for and it gives Americans another reason to feel all guilty and responsible.
But its nonsense. Its total nonsense.
-
Yeah, thats another good one. "America made Saddam" :rofl I bet that rumor is believed by billions in this world but not a one of them can say how we "made him".
Because the truth is Saddam's vehicle to power was the emerging Pro-Soviet/Anti-American Pan-Arab BAATH party movement that swept the Arab world in the '60s and '70s. Along with this vehicle was his own personal brutality and ruthlessness in a military dictatorship that was always hostile to America and was a Soviet client state. Remember up to the 1973 Yom Kipurr war the entire Arab world was hostile to America, most of all Iraq. Also the entire Arab world was basically a client state of the Soviet Union. It wasn't until after the '67 war, which crushed Nasser's hopes of one socialist Pan Arab state, and the 1973 war, which crushed Arab hopes of murdering every Jew in the MidEast, that Arab states, some of them, figured they had made a mistake siding with the Soviets.
But Saddam was never one of them. The Soviets and the French "made Saddam" far, far more then we did. And they were also his main weapons suppliers. But the truth is its truly underestimates Saddam Hussein to say anyone "made him". He murdered his way to power. He "made" himself.
Its true that during his war again Iran, remember?, the US did supply him with some unarmed helicopters and trucks, as well as some Intel on the disposition of Iranian forces. But compared to the support and arms he got from the Soviets, from France, and from his Arab brothers, the US assistance was a drop in the bucket.
But its sounds good doesn't it? "The US made Saddam"? It gives this moronic world another thing to blames us for and it gives Americans another reason to feel all guilty and responsible.
But its nonsense. Its total nonsense.
I was reading a little about this the other day, happened to have this bookmarked:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein)
Here's one passage I found interesting.
Rise to power
Saddam Hussein after the successful 1963 Ba'ath party coup
Saddam Hussein in Cairo after fleeing there following the failed assassination attempt against QassimArmy officers with ties to the Ba'ath Party overthrew Qassim in a coup in 1963. Ba'athist leaders were appointed to the cabinet and Abdul Salam Arif became president. Arif dismissed and arrested the Ba'athist leaders later that year. Saddam returned to Iraq, but was imprisoned in 1964. Just prior to his imprisonment and until 1968, Saddam held the position of Ba'ath party secretary.[14] He escaped prison in 1967 and quickly became a leading member of the party. In 1968, Saddam participated in a bloodless coup led by Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr that overthrew Abdul Rahman Arif. Al-Bakr was named president and Saddam was named his deputy, and deputy chairman of the Baathist Revolutionary Command Council. According to biographers, Saddam never forgot the tensions within the first Ba'athist government, which formed the basis for his measures to promote Ba'ath party unity as well as his resolve to maintain power and programs to ensure social stability.
Various U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials have asserted that Saddam was strongly linked with the CIA, and that U.S. intelligence, under President John F. Kennedy, helped Saddam's party seize power for the first time in 1963. [15] [16]
Saddam Hussein in the past was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism in the 1960s and 1970s.[16] His first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with ousting then Iraqi Prime Minister Abdul Karim Qassim.[17]
Although Saddam was al-Bakr's deputy, he was a strong behind-the-scenes party politician. Al-Bakr was the older and more prestigious of the two, but by 1969 Saddam Hussein clearly had become the moving force behind the party.
I just started some reading on this one, too, and it looked interesting, as well.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/)
-
Yeah, thats another good one. "America made Saddam" :rofl I bet that rumor is believed by billions in this world but not a one of them can say how we "made him".
Because the truth is Saddam's vehicle to power was the emerging Pro-Soviet/Anti-American Pan-Arab BAATH party movement that swept the Arab world in the '60s and '70s. Along with this vehicle was his own personal brutality and ruthlessness in a military dictatorship that was always hostile to America and was a Soviet client state. Remember up to the 1973 Yom Kipurr war the entire Arab world was hostile to America, most of all Iraq. Also the entire Arab world was basically a client state of the Soviet Union. It wasn't until after the '67 war, which crushed Nasser's hopes of one socialist Pan Arab state, and the 1973 war, which crushed Arab hopes of murdering every Jew in the MidEast, that Arab states, some of them, figured they had made a mistake siding with the Soviets.
But Saddam was never one of them. The Soviets and the French "made Saddam" far, far more then we did. And they were also his main weapons suppliers. But the truth is its truly underestimates Saddam Hussein to say anyone "made him". He murdered his way to power. He "made" himself.
Its true that during his war again Iran, remember?, the US did supply him with some unarmed helicopters and trucks, as well as some Intel on the disposition of Iranian forces. But compared to the support and arms he got from the Soviets, from France, and from his Arab brothers, the US assistance was a drop in the bucket.
But its sounds good doesn't it? "The US made Saddam"? It gives this moronic world another thing to blames us for and it gives Americans another reason to feel all guilty and responsible.
But its nonsense. Its total nonsense.
wel, first off.....you DID notice the question mark, right? it was a QUESTION.
now that said, what you've typed above.....well, that does sound like we had a hand in his rise to power. it doesn't matter a little or a lot, if we helped put him there we helped put him there.
i just don't knpw enough to argue till i get more info.
-
wel, first off.....you DID notice the question mark, right? it was a QUESTION.
now that said, what you've typed above.....well, that does sound like we had a hand in his rise to power. it doesn't matter a little or a lot, if we helped put him there we helped put him there.
i just don't knpw enough to argue till i get more info.
Check out some of this:
The Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) was one of a series of crises during an era of upheaval in the Middle East: revolution in Iran, occupation of the U.S. embassy in Tehran by militant students, invasion of the Great Mosque in Mecca by anti-royalist Islamicists, the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan, and internecine fighting among Syrians, Israelis, and Palestinians in Lebanon. The war followed months of rising tension between the Iranian Islamic republic and secular nationalist Iraq. In mid-September 1980 Iraq attacked, in the mistaken belief that Iranian political disarray would guarantee a quick victory.
The international community responded with U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire and for all member states to refrain from actions contributing in any way to the conflict's continuation. The Soviets, opposing the war, cut off arms exports to Iran and to Iraq, its ally under a 1972 treaty (arms deliveries resumed in 1982). The U.S. had already ended, when the shah fell, previously massive military sales to Iran. In 1980 the U.S. broke off diplomatic relations with Iran because of the Tehran embassy hostage crisis; Iraq had broken off ties with the U.S. during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
The U.S. was officially neutral regarding the Iran-Iraq war, and claimed that it armed neither side. Iran depended on U.S.-origin weapons, however, and sought them from Israel, Europe, Asia, and South America. Iraq started the war with a large Soviet-supplied arsenal, but needed additional weaponry as the conflict wore on.
Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)
Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.
The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.
One of these directives from Reagan, National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 99, signed on July 12, 1983, is available only in a highly redacted version [Document 21]. It reviews U.S. regional interests in the Middle East and South Asia, and U.S. objectives, including peace between Israel and the Arabs, resolution of other regional conflicts, and economic and military improvements, "to strengthen regional stability." It deals with threats to the U.S., strategic planning, cooperation with other countries, including the Arab states, and plans for action. An interdepartmental review of the implications of shifting policy in favor of Iraq was conducted following promulgation of the directive.
By the summer of 1983 Iran had been reporting Iraqi use of using chemical weapons for some time. The Geneva protocol requires that the international community respond to chemical warfare, but a diplomatically isolated Iran received only a muted response to its complaints [Note 1]. It intensified its accusations in October 1983, however, and in November asked for a United Nations Security Council investigation.
The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].
What was the Reagan administration's response? A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results." But the department noted in late November 1983 that "with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq ha[d] become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use. Given its desperation to end the war, Iraq may again use lethal or incapacitating CW, particularly if Iran threatens to break through Iraqi lines in a large-scale attack" [Document 25]. The State Department argued that the U.S. needed to respond in some way to maintain the credibility of its official opposition to chemical warfare, and recommended that the National Security Council discuss the issue.
Here's the linky, there's a lot more to read on it.http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/)
-
Check out some of this:
Here's the linky, there's a lot more to read on it.http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/)
thanks dude........
something useful....will be a good read.
<<S>>
-
thanks dude........
something useful....will be a good read.
<<S>>
No prob, but it is a lot of material to digest; However, it really does show a lot of Pro-Saddam U.S. involvment.
-
wel, first off.....you DID notice the question mark, right? it was a QUESTION.
now that said, what you've typed above.....well, that does sound like we had a hand in his rise to power. it doesn't matter a little or a lot, if we helped put him there we helped put him there.
i just don't knpw enough to argue till i get more info.
Yeah I saw it was a question. And how did we help him rise to power? Tell me what I wrote that suggested that.
-
No prob, but it is a lot of material to digest; However, it really does show a lot of Pro-Saddam U.S. involvment.
Like what?
-
Yeah I saw it was a question. And how did we help him rise to power? Tell me what I wrote that suggested that.
ask and ye shall recieve:::::::::::::::"""Its true that during his war again Iran, remember?, the US did supply him with some unarmed helicopters and trucks, as well as some Intel on the disposition of Iranian forces. But compared to the support and arms he got from the Soviets, from France, and from his Arab brothers, the US assistance was a drop in the bucket."""""
a drop in the bucket, but help nonetheless. :aok
-
Has anyone heard of a person linked to AlQueda that was working with/for US intelligence at the time of 9/11?
-
a drop in the bucket, but help nonetheless.
Usually when someone says we helped Iraq, they try to make it sound like we gave them crap loads of support, sold them all their weapons systems etc. We did help, it's just that our help was very limited compared to the help they got from France and the Soviets. People usually fail to mention the help they got from France and the USSR as well. :uhoh
-
Has anyone heard of a person linked to AlQueda that was working with/for US intelligence at the time of 9/11?
Now that would be a major news scoop, but no, I haven't heard of it or any rumors.
-
Usually when someone says we helped Iraq, they try to make it sound like we gave them crap loads of support, sold them all their weapons systems etc. We did help, it's just that our help was very limited compared to the help they got from France and the Soviets. People usually fail to mention the help they got from France and the USSR as well. :uhoh
well, the help from the ussr, is obvious, as they had migs i think? i know they didn't get to use em, but they had them.
-
well, the help from the ussr, is obvious, as they had migs i think? i know they didn't get to use em, but they had them.
They had lots of Soviet built equipment, MiG's, Su's, T-55's, T-72's, AAA guns, SAMs, AK-47's etc etc. They also had a limited number of Mirage fighters as I recall.
-
OY! There will always be those that see ebil guberment doing stuff like 9-11. I LOVE a GOOD conspiracy (keyword here is GOOD . explosives in the buildings? nah did "someone" in the guberment KNOW it was gonna happen? possibly. Did the guberment spin it to their own advantage and pass the ebil Patriot Act? ...definatly!
Did someone make off with a few HUNDRED million in gold?.....I think so.
Does the guberment feed us <dis>informtion and let rumors like explosives in the WTC perpetuate to keep attention off of things they DONT want us to know?....DEFINATLY.
IMNSHO I think that instead of looking for proff that "they" brought the buildings down we should be looking for what that whole heinous act and the ensuing conspiracy surrounding it is covering up.
ITs like the moon landing conspiracy crap. We shouldnt ask IF we went there we should be asking stuff like: what did we REALLY find there, Why havent we been back, Why the URGENCY to go back now? (prolly has to do with china and russia going back>.
oh and one last thing....why did building 7 collapse and none of the other surrounding buildings did?
A GOOD conspiracy IMNSHO isnt the obvious stuff you see on the surface, its several layers and various compartments BEHIND the obvious stuff. Like the creation of the patriot act and all the nice protective laws that strip our rights. THATS what ppl should be looking at.
and just incase PLEASE dont believe that loose change video. these guys cant even get their facts right. for instance: in the video they claim that in 1947<yr migh be off> that a B-52 crashed into the empire state building and it still stood....a B-52!!!?? it was a twin engined B-25 A HUGE difference.
The only reason I post this is because people see this video and believe everything. I'm not saying that EVERYthing they say is wrong, just that their facts are skewered to fit their hypothesis.
-
Like what?
Usually when someone says we helped Iraq, they try to make it sound like we gave them crap loads of support, sold them all their weapons systems etc. We did help, it's just that our help was very limited compared to the help they got from France and the Soviets. People usually fail to mention the help they got from France and the USSR as well.
These two questions' are probably best answered by this: We were able to help the Iraqi's, not with supplying them directly with our own munitions (Which would have shown the U.S. as not being neutral, as we claimed) but by giving them money-including U.S. taxpayer backed loans-to buy more weapons' from countries' who would sell to them. And perhaps the most important aid that we gave them, and something which Iran couldn't get (Unless the USSR gave them the same help) was the use of our intelligence to help Saddam's general staff. And don't forget our efforts' to curtail Arms shipments to Iran, as well. That's quite a bit of help, when you take into account that it was a semi-clandestine effort.
-
Donzo the buildings fell at freefall speed, in less than two seconds the building was down,
i bet if you think about it you can answer your own question.
I don't post much on the boards but when idiots speak out about "explosives" in the trade centers It makes my head hurt. It was a pancake collapse starting at the impact areas where the steel was weakened by the intense heat. Extensive studies have been done to prove this. Weight of the floor is suppose to transfer to the support system of the building then transferred to the ground. When all the weight hit the floor below it collapsed as each floor collapsed the weight increased and the speed of collapse increased. If you believe it was explosives you have no common sense. Or you could just be trying to piss people off as you have me.
-
The people that talk of explosives having brought the buildings down have ZERO knowledge of explosives. That much is in evidence by their own comments on the subject.
Anyone with knowledge and experiance dealing with explosives can and will tell you there is NO WAY those buildings could have came down like they did if explosives were used to do it.
The morons that say they "heard" explosions don't know what their talking about either. What they heard was the sudden over pressure of the air being forced out of those buildings as they came down. Air traveling that fast will create an explosive sound, but it's not due to a chemical explosive being set off.
I really like the Popular Mechanics show they did were they brought in humdreds of 3rd party experts in the fields of explosives, architecture, building engineers, construction workers, fire marshals, airline pilots, and a host of others to debunk all the conspiracy theorys, and even then those idiots still believe in their little fantasy of the evil government did the whole thing.
-
stop discusing it? ya thats the thing to do, ignore the fact that someone in our government mudererd our friends and family, it does not matter why they did it but that fact that they did, the fact that they went down is the only reason we went to war, they F#@king lied to us they still are lying to us, they have killed NO murdererd us
and you want to stop talking about it, ya thats excactly what they want us to do,
while they make "silver dollars" of the twin towers, and sell them at the low price of , more ways to make money off of our dead.
wake the F......... up.
Ahahahaha!!! Another nutbag reveals himself. Time to learn how to use the ignore list.
-
I never understood the conspiracy theorists. Two planes flew into the WTC. We all saw the pictures. They burned and collapsed. It seems people can't even believe their own eyes.
What if it hadn't been filmed? Well then we get the Pentagon and United 93 version. 'There was no plane'. People have even written books saying no plane hit the Pentagon. Even though I can google up actual pictures of aircraft parts in the Pentagon in the time it takes to type the words and there are literally hundreds of unbiased witnesses who saw the airliner.
The 9/11 conspiracies are easily the most stupid and moronic conspiracy theories around. Not only that, they are insulting to the dead and bereaved, not to mention the injured and traumatised.
-
The 9/11 conspiracies are easily the most stupid and moronic conspiracy theories around. Not only that, they are insulting to the dead and bereaved, not to mention the injured and traumatised.
Indeed.
-
My question is building 7
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1748490919362773283&vt=lf&hl=en
No jet fuel and really no real answer why it would fall.. Guess i was really bored one night and did some digging but its a good question.
-
not to stir the pot more, but............
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vnu_yiUzls&feature=related
-
My question is building 7
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1748490919362773283&vt=lf&hl=en
No jet fuel and really no real answer why it would fall.. Guess i was really bored one night and did some digging but its a good question.
IT fell after freeburning fire went unchecked for a lengthy amount of time. When the towers fell they set a lot of other things on fire. The fire suppression systems in surrounding building were compromised due to the huge demand for water and damaged systems. A buildings sprinkler system is designed to activate to keep a small fire in check until fire departments can get there. Say a large amount of the buildings contents ignited on diferent floors at the same time. The sprinkler system if it was working at all could not keep up. On top of that the needed resources to put out a fire that large could not get into the building to put the fire out. If people want to research how building react under fire conditions don't watch conspiracy videos on you tube. Look at for publications put out by the NFPA or other fire department based research.
-
Now that would be a major news scoop, but no, I haven't heard of it or any rumors.
There was a documentary on the TV a month or two ago. Bit fuzzy on the details.
Anyways, a good read on the intel screw-ups.
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/secrethistory/timeline.html
-
I did look it up from other none conspiracy site trying to find a example. I couldn't find a good case that a building plan caked do to fire alone. Their were good examples of fire related building collapsing but not a perfect demolition implosion..
Its like beating a dead horse for me and i don't really loose sleep over the idea that our government did it. I found it more interesting and sounded hokie to me.
-
My question is building 7
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1748490919362773283&vt=lf&hl=en
No jet fuel and really no real answer why it would fall.. Guess i was really bored one night and did some digging but its a good question.
http://911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html
The only thing missing from the video you posted was the horror movie music that most of those videos have.
-
But there will always be problems. There always have been problems. Even in Clinton's time. Even in Reagan's time. And for every president before them. Our problems are no worse than what we faced yesterday. But many people who want power would have you believe that crap is getting worse daily.
Sorry that I was kinda late getting back to this, LS, but I'd like to point out that our problems are increasingly worse, in a manifold sense...It was always' on a(n) rise, as well. I don't believe that 9/11 is the worst thing that this country will ever experience in the way of a terrorist attack. I do believe that there can, and will be, worse. We've done too many things, in too many places, to avoid sitting in the hot seat anymore. The next attack could come from any of a couple of dozen places or groups; and the longer we keep our eye closely on just one or two, the more likely we'll get hit from something out of left field.
-
ask and ye shall receive:::::::::::::::"""Its true that during his war again Iran, remember?, the US did supply him with some unarmed helicopters and trucks, as well as some Intel on the disposition of Iranian forces. But compared to the support and arms he got from the Soviets, from France, and from his Arab brothers, the US assistance was a drop in the bucket."""""
a drop in the bucket, but help nonetheless. :aok
So your thesis is that "we made Saddam" by supplying him with some unarmed Helicopters and trucks, and some Intel on Iranian forces?
Kinda tenous.....no? It could also be argued that we "used" Saddam to tie up and hurt our main regional enemies at the time. The Iranians.
Funny but nobody accuses the French of "making Saddam" even tho they sold him nuclear reactors, and even tho they knew there were inadequate safeguards in place to prevent Saddam from weaponizing the output. France sold him enriched uranium fuel for it too. They sold him advanced Mirage fighters, advanced missiles and other hardware. Nobody accuses the Germans of making him even tho they sold him uranium enrichment centrifuges. Nobody accuses the Russians even tho they sold him a huge military machine, including long range SCUD missiles. Russia sold him research reactors as well.
Nobody blames all the Western Europeans countries, most of all France and Germany, that sold Saddam great quantities of specialized and dual use equipment to produce a vast Chemical/Biological weapons program that he used on numerous occasions against both his own people and the Iranians. At the time of the first Gulf war Saddam had a huge arsenal of both CW and delivery systems. To this day neither the Iraqis or the western Allies can account for much of these stocks and precursors. And the Iraqis never denied the missing stocks did in fact exist, and of which we found Independently verified documentation they did indeed exist.
But America "made Saddam" right? :lol
Here is a sight listing those that "made Saddam". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq While Im not a Wikapedia guy this is a fairly accurate rundown on Saddams arms suppliers. And while America is not Pristine countries like Brazil "made Saddam" far more then we did.
But of course nobody "made him". He made himself rising to power thru sheer brutality in an era of Arab Military Dictatorships, "not that its changed much". He started his wars of aggression on his own and was aided by other countries far, far more so then America ever did.
But one thing is for sure. America certainly "unmade Saddam" and his wretched sons. It was fitting for Saddam to finish his act swinging from that rope, dirtying up the diaper we forced him to put on.
-
ask and ye shall recieve:::::::::::::::"""Its true that during his war again Iran, remember?, the US did supply him with some unarmed helicopters and trucks, as well as some Intel on the disposition of Iranian forces. But compared to the support and arms he got from the Soviets, from France, and from his Arab brothers, the US assistance was a drop in the bucket."""""
a drop in the bucket, but help nonetheless. :aok
-
So your thesis is that "we made Saddam" by supplying him with some unarmed Helicopters and trucks, and some Intel on Iranian forces?
Kinda tenous.....no? It could also be argued that we "used" Saddam to tie up and hurt our main regional enemies at the time. The Iranians.
Funny but nobody accuses the French of "making Saddam" even tho they sold him nuclear reactors, and even tho they knew there were inadequate safeguards in place to prevent Saddam from weaponizing the output. France sold him enriched uranium fuel for it too. They sold him advanced Mirage fighters, advanced missiles and other hardware. Nobody accuses the Germans of making him even tho they sold him uranium enrichment centrifuges. Nobody accuses the Russians even tho they sold him a huge military machine, including long range SCUD missiles. Russia sold him research reactors as well.
Nobody blames all the Western Europeans countries, most of all France and Germany, that sold Saddam great quantities of specialized and dual use equipment to produce a vast Chemical/Biological weapons program that he used on numerous occasions against both his own people and the Iranians. At the time of the first Gulf war Saddam had a huge arsenal of both CW and delivery systems. To this day neither the Iraqis or the western Allies can account for much of these stocks and precursors. And the Iraqis never denied the missing stocks did in fact exist, and of which we found Independently verified documentation they did indeed exist.
But America "made Saddam" right? :lol
Here is a sight listing those that "made Saddam". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq While Im not a Wikapedia guy this is a fairly accurate rundown on Saddams arms suppliers. And while America is not Pristine countries like Brazil "made Saddam" far more then we did.
But of course nobody "made him". He made himself rising to power thru sheer brutality in an era of Arab Military Dictatorships, "not that its changed much". He started his wars of aggression on his own and was aided by other countries far, far more so then America ever did.
But one thing is for sure. America certainly "unmade Saddam" and his wretched sons. It was fitting for Saddam to finish his act swinging from that rope, dirtying up the diaper we forced him to put on.
Nobody here ever really doubted that Saddam was an Iron-heel dictator, and that after he came to power, everybody and anybody lined up to sell him weapons. But during his rise to power in the '60's, the CIA gave him a hand getting there...
Iraq 1963
See CIA Iraq Covert Ops.
In 1963, the United States is claimed to have backed a coup against the government of Iraq headed by General Abdel Karim Kassem, who five years earlier had deposed the Western-allied Iraqi monarchy. The CIA helped the new Baath Party government in ridding the country of suspected leftists and Communists.[12][13][14][15]
To pave the way for the new regime, the CIA is claimed to have provided to the Baathists lists of suspected Communists and other leftists. The new regime is claimed to have used these lists to orchestrate a bloodbath, systematically murdering untold numbers of Iraq's educated elite--killings in which Saddam Hussein himself is said to have participated. The victims included hundreds of doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers and other professionals as well as military and political figures.[16][17][18] According to an article in the New York Times, the U.S. sent arms to the new regime, weapons later used against the same Kurdish insurgents the U.S. supported against Kassem and then abandoned. American and U.K. oil and other interests, including Mobil, British Petroleum and Bechtel, were once again conducting business in Iraq.[19]
[edit] Iraq 1968
The leader of the new Baathist government, Salam Arif, died in 1966 and his brother, Abdul Rahman Arif, not a Ba'athist, assumed the presidency.[9][20] Said K. Abuirsh alleges that in 1967, the government of Iraq was very close to giving concessions for the development of huge new oil fields in the country to France and the USSR. PBS reported that Robert Anderson, former secretary of the treasury under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, secretly met with the Ba'ath Party and came to a negotiated agreement according to which both the oil field concessions and sulphur mined in the northern part of the country would go to United States companies if the Ba'ath again took over power.[21] In 1968, with a claimed backing of the CIA, Rahman Arif was overthrown by Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr of the Baath Party, bringing Saddam Hussein to the threshold of power.[9][20][22][23]
Roger Morris in the Asia Times writes that the CIA deputy for the Middle East Archibald Roosevelt (grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt and cousin of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.) stated, referring to Iraqi Ba'ath Party officers on his payroll in the 1963 and 1968 coups, "They're our boys bought and paid for, but you always gotta remember that these people can't be trusted"[9] General Ahmed Bakr was installed as president. Saddam Hussein was appointed the number two man.[21][9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_sponsored_regime_change#Myanmar_.28Burma.29.2C_2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_sponsored_regime_change#Myanmar_.28Burma.29.2C_2007)
-
My question is building 7
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1748490919362773283&vt=lf&hl=en
No jet fuel and really no real answer why it would fall.. Guess i was really bored one night and did some digging but its a good question.
FX-1, i believe this was a different circumstances, think about it... 100 ton aircraft.. 10,000lbs of jet fuel.. going close to 500 mph... hitting a building..... the inicial explosion moved the building 6 feet.
-BigBOBCH
-
Sorry that I was kinda late getting back to this, LS, but I'd like to point out that our problems are increasingly worse, in a manifold sense...It was always' on a(n) rise, as well. I don't believe that 9/11 is the worst thing that this country will ever experience in the way of a terrorist attack. I do believe that there can, and will be, worse. We've done too many things, in too many places, to avoid sitting in the hot seat anymore. The next attack could come from any of a couple of dozen places or groups; and the longer we keep our eye closely on just one or two, the more likely we'll get hit from something out of left field.
No, it's not getting worse. The human mind has a way of rationalizing the past and believing that everything was just puppies, rainbows and chocolate chip cookies.
Our problems are not any worse than 10 years ago, 20 years, or 150 years ago.
-
My question is building 7
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1748490919362773283&vt=lf&hl=en
No jet fuel and really no real answer why it would fall.. Guess i was really bored one night and did some digging but its a good question.
Claim: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."
Fact: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
(http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/911-tower-collapse.jpg)
WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse.
[Source]Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5)
ack-ack
-
FX-1, i believe this was a different circumstances, think about it... 100 ton aircraft.. 10,000lbs of jet fuel.. going close to 500 mph... hitting a building..... the inicial explosion moved the building 6 feet.
-BigBOBCH
Building 7 was never hit by a plane.. Fires started in the lower section of the building and it collapse seven hours later. I still don't understand that carpet and furniture burning could bring it down.. Also building seven was never investigated with the 911 commission if i understand it correctly.
-
No, it's not getting worse. The human mind has a way of rationalizing the past and believing that everything was just puppies, rainbows and chocolate chip cookies.
Our problems are not any worse than 10 years ago, 20 years, or 150 years ago.
Before we go any further, I believe we should define "worse". As in...say, the potential for more mayhem; Or rather, an increasing amount of groups/organizations' that would resort to either terrorism or other acts of harm...? Or do we allow for the advance of technology, which has produced weapons of Mass destruction that now allow a small group to do a great deal of damage?
I would contend that we don't really rationalize the past, as much as we more or less anticipate the future. To put it this way, 150 years' ago, about 150 years' ago, the confederates' weren't building a fission device to obliterate New York or D.C. during our Civil War.
-
Nobody here ever really doubted that Saddam was an Iron-heel dictator, and that after he came to power, everybody and anybody lined up to sell him weapons. But during his rise to power in the '60's, the CIA gave him a hand getting there...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_sponsored_regime_change#Myanmar_.28Burma.29.2C_2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_sponsored_regime_change#Myanmar_.28Burma.29.2C_2007)
Claims made in Wikepedia??
First off I would ask for proof before such claims are made. Ive heard such accusations before. I want proof.
Second the BAATH party was even more anti-colonial then the communists were. Even if the CIA assisted in the overthrow of the Iraqi pro-communist Govt. in 1963 the fact is the BAATH party was deeply entrenched in the Arab world already. These BAATHists had already targeted Iraq for a regime change and Saddam was nothing more at the time then a hired thug.
There are more CIA conspiracy stories on the net then I can read in a lifetime. The CIA is a favorite target of any author with an Arab name.
-
Claims made in Wikepedia??
First off I would ask for proof before such claims are made. Ive heard such accusations before. I want proof.
Second the BAATH party was even more anti-colonial then the communists were. Even if the CIA assisted in the overthrow of the Iraqi pro-communist Govt. in 1963 the fact is the BAATH party was deeply entrenched in the Arab world already. These BAATHists had already targeted Iraq for a regime change and Saddam was nothing more at the time then a hired thug.
There are more CIA conspiracy stories on the net then I can read in a lifetime. The CIA is a favorite target of any author with an Arab name.
That's true. The Ba'ath party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baath_Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baath_Party) which seems' to consist of two different parts, does counter theological arab governments, and also has an Anti-communist stance. I believe that's why the CIA would have chose the Ba'athists over any secular Arab gov't. I believe that's because of lessons' learned previously in Iran.
[edit] Iran 1953
Main article: Operation Ajax
See also: CIA Activities by Region: Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia#Iran
In 1953, the CIA worked with the United Kingdom to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Iran lead by Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh who had attempted to nationalize Iran's oil, threatening the interests of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Declassified CIA documents show that Britain was fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry and pressed the U.S. to mount a joint operation to remove the prime minister.[3] In 1951 the Iranian parliament voted to nationalize the oil fields of the country. Anti-Communism had also risen to a fever pitch in Washington, and officials were worried that Iran might fall under the sway of the Soviet Union, a historical presence there. "The aim was to bring to power a government which would reach an equitable oil settlement, enabling Iran to become economically sound and financially solvent, and which would vigorously prosecute the dangerously strong Communist Party."[3] Prime minister Mossadegh had dissolved the parliament, claiming massive support for the measure in a plebiscite and accepted the support of the Communist Tudeh party for his government, leading to U.S. fears of a Communist overthrow.[4]
The coup was led by CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. (grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt). With help from British intelligence, the CIA planned, funded and implemented Operation Ajax.[5] The U.K. and U.S. boycott and other political pressures by both governments, together with a massive covert propaganda campaign in the months leading up to the coup created the environment necessary for success. The CIA hoped to plant articles in American newspapers saying that Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi's return to govern Iran resulted from a homegrown revolt against a Communist-leaning government. This attempt to manipulate the U.S. media largely failed, although the CIA successfully used its contacts at the Associated Press to put on the news wire a statement from Tehran about royal decrees that the C.I.A. itself had written.[3] The CIA hired Iranian assets who posed as Communists, harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home to turn the Islamic religious community against the government.[3] See false flag operation.
The coup initially seemed to fail and the Shah (monarch) Mohammad Reza Pahlavi fled the country. After four days of rioting pro-shah army units and street crowds defeated Mossadeq's forces and the Shah returned. According to the 1906 constitution he was a constitutional monarch who should rule together with the democratically elected parliament, but after the coup he who ruled autocratically, with little concern for democracy.[6][7]
The Shah was one of the most brutal dictators of his era.[8] The Shah's brutal regime included a secret police, the SAVAK, allied and trained by the CIA, which routinely used torture, and is claimed to have destroyed any real possibility of the survival of an Iranian democratic counterforce to the ayatollahs' ensuing clerical tyranny bred by the Shah's blundering, martyring repression.[9] However, partially due to US pressure, he also attempted to modernzie Iran and introduced many social reforms (See the White Revolution).
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, in a speech on March 17, 2000 before the American-Iranian Council on the relaxation of U.S. sanctions against Iran, finally acknowledged:
"In 1953, the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. The Dwight D. Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons, but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs. Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the West gave sustained backing to the Shah's regime. Although it did much to develop the country economically, the Shah's government also brutally repressed political dissent. As President Bill Clinton has said, the United States must bear its fair share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in U.S.-Iranian relations. Even in more recent years, aspects of U.S. policy toward Iraq during its conflict with Iran appear now to have been regrettably shortsighted, especially in light of our subsequent experiences with Saddam Hussein."[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_sponsored_regime_change#Myanmar_.28Burma.29.2C_2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_sponsored_regime_change#Myanmar_.28Burma.29.2C_2007)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax)
-
Before we go any further, I believe we should define "worse". As in...say, the potential for more mayhem; Or rather, an increasing amount of groups/organizations' that would resort to either terrorism or other acts of harm...? Or do we allow for the advance of technology, which has produced weapons of Mass destruction that now allow a small group to do a great deal of damage?
I would contend that we don't really rationalize the past, as much as we more or less anticipate the future. To put it this way, 150 years' ago, about 150 years' ago, the confederates' weren't building a fission device to obliterate New York or D.C. during our Civil War.
And yet 150 years ago, 600,000 americans were about to die. About 1 out of every 50 americans WAS GOING TO DIE from a war.
-
Building 7 was never hit by a plane.. Fires started in the lower section of the building and it collapse seven hours later. I still don't understand that carpet and furniture burning could bring it down.. Also building seven was never investigated with the 911 commission if i understand it correctly.
Do yourself a favor and read my post. It explains how Building 7 collapsed.
Honestly, anyone that thinks this was a government conspiracy isn't all that intelligent.
ack-ack
-
And yet 150 years ago, 600,000 americans were about to die. About 1 out of every 50 americans WAS GOING TO DIE from a war.
But that wasn't yet known at the time. It is true that those that forget the past are condemned to repeat it. But if you take that same statement, and put it into the context of our military always being prepared to fight the previous war they were in, then you can see the fallacy of that.
There are weapons, and ways, now, in which we can lose many more americans than we did even in the Civil War. To put an example; Even though it happened in Europe, in World war one there were over a million casualties on both sides of the Battle of the Somme alone. At this time, the Technological advances of the combatants was markedly superior to that of our Civil War; Not only Modern bolt-action cartridge firing rifles, but also Machineguns, Barbed-wire, poison gas, Rapid-fire artillery firing High-Explosive and fragmentation shell, Aircraft, Tanks....And all of this was only 50-55 years after our Civil war. WWII was on average per year, more costly in Human life than either WWII or our Civil War combined.
Now, imagine if Jefferson Davis and Lincoln (or whomever would take office after him in this case) were to be able to preserve peace in America, with the Union and Confederacy living side-by-side for 2 or 3 decades' longer than they did, and THEN waging war with each other, with the weapons' of a future time? Yes, in this case, things definetely could, and would have, been "worse".
This can be applied to 9/11, as well. Up until the WTC disaster, the single worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil was...Oklahoma City, I believe, the bombing of the federal building. If you take 9/11 and compare the total cost...Human, dollar, economic...9/11 was in a completely whole new tier. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I've read that 9/11 cost more human lives' than even the Attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th, 1941. Definetely, definetely, worse.
-
I never understood the conspiracy theorists. Two planes flew into the WTC. We all saw the pictures. They burned and collapsed. It seems people can't even believe their own eyes.
What if it hadn't been filmed? Well then we get the Pentagon and United 93 version. 'There was no plane'. People have even written books saying no plane hit the Pentagon. Even though I can google up actual pictures of aircraft parts in the Pentagon in the time it takes to type the words and there are literally hundreds of unbiased witnesses who saw the airliner.
The 9/11 conspiracies are easily the most stupid and moronic conspiracy theories around. Not only that, they are insulting to the dead and bereaved, not to mention the injured and traumatised.
Yea, but they want to be apart of it in some small, mediocre way.
-
I watched a goo dshow on the history channel lastnight regarding the 9/11 conspiracies. They debunked all the conspiracies in a scientific un-biased way.
One of the statements that a structural engineer made was: "ppl say the buildings came down in a controlled demolition, that skyscrapers dont fall that way.....um well how do they fall then? nobody has ever seen skyscrapers on this scale fall before. Actually THAT is how they fall, the science proves this"
Like I said before I like a GOOD conspiracy. The whole 9/11 controlled demolition thing is giving real conspiracy theorists a bad name :furious
-
I watched a goo dshow on the history channel lastnight regarding the 9/11 conspiracies. They debunked all the conspiracies in a scientific un-biased way.
One of the statements that a structural engineer made was: "ppl say the buildings came down in a controlled demolition, that skyscrapers dont fall that way.....um well how do they fall then? nobody has ever seen skyscrapers on this scale fall before. Actually THAT is how they fall, the science proves this"
Like I said before I like a GOOD conspiracy. The whole 9/11 controlled demolition thing is giving real conspiracy theorists a bad name :furious
i tried to stay awake for it. a commercial came on, and next i knew, my alarm was going off this morning.
but......science says that these hydroxy things cannot work, although they have been proven to work in reality......just sayin.
-
I watched a goo dshow on the history channel lastnight regarding the 9/11 conspiracies. They debunked all the conspiracies in a scientific un-biased way.
One of the statements that a structural engineer made was: "ppl say the buildings came down in a controlled demolition, that skyscrapers dont fall that way.....um well how do they fall then? nobody has ever seen skyscrapers on this scale fall before. Actually THAT is how they fall, the science proves this"
Like I said before I like a GOOD conspiracy. The whole 9/11 controlled demolition thing is giving real conspiracy theorists a bad name :furious
btw........
i'd like to think there was no govt involvement.........,
-
But that wasn't yet known at the time. It is true that those that forget the past are condemned to repeat it. But if you take that same statement, and put it into the context of our military always being prepared to fight the previous war they were in, then you can see the fallacy of that.
There are weapons, and ways, now, in which we can lose many more americans than we did even in the Civil War. To put an example; Even though it happened in Europe, in World war one there were over a million casualties on both sides of the Battle of the Somme alone. At this time, the Technological advances of the combatants was markedly superior to that of our Civil War; Not only Modern bolt-action cartridge firing rifles, but also Machineguns, Barbed-wire, poison gas, Rapid-fire artillery firing High-Explosive and fragmentation shell, Aircraft, Tanks....And all of this was only 50-55 years after our Civil war. WWII was on average per year, more costly in Human life than either WWII or our Civil War combined.
Now, imagine if Jefferson Davis and Lincoln (or whomever would take office after him in this case) were to be able to preserve peace in America, with the Union and Confederacy living side-by-side for 2 or 3 decades' longer than they did, and THEN waging war with each other, with the weapons' of a future time? Yes, in this case, things definetely could, and would have, been "worse".
This can be applied to 9/11, as well. Up until the WTC disaster, the single worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil was...Oklahoma City, I believe, the bombing of the federal building. If you take 9/11 and compare the total cost...Human, dollar, economic...9/11 was in a completely whole new tier. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I've read that 9/11 cost more human lives' than even the Attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th, 1941. Definetely, definetely, worse.
What was the ratio of deaths during WW1 to how many people were alive?
The civil war wasn't waged with the crude muskets of the middle ages. It put the most accurate rifles yet in the hands of some of the world's best sharp shooters. Not to mention the advances in canonry.
1 out of every 50 americans died in the Civil war. Roughly 1 out of every 333 americans died in world war 2. Roughly 1 out of every 1000 americans died in world war 1. Americans proportionally died at a rate of 6x more in world war 2, 20x more than in world war 1.
All in all the entire word died at a rate of 1 out of every 99 people for world war 1. All in all the entire world died at a rate of 1 out of every 78 people for world war 2.
The worst you can conjure still doesn't measure up to what we did during the civil war. The might of the bomb, artillery shell and machine gun still wasn't as bad as the muzzle loading rifles of 1860.
-
What was the ratio of deaths during WW1 to how many people were alive?
The civil war wasn't waged with the crude muskets of the middle ages. It put the most accurate rifles yet in the hands of some of the world's best sharp shooters. Not to mention the advances in canonry.
1 out of every 50 americans died in the Civil war. Roughly 1 out of every 333 americans died in world war 2. Roughly 1 out of every 1000 americans died in world war 1. Americans proportionally died at a rate of 6x more in world war 2, 20x more than in world war 1.
All in all the entire word died at a rate of 1 out of every 99 people for world war 1. All in all the entire world died at a rate of 1 out of every 78 people for world war 2.
The worst you can conjure still doesn't measure up to what we did during the civil war. The might of the bomb, artillery shell and machine gun still wasn't as bad as the muzzle loading rifles of 1860.
If confined to simply American casualties, on a proportional basis, than yes, the Civil war was worse...For the U.S. alone. However, It was easier for the U.S. to recover from the Civil War, due to the fact that unlike today, the Human losses didn't have as high a proportion of skilled/educated workers' that had to be replaced...this country was still on a mainly agricultural basis, still on the upturn of the industrial revolution. It did take time to rebuild, but we were able to rebuild ourselves, without huge investments of foreign aid, in a relatively short time. Compared to the later World wars, and taking in the total Human, Economic, and political cost...and leaving out the per-person statistics, things' got a lot worse later on. If you look simply at totals of Human life lost, then the estimated total of 72 million deaths' worldwide as a cause of the Second World War won't be touched until a full-out Nuclear Exchange between superpowers.
-
Great post ack ack. I applaud you taking the time to post the facts based on research. But based on some of the posts I read there will be no convincing the ingnorant no matter how many scientific facts you give. If someone is dumb enough to believe it was explosives then they are clearly not educated enough to understand basic principles of building constrction and how buildings react under heavy fire conditions and structure damage. It's kind of a catch 22.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7607473.stm
-
That BBC report is very interesting. The irony of it is that the destruction of the twin towers may indeed help to further develop fusion technology. Thus undermining the importance of oil and the Middle East. Karma?