Author Topic: Views on 9-11  (Read 3050 times)

Offline CAP1

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22287
      • The Axis Vs Allies Arena
Re: Views on 9-11
« Reply #120 on: September 08, 2008, 12:32:52 PM »
not to stir the pot more, but............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vnu_yiUzls&feature=related
ingame 1LTCAP
80th FS "Headhunters"
S.A.P.P.- Secret Association Of P-38 Pilots (Lightning in a Bottle)

Offline Twister2

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 110
Re: Views on 9-11
« Reply #121 on: September 08, 2008, 01:51:03 PM »
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.

THE INSTIGATORS
Death to smileys.
Brad(twister2)

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6863
Re: Views on 9-11
« Reply #122 on: September 08, 2008, 02:01:15 PM »
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

Offline FX1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1314
Re: Views on 9-11
« Reply #123 on: September 08, 2008, 02:07:36 PM »
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.




Offline Speed55

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1263
Re: Views on 9-11
« Reply #124 on: September 08, 2008, 02:11:21 PM »
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.
"The lord loves a hangin', that's why he gave us necks." - Ren & Stimpy

Ingame- Ozone

Offline FrodeMk3

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
Re: Views on 9-11
« Reply #125 on: September 08, 2008, 02:18:48 PM »
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.


Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
Re: Views on 9-11
« Reply #126 on: September 08, 2008, 05:07:59 PM »
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.
"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6863
Re: Views on 9-11
« Reply #127 on: September 08, 2008, 05:29:36 PM »
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

Offline FrodeMk3

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
Re: Views on 9-11
« Reply #128 on: September 08, 2008, 05:30:38 PM »
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...

Quote
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

Offline redman555

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2193
Re: Views on 9-11
« Reply #129 on: September 08, 2008, 06:11:46 PM »
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
~364th C-HAWKS FG~

Ingame: BigBOBCH

Offline lasersailor184

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8938
Re: Views on 9-11
« Reply #130 on: September 08, 2008, 06:37:28 PM »
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.
Punishr - N.D.M. Back in the air.
8.) Lasersailor 73 "Will lead the impending revolution from his keyboard"

Offline Ack-Ack

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 25260
      • FlameWarriors
Re: Views on 9-11
« Reply #131 on: September 08, 2008, 06:49:50 PM »
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.


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

ack-ack
"If Jesus came back as an airplane, he would be a P-38." - WW2 P-38 pilot
Elite Top Aces +1 Mexican Official Squadron Song

Offline FX1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1314
Re: Views on 9-11
« Reply #132 on: September 08, 2008, 06:52:06 PM »

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.

Offline FrodeMk3

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
Re: Views on 9-11
« Reply #133 on: September 08, 2008, 07:17:46 PM »
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.

Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
Re: Views on 9-11
« Reply #134 on: September 08, 2008, 07:20:37 PM »
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


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.

"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"