So hows the war on "Terror" going?

[GorunNova]

So I was right... this is a lost cause. No matter what I can produce' date=' it won't matter. If God Himself came down from heavan and spoke to you saying "I am God. You are wrong.", you'd probably say it was the devil trying to trick you.[/quote']

I was pretty much certain of it at the "I dont care what you hear in europe b/c its not true" point... that sort of speech is a trademark of willful ignorance, and it wasn't the only one that has come up. Throw in the often contradictory logic and reiteration of the same stuff over and over again, and there's a pointless situation if I've ever seen one.

 

Some of your points are good, GhostShadow, but they are also mixed in with contradictory statements, arguments from ignorance (i.e. 'there's nothing against/for it, so it must be true/false!'), willful ignorance (i.e. ignoring factual and documented events as 'liberal propaganda' etc.), and blatant jingoism.

[Ulysses]

Moderator

 

 

guys just calm down abit lol its just a discusion

[Arktis]

And no one is being physicaly abused. pg28. "The detaniees medical condition is freequently checked by medical corpsmen as often as three times a day."

 

No abuse?

 

www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/08/guantanamo.abuse/

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8040551/

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/05/terror/main653890.shtml

www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0321-06.htm

news.myway.com/top/article/id/403633%7Ctop%7C05-15-2004::18:06%7Creuters.html

www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/8717

 

Moderator

 

 

guys just calm down abit lol its just a discusion

 

Hey, we are being calm. Talk to GhostShadow. He needs to relax a bit and I'm beginning to wonder if he is deliberately trying to make people angry. I don't think so though... but I'm not sure anymore.

 

I don't want to see this topic go to Rura Penthe, so let's try not to let people "get our goats", so to speak.

[GhostShadow]

READ THIS ALL, FOR IT WILL BE A LAST POST OF MINE! I SUGGEST YOU READ IT IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSATND MY OPNION FOR THIS EXPLAINS IT QUITE WELL. AND YOU WILL SEE WHY WE WONT AGREE, IN THE EUROPEAN CULTURAL SECTION.

 

 

November 20, 2005: If it weren't for Internet access to troops, expatriates and Iraqis in Iraq, you would think that coalition military operations in Iraq were a major disaster, and that prompt withdrawal was the only reasonable course of action. But the mass media view of the situation is largely fiction, conjured up in editorial offices outside Iraq, with foreign reporters in Iraq (most of them rarely leaving their heavily guarded hotels) providing color commentary, and not much else. So what do the troops and Iraqis say?

 

First, there is definitely a terrorism problem. Not an insurgency, not a guerilla war, not a resistance. A portion of the Sunni Arab population refuses to recognize the Sunni Arab loss of power in early 2003. They are supporting a campaign of terror to either get back power or, more pragmatically, to get immunity for most Sunni Arabs for crimes committed during Saddams decades in power. The majority of support the terrorists get is from the amnesty crowd. Hundreds of thousands of Sunni Arab families have one or more members who did Saddam's dirty work. That has left millions of Kurds and Shia Arabs looking for revenge. Remember, this is where the legal concept of "eye-for-an-eye" was invented thousands of years ago. The children of Hammurabi want their measure of vengeance, and if they get it, the current violence in Iraq will look pallid by comparison. All the prevents a wholesale descent into mutual slaughter is the presence of coalition troops. In other parts of the world (and there are many to examine at the moment) this sort of thing is called peacekeeping. Withdraw the peacekeepers, and what peace there is goes with them.

 

Second, there is a cultural crises, in the Arab world in particular, and the Moslem world in general. The crises is expressed by a lack of economic, educational and political performance. By whatever measure you wish to use, Nobel prizes, patents awarded, GDP growth, the Arabs have fallen behind the rest of the world. Part of the problem is the Arab tendency to blame outsiders, and to avoid taking responsibility. Tolerating tyranny and resistance to change doesn't help either. That is changing, and the war in Iraq has become the center of this cultural battle. It began with the 2003 invasion, which was reported by the Arab media as a great defeat for the Western "crusader" army. Until, that is, it was all too obvious that American troops had battled their way to Baghdad in three weeks, and were quickly defeating Iraqi forced defending this cultural capital of the Arab world. This triggered a debate in the Arab world, one that got little coverage in the West. It began when some Arab journalists openly pointed out, in the Arab media, that Arab reporters had not only been writing fantastical stories that had no relationship to reality, but that this sort of thing had been going on for a long time and, gosh, maybe it had something to do with the sorry state of affairs in the Arab world. That particular debate is still going on, largely unnoticed in the West. This is the real war against terrorism, because the terrorists represent the forces of repression and backwardness in the Arab world.

 

Third, the bad guys are really, really bad, but they have many prominent allies around the world. Most Iraqis cannot understand how so many media outlets in the West can keep giving favorable coverage to the Sunni Arab terrorists. These guys are butchers, and many used to work for Saddam, committing the same kind of mayhem. Yet these European reporters come looking for Sunni Arab "victims" of "American imperialism." How strange is that? Nothing strange, just another cultural quirk. The Europeans are much more risk averse than Americans. We all remember the 1930s, where most of Europe left Hitler alone, hoping that they could talk sense into him, or that he would go away. Eventually, the good people of Europe (at least those that had not been conquered by the Germans) had to fight the nazis. Americans, most of them descendents of refugees from European foolishness, wanted no part of this latest chapter. But the Japanese and Pearl Harbor intervened, and there we were. After that, Europeans had to deal with another of their inventions, communism. This one had also started off in a promising fashion, but had eventually descended into mass murder and tyranny. Still, many Europeans remained fans, at least from a distance, and defended it until communism collapsed in a pile of contradictions and dead ideas. Europeans have a thing about tyranny. While not wanting it for themselves, they are more willing than most to tolerate it for others. Thus the disagreement over going after Saddam. Many Europeans believe that taking down Saddam was just wrong, and continued American peacekeeping in Iraq just compounds the error. Europeans had made their peace, and many business deals, with Saddam. And the Americans went in and screwed it all up. Europeans have been screwing things up far longer than Americans, and consider themselves experts. They are unhappy that the Americans do not follow the lead of Europe in these matters. Moreover, Europeans cannot accept that they could be wrong, despite any evidence to the contrary. This is a major component of European cultural superiority.

 

And, lastly, we have the major differences between the media version of what's going on, and the military one. The media are looking for newsworthy events (bad news preferred, good news does not sell, and news is a business). The military sees it as a process, a campaign, a series of battles that will lead to a desired conclusion. The event driven media have a hard time comprehending this process stuff, but it doesn't really matter to them, since the media lives from headline to headline. For the military, the campaign in Iraq has been a success. The enemy, the Sunni Arabs, have been determined and resourceful. But the American strategy of holding the Sunni Arabs at bay, while the Kurds and Shia Arabs built a security force capable of dealing with the Sunni Arab terrorists, has worked. But that's good news, and thus not news. But every terrorist attack by Sunni Arabs is news, and gets reported with intensity and enthusiasm.

 

But in the end, process usually wins. News events are often turned into obstacles. Journalists understand that their audience generally has no memory for past reporting that was inaccurate. What is of the moment takes precedence in peoples minds. Politicians play the same game, rewriting history freely, secure in the knowledge that their followers will go along with the revisions, and their opponents will have to play the news event game to score any points with the undecided. Human nature being what it is, the majority of the population pays little attention to the buzz of news, unless, like an outstanding TV or radio commercial, some journalist comes up with an event that registers big time. This changes perceptions, for a while at least, and often creates an artificial reality in the minds of many. This time, it isn't quite working that way. The troops can email back their experiences promptly, and this causes a disconnect in many people, between what they see in the news, and what they are hearing from people who are in the middle of it all. How all this will play out is as yet unknown, which is what makes it so interesting. There's more going on in Iraq than a war.

[GhostShadow]

I was pretty much certain of it at the "I dont care what you hear in europe b/c its not true" point... that sort of speech is a trademark of willful ignorance, and it wasn't the only one that has come up. Throw in the often contradictory logic and reiteration of the same stuff over and over again, and there's a pointless situation if I've ever seen one.

 

Some of your points are good, GhostShadow, but they are also mixed in with contradictory statements, arguments from ignorance (i.e. 'there's nothing against/for it, so it must be true/false!'), willful ignorance (i.e. ignoring factual and documented events as 'liberal propaganda' etc.), and blatant

 

ok as i have said b 4 it CAN be seen as willful ignorance, OR cutting through BS and not wasting time by hearing ppl FROM OTHER countries than your own, talk like they are speaking to in intelectualy inferior being, about your country.

[quosego]

Moderator

 

 

guys just calm down abit lol its just a discusion

 

Hey, we are being calm. Talk to GhostShadow. He needs to relax a bit and I'm beginning to wonder if he is deliberately trying to make people angry. I don't think so though... but I'm not sure anymore.

 

I don't want to see this topic go to Rura Penthe, so let's try not to let people "get our goats", so to speak.

 

Well Ghostshadow said to me he get's pissed easily, what do you expect, he kinda has to fight an entire army of anti-war hippies :).

 

EDIT: could someone please tell why the [x] [/x] doesn't work in my posts anymore... It looks kinda weird now...

 

[Arktis]

READ THIS ALL' date=' FOR IT WILL BE A LAST POST OF MINE! I SUGGEST YOU READ IT IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSATND MY OPNION FOR THIS EXPLAINS IT QUITE WELL. AND YOU WILL SEE WHY WE WONT AGREE, IN THE EUROPEAN CULTURAL SECTION.[/quote']

 

You know, you could have just given a link to the article instead of posting the whole thing. Why would you do that? Could it be... that... http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20051120.aspx

Oh my, yet another strategypage article. When will you stop getting all your stuff from the same source? And I find it interesting how while that article majorly spins, it actually legitimizes a lot of what people have been saying about propaganda in order to set up it's framework.

 

Well Ghostshadow said to me he get's pissed easily' date=' what do you expect, he kinda has to fight an entire army of anti-war hippies[/quote']

 

GhostShadow has been caught in unresearched, ignorant, and innacurate statements over and over again, shown all kinds of evidence to the contrary which he ignores entirely, and has been getting all his information from the same source because he has admitted he has great difficulty finding anything else to support his position. Furthermore, he has given in to namecalling and other distasteful things. I think it is time he left this forum topic. He has already claimed he was making a last post here twice, and has failed to keep his word. He is being disruptive, abusive, irrational, and is generally making things unpleasant. He is actually hurting his position by continually discrediting himself in the ways I have mentioned.

[Beawulf]

various nameless people having gone a bit too far attacking people rather than ideas, but overall I dont think this thread has gone out of hand. I value GhostShadow's differing opinion, shame the pressure of studies are diverting his attention but that is life.

 

I am wondering why we havent heard from the other 16 people who voted the war on terror was going awesome or say that another country should be invaded.

[GhostShadow]

READ THIS ALL' date=' FOR IT WILL BE A LAST POST OF MINE! I SUGGEST YOU READ IT IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSATND MY OPNION FOR THIS EXPLAINS IT QUITE WELL. AND YOU WILL SEE WHY WE WONT AGREE, IN THE EUROPEAN CULTURAL SECTION.[/quote']

 

You know, you could have just given a link to the article instead of posting the whole thing. Why would you do that? Could it be... that... http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20051120.aspx

Oh my, yet another strategypage article. When will you stop getting all your stuff from the same source? And I find it interesting how while that article majorly spins, it actually legitimizes a lot of what people have been saying about propaganda in order to set up it's framework.

 

Well Ghostshadow said to me he get's pissed easily' date=' what do you expect, he kinda has to fight an entire army of anti-war hippies[/quote']

 

GhostShadow has been caught in unresearched, ignorant, and innacurate statements over and over again, shown all kinds of evidence to the contrary which he ignores entirely, and has been getting all his information from the same source because he has admitted he has great difficulty finding anything else to support his position. Furthermore, he has given in to namecalling and other distasteful things. I think it is time he left this forum topic. He has already claimed he was making a last post here twice, and has failed to keep his word. He is being disruptive, abusive, irrational, and is generally making things unpleasant. He is actually hurting his position by continually discrediting himself in the ways I have mentioned.

 

i posted the whole damn thing b/c it was very aperrent that most ppl have not read it. I could care less where it came from.

 

So to solve that problem, i posted it all. so ppl would actualy clance over it, b/c i know that most the ppl here are just doing that to my post then go right back to bashing America. I thank the more sierious posters like you and tesuo for actualy responding w. some logic, I respect you for that, but there are retards in here who have nothing better to do than to sit in their dark cold rooms and invent new wys to spit on my ideals and America, i.e. the "retard pome".

 

HAHAHA lmao, I am ignorant?? thats a good one. join a night club, that would be a good act. But you should keep your day job, its not all that funny.

 

I was hard to my opinion from the start, but around pg 4/5 i decided to let you guys get me soft, you posted an ASS load of materical and i need to read and counter act them, since i have had study time i havent done that. But now that i see you guys will keep spitting crap out when you talk, i am really seeing no point in going forward. I would have a better chance at teaching mt dog math, than you teach HALF the posters in here logic.

 

And you can not seriously dispute that "artical" I posted.... show me some thing more logical and i will change my mind.

 

So far you have shown me articals written by liberals. In your DU shell artical it specificly said "WAR AGINST IRAQ" stright off... from there on i knew it was a bs artical. And i have been asking my Trigger happy military friend and his Army recuter about the DU shells and he said that there is not enough radio active crap in there to cause MASS MAYHEM. I still need to find proof about this but that takes time...

 

Scratch all that..... i dont know if i am gonna return to this thread... F this.. i am talking to a wall... you guys keep posting what ever you want to keep you happy in your littel bubble of a life full of lies, decite, and BS.

 

Good Day Sir

[GorunNova]

ok as i have said b 4 it CAN be seen as willful ignorance, OR cutting through BS and not wasting time by hearing ppl FROM OTHER countries than your own, talk like they are speaking to in intelectualy inferior being, about your country.

Oh, I can feel the open-mindedness and willingless to consider (not accept, consider) other perspectives there... I post as I do BECAUSE I think you are intelligent, if a bit weak in logical reasoning. If I didn't think you were intelligent, I wouldn't be posting this... I'm pointing out the flaws in your reasoning.

 

... the 'ppl FROM OTHER countries' that you dismissed (along with the rest of the world) as being "to friggin immature to care for its slef."? Yeah, I can see the tolerance for other viewpoints quite clearly.

 

" So far you have shown me articals written by liberals. In your DU shell artical it specificly said "WAR AGINST IRAQ" stright off... from there on i knew it was a bs artical." <- and here, too... I bet you didn't even look them over before dismissing them.

 

I DID read the articles you posted... but they ARE only a few articles with ONE editorial slant... One perspective is never enough to create an accurate image of what's going on. I've read a lot more in papers from around the world INCLUDING the US, and from books likewise coming from various authors, with perspectives that go from total support for the war effort through to utter vilification of the United States... I come to my conclusions from the evidence, and my conclusions -change- with new evidence. I don't sit on one source and treat all other sources as if they were the raving of madmen or idiots.

 

As I said, you have some good points, but they ARE buried in quite a few logical inconsistancies and strings of flawed reasoning which totally undermine your position.

 

Don't let my posts (or anyone else's!) stop you from reading the information! We aren't any more perfect than you are... but without good and consistant arguments backed by non-biased information, we don't have any real reason to accept your perspective... especially when so much of what I have seen, read, and heard directly contradict your claims.

 

Living in Canada, I -do- have good access to US news sources... but I don't rely entirely on them, and of late that's for VERY good reason... there IS a crapload of propaganda on the US airwaves and news sources... also, it never ceases to amaze me how many notable events never appear in the US (and even North American) news radar that are VERY relevant to the War on Terror, OR how few US citizens realize what their government is doing to subvert their own freedoms (eg. in Detroit, a woman was arrested for not presenting ID while on public transit... funny that during the Cold War, one of the major points used to seperate the US from the USSR was the lack of identity papers...) but that's another topic.

 

You're not an idiot... but you ARE underinformed from your reliance on too few sources of information, and you seem to cling to elements of dogma... and get VERY explosive when people try to point that out as if we were instead accusing you of being a bad person or something... It gets VERY tiresome. If you don't like what we say, beat us over the head with evidence! Also, maybe it's suggestive that you can't find much info for your position... as Arktis mentioned. Lack of evidence doesn't make you -wrong-... but it doesn't make your position very attractive given the other information available.

 

Also... please stop dismissing the rest of the world because we're not "American" and thus ignorant morons... if anything will make you look like an idiot, that'll do it.

 

Edit: I have to repeat this... I do not consider ALL US citizens idiots, either! I think the current administration is VERY opportunistic and has wasted NO time increasing it's power by exploiting the wave of patriotism the Sept. 11 attacks and it's own efforts have brought about. Also, I do NOT look at the US military as evil, conquering Nazis... as usual, it's a case of a few spoiled apples doing bad things and spoiling it for the rest... big time.

[GhostShadow]

ok here is to your DU BS...

 

BBC science and Nature

 

"The UN says the existing data suggest it is "highly unlikely" DU could be linked to any of the health problems reported."

 

 

"One thing we've found in these various studies is that there are no long-term effects from DU"-Lieutenant-Colonel David Lapan, Pentagon spokesman

 

"Both the US and the UK acknowledge the dust can be dangerous if inhaled, though they say the danger is short-lived, localised, and much more likely to lead to chemical poisoning than to irradiation."

 

DU

 

Now i am not scientist but as i read this, it shows that DU is less toxic than what every one is makeing it out to be...

 

"Depleted uranium (DU) is uranium which contains a reduced proportion of the fissile isotope U-235 and (usually) the highly radioactive but rare isotope U-234, compared to natural uranium.

 

Natural uranium contains nominally 0.7110% U-235 (+/- 0.1% variation) and 99.28305% U-238 (and 0.0054% U-234), while depleted uranium contains only 0.2 to 0.4 weight-percent U-235.

 

The U-235 is concentrated into enriched uranium through the process of isotope separation for use in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons:

 

* Nuclear weapons usually use uranium containing 90% or more of U-235 (a lower grade is possible but makes the weapon less efficient).

* Commercial light water nuclear reactor fuel is usually enriched up to a maximum of 5% (the 5% limit is set by the currently licensed transport containers  in the future the 5% limit may be increased up to 7% for improved fuel economy).

* Research reactor fuel is today limited to maximum 20% (most older research reactors have been or will be converted down to this lower enrichment level).

 

The enrichment process does not create U-235; rather, the isotopes of uranium are merely separated. Therefore the process leaves large amounts of depleted uranium as a waste product. For example producing 1 kg of 5% enriched uranium requires 11.8 kg of natural uranium, leaving about 10.8 kg of depleted uranium with 0.3% U-235."

 

 

EDIT: now i am not saying that this stuff is safe, i wouldnt want a barel of this crap on my lawn, but it is not like a nuclear bomb... I dont know if it was here where some one was afriad of that or another thread but w/e

[GhostShadow]

GhostShadow... you've finally forced my hand. Today, you will learn just how wrong you are.

 

Have you been paying attention at all? You've got to stop spewing this crap out. If you don't want to sit through the following summary, skip ahead to the links. Go ahead, the information contained there is vitally important for you to read.

 

The common american doesn't want war. We have to be SOLD on the idea of war, it has to be justified. This is where propaganda comes in, but it is not enough. We need a Pearl Harbor type event for us to want to go to war and give up our freedoms.

 

9/11 - Who did it benefit? Not us. Not the terrorists either! It benefited industry. Industry. INDUSTRY. That's the bottom line. For the love of money is the root of all evil.

 

Now what is happening? The american economy is being looted from the inside, the afghani and iraqi economys have been handed to american interests and their rule is being enforced by our military. That is what makes america bad to the rest of the world. Not it's citizens, but the powerful greedy bastards that have literally hijacked our country.

 

We have been fooled so badly! You're fighting the wrong fight, GhostShadow. The enemy is not them, it's our own leaders and captains of industry. Terrorists didn't even carry out 9/11. If you doubt that, oh BOY is there a mountain of evidence. It's not just some theory.

 

Stuff like this has been planned by our government before, and even declassified. Here are four separate sources I came up with in under 30 seconds:

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

www.public-action.com/911/northwds.html

 

And that's just for starters. You want more, I've got more. See for yourself, GhostShadow. Wake up.

 

sorry to go all the way back here but now that i have looked at some of this, what does teh cuban missel crises have to do w/ 9-11?? Plz tell me if i am reading that wronge, i didnt quite understand it all....

[GorunNova]

Just to point out... radioactive materials have FAR more of an effect when vaporized and inhaled... and many of the people of breeding age in these conflicts are ALSO on the battlefields, inhaling this stuff, as many bullets miss, hit nearby objects, and vaporize...

 

... also, a lot of the fighting is happening in cities, so this dust is floating around loads of -civillians-... The radiation in depleted uranium rounds may not be much, but it has a BIG effect when it's ALL absorbed from within a person's body. As an example, consider a rock. Heat it up so it's glowing, and it'll warm you if you stand near it... but it'll cause a LOT of damage if you swallow the same rock. Likewise, the bullets themselves won't hurt much as they are, but if vaporized and stuck in someone's lungs and body over -years-? Problems will happen.

[GhostShadow]

Just to point out... radioactive materials have FAR more of an effect when vaporized and inhaled... and many of the people of breeding age in these conflicts are ALSO on the battlefields, inhaling this stuff, as many bullets miss, hit nearby objects, and vaporize...

 

... also, a lot of the fighting is happening in cities, so this dust is floating around loads of -civillians-... The radiation in depleted uranium rounds may not be much, but it has a BIG effect when it's ALL absorbed from within a person's body. As an example, consider a rock. Heat it up so it's glowing, and it'll warm you if you stand near it... but it'll cause a LOT of damage if you swallow the same rock. Likewise, the bullets themselves won't hurt much as they are, but if vaporized and stuck in someone's lungs and body over -years-? Problems will happen.

 

We are not shooting off DU shells IN cities. Most if not all the citeis are gurded by troops, now yes there are some Tanks in the citeis but most of them are out of city limits and are shooting AWAY from the city...

 

EDIT: "Both the US and the UK acknowledge the dust can be dangerous if inhaled, though they say the danger is short-lived, localised, and much more likely to lead to chemical poisoning than to irradiation."

[GorunNova]

You DO know that depleted uranium was used in bullets and NOT just shells, right? And a lot of shooting DID happen in cities? Also, what comes up must come down... a lot of the depleted uranium finds it's way into the water supply, and Uranium oxides can be eaten and stay in the bodies of animals, plants, and people for quite a while...

 

Edit: some interesting points about what happens to depleted uranium bullets and shells...

The U.S. Army acknowledges the hazards in a training manual, in which it requires that anyone who comes within 25 meters of any DU-contaminated equipment or terrain wear respiratory and skin protection, and states that "contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption."

 

... if it's that dangerous for troops passing through, what about the people who have to -live- there?

[Arktis]

sorry to go all the way back here but now that i have looked at some of this' date=' what does teh cuban missel crises have to do w/ 9-11?? Plz tell me if i am reading that wronge, i didnt quite understand it all.... [/quote']

 

Just so we are clear, I'll quote the wikipedia.

 

Operation Northwoods or Northwoods was the code name for various false flag actions' date=' including domestic terror attacks (such as involving the use of "hijacked" planes as missiles) on U.S. soil, proposed in 1962 by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders to generate U.S. public support for military action against Cuba. The proposal was presented in a document entitled "Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba," a draft memorandum written by the Department of Defense (DoD) and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) representative to the Caribbean Survey Group. The draft memo was presented by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13 with one paragraph approved, as a preliminary submission for planning purposes. However, McNamara rejected the proposal. In addition, the existence of Operation Northwoods was often dismissed by the general U.S. public as an unfounded "conspiracy theory" until the draft memorandum was declassified in recent years through a Freedom of Information Act request by the National Security Archive.[/quote']

 

Okay, now I'll connect some of my dots for you. It means that during that era the governement planned to have some sort of staged event to start a war under false pretenses. It's right there in black and white (wikipedia has a copy of the document availible for download). It didn't happen because McNamera rejected the idea of it, but several decades later a scenario unfolds that fits one of their proposed methods. Add this to the information I listed about the world trade center (with links) in a later post, and you've got a pretty good reason for doubting what the official story is. The laws of physics do no lie, the evidence says that the impact of the planes was not sufficient to bring down those buildings, nor was the burning jet fuel. There was every indication that the buildings were brought down via a controlled demolition which was set up in advance, because the buildings were actually built to withstand an airline impact. You must not have read that post either.

 

Check it out.

 

[TetsuoShima]

The laws of physics do no lie, the evidence says that the impact of the planes was not sufficient to bring down those buildings, nor was the burning jet fuel. There was every indication that the buildings were brought down via a controlled demolition which was set up in advance, because the buildings were actually built to withstand an airline impact.

 

Wow, that is one serious accusation. And since the nature of this accusation is so serious and since there is no action taken by any serious group to propose this accusation and get the guilty parties before the court, I can only conclude one thing: there is not enough evidence to support it. Not saying that there is no evidence, not just enough serious evidence that not circumstancial.

 

I have to admit, I kind of read over that previous post, but I looked over it now. I also have to admit that I'm not al all wel informed about it, the only things I know about it are from National Geographic.

 

But I remember from the documentary they broadcast that it could have been possible that some parts of the steel structure were heated enough to melt, not the main girders, but some of the lesser support structures. These structures failing them gave rise to a cascade effect and that's how the buildings collapsed. That was their explanation.

 

Now, I cannot support either theory, since I do not have all the information, but given the fact that it seems that the accusation is against the US government/military, I cannot believe that they are so evil as to kill 5000 of their own people, just to get to Iraq and it's oil, since in Afghanistan, there really was not much of value they could get anyway...

 

Further, I find it unlikely, that if the proof would be so absolute, that no-one would act on it. So in that case, the proof is not good enough to get a conviction and so the accused is innocent....

 

Man, I can't even dare to imagine that you'd be right about this, I feel unsafe enough in this world without thinking about govenments plotting to kill their own citizens so that some companies can make more money.... :stare:

 

 

*/ runs away scared as hell and hides under the bed.... /*

[Arktis]

The melting point of steel is 1500º C (2770º F) while the maximum temperature of an open hydrocarbon fire is 1700º F. (Jet fuel is made of hydrocarbons.) The fires that burned after the jet fuel was exhausted (rugs, curtains, furniture and paper) reached - in a few pockets - 1832°F. So the fires were nowhere near hot enough to melt the steel columns of the towers. Even if they were, how would they have been able to destabilize steel columns in the precise way to cause the instant simultaneous collapse we saw? Both buildings dropped almost perfectly straight down. It defys reason.

 

And then there's building seven. Silverstein is on tape in a BBC interview admitting building 7 was controlled demolitioned. There's no way that anyone is going to go in and set up explosives while a building is on fire, and if they were insane enough, they wouldn't have had the time. Which means that they had to have been already set up in advance.

 

Then you also have to wonder why the resulting debris was sold and recycled so quickly.

 

Wow' date=' that is one serious accusation. And since the nature of this accusation is so serious and since there is no action taken by any serious group to propose this accusation and get the guilty parties before the court, I can only conclude one thing: there is not enough evidence to support it. Not saying that there is no evidence, not just enough serious evidence that not circumstancial. [/quote']

 

Many people/groups have tried their damndest to get the official story challenged openly, but guess what the answer always is? "We can't discuss it due to matters of national security.", which automaticly trumps any right people have to see this picked apart in a public arena of any kind.

[GorunNova]

Between the collapse that shouldn't have happened, the free-fall speed of the collapse (impossible anywhere other than controlled demolition), and the fact that there is film evidence of the controlled blowout of one of the towers as it fell (also impossible other than in a controlled demolition)... there's actually quite a bit of evidence behind it, and frankly I'm amazed that it ISN'T being discussed more than it is. It's almost as if curiousity has been suspended... even hints of this stuff used to get people worked up, and in a situation where there's a fair amount of evidence? Silence.

 

It HAS been cloaked behind 'national security' and turned into a non-issue by the media networks... no WONDER so many people have turned to media in other countries and independant news for their info... -_-'

 

Edit: On a side note, there is the Stanley Hilton case against Bush and his administration that was dismissed NOT on the grounds of evidence, but because one of the defendants, George Bush, is protected by the principle of Soverign Immunity (i.e. he's da prez, so we can't charge him with anything!).

 

... the case should have at least been properly examined to get to the truth of the matter (whichever way it went!) instead of being summararily thrown out of court without even -looking- at the evidence! It would have been a great opportunity to prove OR disprove decisively whether or not Bush and members of his administration were involved with the WTC bombing... not examining it is far worse thing than 'wasting' time disproving it, imho... on the off chance it brings something to light.

 

I only bring this up because the guy claimed to have decisive evidence that Osama is dead and that the WTC disaster was an inside job... and it was the court's job to analyze and decide decisively whether that's true or false... not discard it without verifying or disproving anything. If it WAS true, then the existing members of the Bush admisitration would be terrorists, too... and if it WASN'T true, then we could authoritatively tell a bunch of conspiracy theorists to shut up. And if Osama's dead... then much of this War on Terror could be smoke and mirrors.

[Beawulf]

The melting point of steel is 1500º C (2770º F) while the maximum temperature of an open hydrocarbon fire is 1700º F. (Jet fuel is made of hydrocarbons.) The fires that burned after the jet fuel was exhausted (rugs' date=' curtains, furniture and paper) reached - in a few pockets - 1832°F. So the fires were nowhere near hot enough to melt the steel columns of the towers.[/quote']

 

There is a type of failure called 'creep' that you may not have considered. It essentialy involves a material that is under constant stress (like building supports), once the material is heated to only 40% of its melting point it will begin to fail, however as the name suggests it isnt a sudden failure, however the regions affected would become unable to support the weight of the floors above speeding up the process. Because the lower floors werent affected initially the majority of the building was able to stay upright. For me this makes sense how it was brought down with the floors collapsing like dominos, appearing to be like a controlled demolition. edit: just my thoughts, I dont claim to know either way.

 

I saw an interesting documentary about the design of the worlds largest buildings, especially in Asia where they need to take into account the risk of earthquakes, if the WTC had similar structural redundancies they reckon they would never have fallen. Shame NY isnt an earthquake zone from that point of view.

 

 

Those Northwood articles were a very interesting read. I like the fact that wikipedia links to the document on the national archive website. If a government decided to go along that path I would personally hope they would choose an option that involves the loss of less life...one could argue that the buildings werent supposed to fall....which naturally would have meant that fewer people would have died. Or another point of view could be that they (bush etc) had nothing to do with it whatsoever, but had intelligence that it was going to take place and chose not to act. Thus getting justification without getting their hands dirty.

 

 

imo if the government hasnt done anything wrong, then they should be able to have the issue debated. To paraphrase GhostShadow, if they are innocent of domestic terrorism it shoul d be easy enough for them to prove it. ;)