EPT9-11 - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
gas prices went down because the strike in Venezuala ended, idiot. i dont know where u live, but they havnt exactly gone down, and are only prejected to go up | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
I gotta go now though, I got a class in 5 minutes | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
| ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
| ||
|
SerotoninsGone
United States40 Posts
as for the fact that we knew in advance, of course we did. the problem is knowing that you know something. the CIA may be multi-billion dollar, but it's also a bureaucracy, and those tend to be very ineffecient (kgb much?). if you've ever worked for an intelligence service, you know that information is a great commodity, and never found in abundance or in the right places at the right times. had roosevelt not stood by and watched pearl harbor occur, europe would probably still be bowing down to hitler. not that that would necessarily be a bad thing--the european economic community would have started a good 50 years earlier. but the main point with the blowing up the maine (spanish american war) and pearl harbor is that we know for a fact how these events occured--the press, the real press (i.e. the new york times, washington post etc) absolutely ate up those stories. if there was anything to this one, they would do the same. Several people have asked why we don't take out say, north korea or pakistan. the answer is bloody obvious of course: because they have nukes. if saddam had actually had wmd's, we wouldn't have attacked him because he would have blown up israel in retaliation. we knew he couldn't or wouldn't, so we invaded. right now, the US is probably bargaining with china for the destruction of north korea's nukes. china wants taiwan--if we give it to them, they will remove north korea's nukes. i will be very curious to see how that little arrangement plays out. it is not at all clear how much the US new about 9/11, what could or could not be prevented etc. i find that psylo's best evedence by far is norad. i can see us not stopping the first plane--but why not the second? | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
If the bush administration's entire goal was Iraq, they would have hung 9/11 on Iraq and bypassed osama entirely iraq is not the entire goal. but a large part of it. and until they catch osama, i am not convinced that they DIDNT bypass osama. as for the fact that we knew in advance, of course we did. the problem is knowing that you know something. the CIA may be multi-billion dollar, but it's also a bureaucracy, and those tend to be very ineffecient (kgb much?). if you've ever worked for an intelligence service, you know that information is a great commodity, and never found in abundance or in the right places at the right times this is a good point, and strengthens my point, which is not to pass blaim(which can be done to some extent), but to hold someone accountable for __something___. there was enough information and intelligence infrastructure to stop 9-11, but it did not happen. whether u blaim that on beurocratic failures, orders from "higher up", or just stupidty, doesnt really matter, either way someone is at fault, and didnt do there damn jobs. had roosevelt not stood by and watched pearl harbor occur, europe would probably still be bowing down to hitler. not that that would necessarily be a bad thing--the european economic community would have started a good 50 years earlier. but the main point with the blowing up the maine (spanish american war) and pearl harbor is that we know for a fact how these events occured--the press, the real press (i.e. the new york times, washington post etc) absolutely ate up those stories. if there was anything to this one, they would do the same. the idea that FDR lying to the people in order to stop hitler, seems to be some what reasonable to accept. but was it really necessary? hitler offered to stop the war, when he was in a strong position, but the "allies" denied, most likely becuase of the jewish lobby. im not sure what u mean by we "know these events occured", i assume u mean we know that they were deceptions. but take note, that this was not known at the time by the people, and there was deliberate effort to miseducate the people to start a war. wars in which lives were lost.. Several people have asked why we don't take out say, north korea or pakistan. the answer is bloody obvious of course: because they have nukes. if saddam had actually had wmd's, we wouldn't have attacked him because he would have blown up israel in retaliation. we knew he couldn't or wouldn't, so we invaded another good point, but honestly if we wanted to attack n.korea, i think his nukes would be destroyed before kim knew what hit him. such things have happened before, for example when isreal hit iraq's nuke plant. then a war with n.korea would not be any more threatening than iraq. the real issue is not nukes, but oil. we attacked iraq becuase it was swimming in oil(the words of wolfowitz). nukes are not keeping us from attacking pakistan, but rather the fact that we can still work with pakistan to meet our own ends, which was illustrated in gulfwar II. saddam on the other hand, would not bow down to the US demands, or work with the US in any way. | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
Should've fighters been scrambled earlier? Yes. But the problem with hindsight is the event is already past. Put yourself in this position: a plane has just hit the World Trade Center. It appears to be an act of terrorism. You do not know if any sort of chemical or biological agents have been involved, were on the plane, etc. You know that at least one more plane has been hi-jacked, but are similiarly uninformed as to the potentiality of WMD. You don't know if they have demands or anything. If they're terrorists, clearly they're irrational already, and agitating them by scrambling fighters could lead to worse tragedy, for instance, (in the event that they had wmd), crashing into a well populated neighborhood (and need I remind you that Boeing 757's are big planes, that move very fast - they could potentially level a whole block or two). Many thousands more would've died. Should they have moved quicker? You bet, but you can't blame everything on them. They had a lot of things to consider. | ||
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
| ||
|
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
On September 02 2003 21:17 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Regarding NORAD: Should've fighters been scrambled earlier? Yes. But the problem with hindsight is the event is already past. Put yourself in this position: a plane has just hit the World Trade Center. It appears to be an act of terrorism. You do not know if any sort of chemical or biological agents have been involved, were on the plane, etc. You know that at least one more plane has been hi-jacked, but are similiarly uninformed as to the potentiality of WMD. You don't know if they have demands or anything. If they're terrorists, clearly they're irrational already, and agitating them by scrambling fighters could lead to worse tragedy, for instance, (in the event that they had wmd), crashing into a well populated neighborhood (and need I remind you that Boeing 757's are big planes, that move very fast - they could potentially level a whole block or two). Many thousands more would've died. Should they have moved quicker? You bet, but you can't blame everything on them. They had a lot of things to consider. I'm not sure on this issue, but wouldn't it be more logical to protect the skys? Like usually AFTER something like this happens, don't they secure the area with like everything they have? | ||
|
SerotoninsGone
United States40 Posts
as for our dealings with saddam--he entirely believed that the US would support his occupation of kuwait. Had we allowed him to do so, we could bargained for absurd oil contract's--and we wouldn't have had to spend a dime to get them (essentially, just do nothing). seems a hundred times easier then starting two wars and the destruction of a national icon, | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
Regarding intelligence: Are you aware of how many terror threats there are against this country per year? Know how much of it is bogus? Its hard to differentiate between a serious threat and chit-chat between a pair of Islamic Fundamentalists in foreign countries. Regarding N. Korea: First of all, N. Korea has proven themselves capable of deception - they've had their nuclear program running for some time, before they kicked the U.N. inspectors out. And while their missles don't precisely work, you don't need a missle to cause a lot of damage with a nuclear device. The N. Korean army is at least twice that of the S. Korean, with much better technology and equipment. If they stormed the DMZ and managed to bring a nuclear device into a major S. Korean city, it would be a catastrophe. And who would take the blame, I ask you? Thats right, the good old US of A. | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
On September 02 2003 21:17 ObsoleteLogic wrote: Regarding NORAD: Should've fighters been scrambled earlier? Yes. But the problem with hindsight is the event is already past. Put yourself in this position: a plane has just hit the World Trade Center. It appears to be an act of terrorism. You do not know if any sort of chemical or biological agents have been involved, were on the plane, etc. You know that at least one more plane has been hi-jacked, but are similiarly uninformed as to the potentiality of WMD. You don't know if they have demands or anything. If they're terrorists, clearly they're irrational already, and agitating them by scrambling fighters could lead to worse tragedy, for instance, (in the event that they had wmd), crashing into a well populated neighborhood (and need I remind you that Boeing 757's are big planes, that move very fast - they could potentially level a whole block or two). Many thousands more would've died. Should they have moved quicker? You bet, but you can't blame everything on them. They had a lot of things to consider. no, they did not have alot of things to consider. i say that becuase they act upon writtin protocal. they did not make decisions from event to event. there own protocal says they should have been in the sky and shot down those plans. if a plane losing contact with ground control, norad is suppose to launch and catch up with the plan, and then attempt to make visual contact with the pilot, and proceed from there. this did not happen. | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
On September 02 2003 21:22 Klogon wrote: I'm not sure on this issue, but wouldn't it be more logical to protect the skys? Like usually AFTER something like this happens, don't they secure the area with like everything they have? Sure, but they already had some belief that the 2nd plane was hijacked when the first hit. And blowing the plane up further away from its target, if it had a large quantity of WMD it could still spread. By the time planes would be scrambled and in position to do so, I doubt the 2nd was very far from NYC. | ||
|
SerotoninsGone
United States40 Posts
(i base this on every european i've met and from several relatives that have lived in germany, france and russia for a few years). it shows up in every form of life, from obeying traffic lights to listening when the government makes a public address. particularly the traffic light thing really gets me. when the crosswalk starts flashing red--they just won't walk...). the fact that the french and british are both very critical of their current governemnt is encouraging though. However, it would be nice if the germans would quit marching in straight lines... | ||
|
ObsoleteLogic
United States3676 Posts
On September 02 2003 21:25 TeCh)PsylO wrote: no, they did not have alot of things to consider. i say that becuase they act upon writtin protocal. they did not make decisions from event to event. there own protocal says they should have been in the sky and shot down those plans. if a plane losing contact with ground control, norad is suppose to launch and catch up with the plan, and then attempt to make visual contact with the pilot, and proceed from there. this did not happen. What I would then like to see is a transcript of the control tower having lost contact with its plane and NORAD. I don't think such a thing could be obtained, but it would be very insightful. I don't recall, but I know one of the planes responded after being hijacked. Was it the second, third, or fourth? | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
On September 02 2003 21:24 ObsoleteLogic wrote: First of all, Psylo, its "blame" - you seem to throw this word around a lot, so I figured you might as well spell it right (: Regarding intelligence: Are you aware of how many terror threats there are against this country per year? Know how much of it is bogus? Its hard to differentiate between a serious threat and chit-chat between a pair of Islamic Fundamentalists in foreign countries. i apologize for my dispicable grammar/spelling. i have deemed any attempt at impromement futile. i understand there is alot of information floating around abuot terrorist attacks, and to be fair, many are stopped. but, the information leading up to 9-11, wasnt just chatter. it was much more specific. dont u think, that they could have ATLEAST issued a travel advisory? the fact that they didnt, only goes to show another aspect of "standing down" to the event. and apparntly other people figured this out as well, before 9-11. for example, there was an unusual amount of short selling of airline companies before 9-11, in which many people made alot of money. this was mildly reported soon after 9-11, but was never again in the main stream media. here is an articel abuot this: short selling i would make a note, that many of this was done by isreali's, in which i will get into when i have more time. another thing in which happens, that leads me to beleive that there was for knowledge of this, is the a large number of credit card transactions, that were computed inside the WTC's, possably being a credit card heist, knowin that the collapse would destroy the evidence. for reading on this: credit cards there are also reports of people being warned not to fly that day. everybody from sharone to associates of condeleeza rice. of course these reports can not be varified, but i have a good feeling there not to far off the mark, especially considering the "warnings" that the countries elite give each other(think corporate scandal). | ||
|
TeCh)PsylO
United States3552 Posts
What I would then like to see is a transcript of the control tower having lost contact with its plane and NORAD. I don't think such a thing could be obtained, but it would be very insightful. I don't recall, but I know one of the planes responded after being hijacked. Was it the second, third, or fourth? i must go to work, i will find out later | ||
|
DeMoNiC
United States294 Posts
On September 02 2003 17:33 BlackJack wrote: gas prices went down because the strike in Venezuala ended, idiot. sigh maybe i didnt make it clear enough... but then again u just contradicted yourself... Gas prices went down because the strike ended... yes, but shouldnt gas have gone down even further now that our president has so much oil???? well it hasnt.. so obviously he's taking the money for himself... wow u really are dumb, if i meant venezuela i would have mentioned it | ||
|
DeMoNiC
United States294 Posts
lol do explain. kind sir | ||
| ||
