9-11 - Page 13

On September 03 2003 14:13 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
Rea, (regarding one of your posts in the thread you linked) might I remind you that the Nazi's has superior tanks in WWII, but they were steamrolled by the mass produced, cheaply made tanks of the Soviets. 15 0-0 tanks will beat 5 3-3 tanks and thats all there is to it
.

On September 03 2003 06:53 TeCh)PsylO wrote:

blackjack, i honestly think that u are smart, and rather logical, but i think u have a pre-determined view of something, and not open to accept something that might completely change your mindstate on the world. you have said that bush might have gotten wind of something happening. now, to not complicate the matter, my posts can be seperated into 2 categories, those refuting posts from other users, and those further explaining my original point, in which i will make a final outline for when im done. this post, is refuting other users posts. now, back to the topic.. u think that bush might have gotten wind of something happening envolving planes. well, bush DID get wind.
"President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner" - CNN
"President Bush was warned in a more specific way than previously known about intelligence suggesting that al Qaeda terrorists were seeking to attack the United States, a report on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks indicated yesterday" - msnbc
so, he WAS warned of something happening, involving airliners. no travel advisory was issued...
u say that there was no way of knowing that 19 hijackers would hijack planes?
on september 6th, 4 airlines were hijacked by "radical" muslims. this was not 2001, but rather 1970.
"On 6 September that year four airliners were seized by the PLFP - the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a radical Palestinian faction." -BBC
you seem to think that the idea of 9-11 was sooo off the mark from what we would expect, that there was no way that we could have known, but this is clearly not the case.


bingo. why wasnt more done to prevent it? u acknowledge a failure, but dont think that anyone should be held accountable? if i fail at my job, u better believe i will be held accountable, and the lives of thousands, potentially millions are not in my hands.


although u have attempted to be logical, the one thing tha tu have not done is discuss my reasoning. i have explained how the bush administration had policy and idealogy that would involve a catastrophe to happen. i have explained how these "catastopphes" used as public deception, are nothing new to our country. i have explained, and it is clear, that bush has flawlessly continued with the agenda that was made before 9-11, some of which expressly included the overtaking of the saddam regime. u do not argue against this. u just result to insults, and do the very popular, but petty thing, of attacking the name of a web site, rather than its information.


this is actually not what i believe. i have not yet gotten to explaining some possible conclusions to the matter. but i do not think that bush personally ordered a controlled collapse. i have already said that for the sake of argument, i will back off the controlled collapse issue, if u wish to discuss it, we can also explain how considering the event, a VERY MINUMIL amount of damage was done.


this goes the same for news articles, politicians, and any other source of information. but by this logic, well.. we cant believe a damn thing. but what we can do, is have a general idea of what is going on in the world, and see what "fits" the puzzle and what does not. the "official story" does not fit the puzzle(puzzle being the functionality of the world), where as my explanation of 9-11 fits it fairly well.

define government? the bush administration had something to gain. saudi arabia had some thing to gain. isreal had some thing to gain. osama had some thing to gain.

On September 03 2003 15:33 Anal_Ripper wrote:


FYI russian tanks were (and still are ) not only "mass-produced and cheap" but also technically superior: e.g. - T-34 Tank

On September 03 2003 08:37 TeCh)PsylO wrote:


i never said the US attacked its own soldeirs. i said that it was provoked by FDR, and he allowed it to happen. read up on the matter before u pass judgement. u are not arguing aginst my point, but only twisting my words, in order to try to change the meaning of my point, in which is easier for your to argue against.

osama DIDNT admit to 9-11 until months AFTER 9-11. and this was only on a tape, that the US "found", and was translated by the US government. yes, i have a watch to sell you. the credibility of this tape is in question:
Swiss Lab finds tape to be a fake
now, after watching the video, this is not much of a surprise... since this tape, osama has not directly admitted to the attacks, but has only praised them.
some how u are under the impression that i WANT to believe what i do. you are a fool if u think i WANT to live under such a government that i do, and in such a world. but, the fact is that i do, and i beleive things CAN change, but only if people learn about what is really happening in the world, and take action. apparently the former part is extremely difficult for most of u.

On September 03 2003 09:47 mensrea wrote:


I wasn't taking sides in this debate, but when it comes to North Korea I feel a few misconceptions about the whole issue needs to be sorted out.

There was actually a longish thread on this very topic a while ago. I recommend people read it before opening their mouths about subjects they have only a very superficial understanding of. It begins right <a href=http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?currentpage=1&topic_id=1878>here</a>.

On September 03 2003 17:19 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
obsolete, the point about the short selling was not to directly connect it to bush, but to illustrate that there was enough "chatter" to prepare for 9-11. the government itself seems to think that this is suffecient evidence, considering they tried to open a terrorist futures trading market themselves.
CNN.money
this was created by the pentagon, was developed, and only scrapped days before opening becuase of steep criticism.

obsolete, what is a non-internet related source that is better than the web? the best one i can think of, is the economist, but u can derive the same information from the web anyway, along with goverment reports, etc....

The date on that periodical was something like November 2002? So your whole fake tape argument makes no sense because we know which tapes are fake and real and we have real tapes saying he is responsible for what happened, that were on the news in the weeks after 9/11

On September 03 2003 17:31 TeCh)PsylO wrote:

plz enlighten me on which tapes are real, and which are fakes. show me where, in the news osama took responsibility for the attacks, and plz dont bother including articles discussing the tapes.... i have already backup up the toronto star as a credible source. it is just as much a corporate credible source as cnn, etc... so.. toronto star reports that a swiss lab is 95% accurate it is not bin ladin on the tape. so, who is is not credible? the news source? the lab? explain this to me. apparently it was enough to show up in other news sources as well:
news from 1/3 of the coalition of the billing
"Bourlard, a voice recognition expert, has worked extensively with the International Computer Science Institute at Berkeley, California.
He has also worked as co-editor-in-chief of the Speech Communication journal with ICSI director Nelson Morgan, and as an adviser to the European Commission.
He is the author or co-author of 150 research papers and two books"
BBC
once again, osama has only praised the attacks. show me differant.

Absolutely! But you're not using any of these sources. You're giving biased media information and second rate websites.

They had him on the news taking credit for the attack 2 years ago almost.

On September 03 2003 17:49 TeCh)PsylO wrote:





cia reports iraq was not a threat to the US 7 months before 9-11.
cia no threat

On September 03 2003 17:50 TeCh)PsylO wrote:

show me.

On September 03 2003 17:49 TeCh)PsylO wrote:

economist web site requires a subscription(pretty damn expensive one) in order to acces there entire site. government reports are going to be slightly biased? but either way:
congress's 9-11 report
if u manage to read it all, just keep in mind everything it _Doesnt_ discuss, not to mention the 28(?) missing pages about the relationship with saudi arabia.

and shall we take a look at who is on the commission?:
9-11 commission

cia reports iraq was not a threat to the US 7 months before 9-11.
cia no threat

here is the report:
"We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs"

note that right after this he goes on to explain how iraq has attempted to rebuild its chemical facilities etc.. and the only link between these 2 contradicions is
" although given its past behavior, this type of activity must be regarded as likely"
appartenlty, givin the fact that we havnt found any, that behavior was not regarded correctly.

Yes that is right. The officials said it, they also said that they were talking about the possibility of a hijacking. You only want to believe half of everything they say? Only the bad? I like to believe both instead of calling them liars on no proof whatsoever.

Show me where Bush said he had no knowledge of anything coming.

Show me where Bush said he had no knowledge of anything coming.