|
And Hitler knew about D-Day, but he similarly did not act. Are you implying that Hitler wanted to lose the war? Fact is, at the time these terrorists were under surveillance, so were others. Lots of suspicious people in this country, you know. I'd warrant there were others under even closer inspection. And yeah, I do agree, there needs to be some kind of reform; but that doesn't say the government is deliberately, knowingly allowing these people to commit mass murder
the argument that the intelligence community just had to much information to handle, and to sort out, to stop 9-11 is fairely week. for one, it is there job, so.. although it is a reasonable thing to say, and that just could be the case, the intelligence community still failed to do there job. this is a case of neglect. i have already pointed out, that in any other proffesion, neglecting to do your job has consequences. as u said before, an injustice is an injustice, regardless of who does it. also, the intelligence community had already have these men singled out to one extent or the other.
hi-jackers under survilaince
also note what is said about cell phone use with osama bin ladin. there is a fairly long history of observation. not just observing students floating around, but of the hijackers attempting to buy explosives, communicating with one another, etc.. now, i personally beleive that there was more than enough evidence to stop 9-11, your argument is that they had information, but they had so much in general, that they could not peice it together. this doesnt cut it, considering there jobs were to peice it together. also note the pheonix memo, which was ignored. the "higher ups" in the intelligence community were consciusly ignoring this information. the low level people, the people atually doing the work, did there jobs just fine.
Right and wrong are never irrelevant. Humans are fallible, and hence a law made by humans is similarly fallible. My point is that just because the Constitution says this or that, it does not mean that it is right, or that it should be followed. Now I am not saying that you follow your own personal, relativistic, subjective, situational desires. If you agree with this, lets continue the debate as normal. If not, then I'm afraid I'll have to explain myself further.
are u saying that the government should be allowed to act any way in which it pleases, regardless of the law? what would drive such a thing? politica interest? becuaes by that logic, there was nothing wrong with 9-11. the arab world has a legitimate greivance against the west, the problem is how they have dealt with it, but by this logic, as long as they have a political ideal in mind, it is ok?
agree; it is possible that members of our government, in the past, have deceived the people. However, you're generalizing the whole according to a minority. Just consider how many people have been involved in the government in the past 200 years. Was the war of 1812 incited by America, too? What about the Civil War? World War I? Fact of the matter is, if you dig deep enough into any particular military action taken by the U.S., you can find something that says, "This was wanted by the U.S.!" but you could just as easily say, "Hitler wanted to lose the war!"
your right a am generalizing, and your also right that u can not assume the specifics abuot 9-11 based on a general take on history. but my point was not to say, the government has doen things in the past, therefor they did them now. the point is to say that they did them in the past, therefor the government is _capable_ of doing it now. whether or not there is government complicity is a seperate aspect of the debate. one of the biggest questions, or should i say hurdles, in acknowledging a possible government involvment, is the u would have to accept that people would actually do such horrible things. but, people have been known to do such things, and worse, in our country, and around the world. therefor the possibility of government involvement, does not seem that extreme. once this is relized, it is much easier to look at the more specific details.
First of all, if you read enough about the Crusades you will learn that they were started as a defensive war. The Muslims were atttacking Constantinople. This was during that 600 year period where they sought to, you know, force everyone to become Islamic or die. Please, as someone who has done so much research regarding 9/11, I would trust you to delve deeper than your high-school text book.
Maybe a "whole new world" isn't the best of terms, but you have to concede a change. You have to further concede that so long as Bush is in office, that there will continue to be changes made.
im not sure how the facts abuot the actual crusades are relevant, and im sure they are debatable regardless(i admittedly know little), but the point is that the middle east would be hyper sensitive to the word. it was an extremely arragont and irresponsible thing to say. besides, i was not even refering to the actually crusades, but was more using the word as like "mission", or "agenda".
I regret not yet having the opportunity to cross-reference the Iraq-al Qaida information, but I will get to doing so sometime in the near future.
it is a shaim that we have to cross-referance the material in the first place, the writer was either extremely lazy and unproffional, or biased. unfortunetly journalistic entegrity has been depleted and replaced with sensationalism and steap ratings competition.
as to the controlled collapse issue, i dont have much time now to collect links, and to debate the specifics, but i intend to later. i will try to find some good videos, but like i said many are expired, and many alternative news outlets are now trying to sell the video to keep there site alive, rather than host it for free(reasonable but annoying). there are still alot of good photos that i will try to collect.
i would once again like to make the point, that the idea of the WTC collapse is irrelevant to the rest of the information. i never intended this to be the focus of my argument..
|
just a quick aspect to the official story of the collapse, if the heat where the plans hit, was sooo hot that the steal melted, what do u think happend to the rest of the stuff in the building? do u not think it would be completly disintegrated? seveal floors were already destoyed, and if it was so hot, u would think that the floors above it would have also burned most of its mass. this would make the top section of the buildings _significantly_ lighter, especially compared to 80 stories of intact, structurally sound steal. so, it is not as if u just took 20 stories, and literally dropped it on the top of a building. u took 20 stories, in which lost most of there mass, im not quite sure how to say this, but... the top didnt just "drop" on the building, it was still attached. later i will try to provide pics and videos. one thing that should be noted, is that both towers collapsed _smoothly_. as in if u watch, there is no real resistance. they literally just evaporated. u would think 80 stories of steal would atleast give some resistance? after all, skyscapers are designed for such things considering weather, and in the case of the WTC's, a plane hitting it.
|
|
|
|
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
On September 05 2003 22:16 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
just a quick aspect to the official story of the collapse, if the heat where the plans hit, was sooo hot that the steal melted, what do u think happend to the rest of the stuff in the building? do u not think it would be completly disintegrated? seveal floors were already destoyed, and if it was so hot, u would think that the floors above it would have also burned most of its mass. this would make the top section of the buildings _significantly_ lighter, especially compared to 80 stories of intact, structurally sound steal. so, it is not as if u just took 20 stories, and literally dropped it on the top of a building. u took 20 stories, in which lost most of there mass, im not quite sure how to say this, but... the top didnt just "drop" on the building, it was still attached. later i will try to provide pics and videos. one thing that should be noted, is that both towers collapsed _smoothly_. as in if u watch, there is no real resistance. they literally just evaporated. u would think 80 stories of steal would atleast give some resistance? after all, skyscapers are designed for such things considering weather, and in the case of the WTC's, a plane hitting it.
law of mass conservation.....
mass doesnt just go away, newbie
as for your other physics arguement it was so retarded i didnt feel the need to respond
|
doh!
correct link was:
http://bjcat0.tripod.com/larryrebuttal.htm
psylo, why does the steel need to melt? we know that the temperature was around 1300 C based on aluminum findings in the rubble. this is hot enough to bend steel, reduce its effectiveness etc. also, you seem to assume that the majority of the mass in the wtc was highly flammable and easily vaporized. it probably wasn't. or that the fire spread rapidly--fires can only move so quickly. And finally, melted steal weighs the same amount as intact steel--why should this matter?
|
On September 01 2003 09:18 Klogon wrote:
Well the NORAD thing got me.
So yes, they could have stopped it. They had the chance to, because they had prior warning that it might happen. So if all these sources were saying a plane might hit the WTC on 9/11, I think NORAD would have been more alert than ever. And they even had a plan to stop this.
So why didn't they?
Maybe they just screwed up... I guess we might never know... or maybe not...
I think maybe NORAD didn't do anything about it because shooting down your country's own passenger jets would not sit well with the general public. Bush would've taken a lot of shit for that.
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
On September 05 2003 23:10 GundamVX wrote: Show nested quote +On September 01 2003 09:18 Klogon wrote:
Well the NORAD thing got me.
So yes, they could have stopped it. They had the chance to, because they had prior warning that it might happen. So if all these sources were saying a plane might hit the WTC on 9/11, I think NORAD would have been more alert than ever. And they even had a plan to stop this.
So why didn't they?
Maybe they just screwed up... I guess we might never know... or maybe not... I think maybe NORAD didn't do anything about it because shooting down your country's own passenger jets would not sit well with the general public. Bush would've taken a lot of shit for that.
Bush would have taken shit then and will take shit now for the remainder of his tenure any way things shaped out because some people have a taste for bullshitting. Namely people like psylo who for one reason or another take it upon themselves to argue endlessly over something which is simply FALSE. 5$ says that had any planes been shot down that day, psylo would be here arguing that they were going to 'safely land' somehow because some 40 year old unemployed tard sitting at home decided to start a web page about some conspiracy and provide irrefutable evidence! read up, children.
|
On September 05 2003 23:24 iGgs wrote: Show nested quote +On September 05 2003 23:10 GundamVX wrote: On September 01 2003 09:18 Klogon wrote:
Well the NORAD thing got me.
So yes, they could have stopped it. They had the chance to, because they had prior warning that it might happen. So if all these sources were saying a plane might hit the WTC on 9/11, I think NORAD would have been more alert than ever. And they even had a plan to stop this.
So why didn't they?
Maybe they just screwed up... I guess we might never know... or maybe not... I think maybe NORAD didn't do anything about it because shooting down your country's own passenger jets would not sit well with the general public. Bush would've taken a lot of shit for that. Bush would have taken shit then and will take shit now for the remainder of his tenure any way things shaped out because some people have a taste for bullshitting. Namely people like psylo who for one reason or another take it upon themselves to argue endlessly over something which is simply FALSE. 5$ says that had any planes been shot down that day, psylo would be here arguing that they were going to 'safely land' somehow because some 40 year old unemployed tard sitting at home decided to start a web page about some conspiracy and provide irrefutable evidence! read up, children.
I don't agree or disagree with you, but I DO find your attitude to be immature.
|
|
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
im sorry, im only 16-feel free to make fun but remember in the process of doing so you're being immature and biased by judging my maturity as a reflection of my age :D
|
im afraid this has gone in a horribly wrong direction. ive decided i will not argue the WTC collapse until after i finish the rest of my points. the controlled collapse idea is very interesting(im still open to either side of the situation), and is enough info out to have a nice debate, but is is irrelevant to the other information regarding 9-11, which is the point of the thread.
|
On September 05 2003 23:32 iGgs wrote:
im sorry, im only 16-feel free to make fun but remember in the process of doing so you're being immature and biased by judging my intelligence as a reflection of my age :D
considering i didnt know your age, i was judging by your representation of yourself..
|
Russian Federation772 Posts
On September 05 2003 23:36 TeCh)PsylO wrote: Show nested quote +On September 05 2003 23:32 iGgs wrote:
im sorry, im only 16-feel free to make fun but remember in the process of doing so you're being immature and biased by judging my intelligence as a reflection of my age :D considering i didnt know your age, i was judging by your representation of yourself..
i was referring to what you know now, after my post 
|
Ok, Psylo, you are merely being obstinate now. You are simply restating things without further evidence, things that, in my estimation have already been deemed inconclusive and hence irrelevant.
Let me summarize your arguments :
PNAC has an agenda - based on the wording of their website (no evidence)
We want Iraq's Oil - because Iraqi oil fields were in Cheney's energy plan (certain American companies having pre-existing business relationships with Iraqi oil companies / Saudi Arabia UAE also in the plan)
Intelligence Ignored - There was surveillance on some of the hijackers at one point in time (Yes, and there was surveillance on my neighbor, too. [no joke] - There is surveillance on lots of people. There are lots of plots. I'd warrant the "Phoenix Memo" is just one of many)
WTC Tampered with - Oh, woops, wait, thats not a "focus" of your argument anymore. Why, because it was very solidly refuted?
Is there anything else I'm missing? I'm sorry, but I happen to be extremely punchy and tired.
|
Pslyo. Remember your goal isn't to convince us that the towers fell awkwardally. Your goal is to convince us that the towers fell awkwardally because of some REASON. Your only proof is that "I watched it many times and it didn't look natrual" There were forensic engineers at ground zero after the crash trying to figure out if there was foul play and I think they would have found something before your keen eye says that Bush planted bombs.
Also, if the towers fell funny, how does that prove it is a controlled collapse anyway? I think OL made a post about all the bombs it would take. The people who do that for a living have to rig each floor with explosives very carefully in order for it to come straight down.
I would have been more willing to change my opinion on the fact that Bush might have known more than we think if you didn't kill all of your credibility by trying to get us to believe that Bush somehow planted bombs, and give us bogus sources that tell us the steel couldn't have melted and that the seismic spikes were before the towers collapse when the site never even said that. Those sources are obviously inaccurate so I might as well not agree on the rest of your case because you might have used the same false and biased news to form your other opinions.
If you go to small claims court and say that you loaned somebody 500 dollars.... right when you got back from your mission to mars.... you aren't going to win.
|
Beyonder
Netherlands15103 Posts
Im not gonna read this thread, but Ill state my opinion anywa.
GOD AMERICANS!$@$@!
|
On September 05 2003 23:37 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
WTC Tampered with - Oh, woops, wait, thats not a "focus" of your argument anymore. Why, because it was very solidly refuted?
It was never the main focus of his argument, it was the main focus of people who were arguing against him, he was merely trying to support his own case. I believe his main focus was that 9/11 was beneficial to certain governments and people, however, somepeople, and justifiably so, see that psylo insinuated that there was a controlled collapse of the WTC and that it was possible that bush and company were behind that.
|
no you see... he really did think bush planted bombs underneath the WTC. and that weakens his case because when he brings all these sources and stuff we can tell that it isn't too hard to make him believe Bush knew more when he believes Bush blew up the buidlings
if I told you 2+2 was 5 and than I said that the square root of 368 was 27, would you believe me?
|
I'm not just focusing on the fact that his theory regarding the WTC collapse being controlled is bogus, but that nothing else he has stated follows any logic, or has crediblity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
