|
i have ammitted the WTC collapse out of my arguement many times by now.. as solsito said, it has become the main focus by the other users of the forum. i have already admitted to the mistake of not being more organized when i started this debate. i only mentioned the WTC as a controlled collapse becuase i think it is an issue that people are not aware of. once again it is irrelevant to the rest of the information in the debate. i dont understand why people do not understand this..
obsolete, how are my sources not credible? when i quote directly from the PNAC, how is that not credible? are u saying that the PNAC does note exist? that there website is a hoax? i have already pointed out that all the sources i have provided have been from corporate news outlets accept the ones involved in the WTC. this idea that my sources are not credible is rediculous. blackjacks appartent "credible sources" all came from one place. they all were direct reports from the US or British governments, in which both are proven to lie and forge evidence. obsolete, your source abuot the iraq/al queda link, was a article that was basing its information the iraq national congress, a group of iraq exiles that include chalabi, a known criminal. they were also the ones that told the bush administration that iraq would being cheering in the streets and embracing there liberation. try telling that to the families of the soldeirs that are dying on a regular basis. your links from cnn that either hold no grounds, or do not even prove your point
link 1: powell says that the idea that he gave bogus information as nonsense. colin powell, the man that stood up and lied to the UN, defending his own actions. hardly a credit to anything legitimate.
link 2:"Preliminary tests of chemicals found in barrels in northern Iraq suggest the presence of two weapons that the United Nations has barred Iraq from possessing"
note the word "suggest", a key word in the world of propaganda. what i quoted is in bold, what is not in bold "Experts cautioned that preliminary tests can be unreliable". hardly a credible article
link 3:"Substances found at a remote northern Iraq site were undergoing additional tests Monday for the presence of chemical weapons, a U.S. military official said"
undergoing additional tests..... of course it never said that they didnt find chemicals.. but o wait!!! the _third to last paragraph_ says
"Other chemical finds initially indicating the presence of potential weapons of mass destruction have turned out to be pesticides or other industrial chemicals upon later testing." once again a powerful propaganda tool. suggest in the headlines a "smoking gun" and not deny this until the end of the article..
link 4: a sensationalistic story that says nothing. the down fall of present day journalism. there are heroic stories that come from war, then there is the news, i think cnn shuold stick with the news.
link 5:".S. troops have found 11 mobile laboratories buried south of Baghdad that are capable of biological and chemical uses, a U.S. general said Monday. "
that are capable of.... yes thats in bold, but whats not in bold "There were no chemical or biological weapons with the containerized labs". CNN follows a pretty clear pattern here... i hope u have figured it out by now.
link 6: once again creating the impression that something has been found.. but then not conclusivly saying anything.. also not at the end
"This report was written in accordance with Pentagon ground rules allowing so-called embedded reporting"
i hope u dont think that the pentagon does not approve these releases..
link 7: it is abuot protection suites. not about WMD, i understand the implication, but that is exactly the faulty news that is being pushed to bush's propaganda. and do note, the US uses WMD, saddam did not. would it not be reasonable for there soldeirs to prepare?
so... u attack my sources, but u provide nothing of any crediblity your self.. i have appreciated your effort in this debate, but your "tired punchy" attitude had not served u well.
and my logic in the matter? try this for logic... it was a "coincidece" that 9-11 happened, when the bush administration needed it to carry out its agenda, and even its very policy.
it is a "coincidence" that the bush administration is personally connected to the companies in the natural resource and military industry that are gettin extremely rich off this situation. it is a "coincidence" that norad did not react according to its own protocal. this is a hole lot of "coincidence" to happen on one rather serious day. that is not logical, what i propose is...
|
i hereby apologize for that snotty attitude...
|
On September 05 2003 03:09 BlackJack wrote: Show nested quote +On September 05 2003 02:53 Iron[NM] wrote:
Bush did not MURDER 4000 Americans. Al-Qeida did. This is pathetic. The leader of the free world murdering his citizens. You should be dropkicked for saying that past a joke. You may think differently of America but I am a proud American, and I trust my President.
To think that 50 million people voted just so Bush could commit mass murder is just sickening. You are an idiot and you are completely clueless.
Oh, I try to defend the obviousness of Bush not planting bombs under the WTC after America put him into office and I am an idiot?
At least I don't hack Blackhack. Don't ever address me ever again newbie.
|
On September 06 2003 02:30 TeCh)PsylO wrote:
i have ammitted the WTC collapse out of my arguement many times by now.. as solsito said, it has become the main focus by the other users of the forum. i have already admitted to the mistake of not being more organized when i started this debate. i only mentioned the WTC as a controlled collapse becuase i think it is an issue that people are not aware of. once again it is irrelevant to the rest of the information in the debate. i dont understand why people do not understand this..
If its so irrelevant, why was it a key factor in so many of your posts? Stop trying to weasel out of it.
obsolete, how are my sources not credible? when i quote directly from the PNAC, how is that not credible?
The only things you take from the PNAC site which are "damaging" are taken out of context.
are u saying that the PNAC does note exist? that there website is a hoax? i have already pointed out that all the sources i have provided have been from corporate news outlets accept the ones involved in the WTC. this idea that my sources are not credible is rediculous.
The Memory Hole? Information Clearing House? Rense.com? Serendipty? USCrusade? A Yahoo Group? WhatReallyHappened? Center for Cooperative Research (just look at the front page...)? GlobalIssues.org? Independent.org? TheTip.org? tenc.net? A site on Geogcities? CounterPunch? All of your real sources never once say, "Yeah, Bush and Cheney did it!" In fact, they don't even come close. I just spent twenty-thirty minutes looking at them. Your "evidence" from the PNAC is simply your twisting of their words. They mention Pearl Harbor, and you say thats evidence of their influence on the 9-11 attacks?
blackjacks appartent "credible sources" all came from one place. they all were direct reports from the US or British governments, in which both are proven to lie and forge evidence.
I never once defended BlackJack's sources.
obsolete, your source abuot the iraq/al queda link, was a article that was basing its information the iraq national congress, a group of iraq exiles that include chalabi, a known criminal. they were also the ones that told the bush administration that iraq would being cheering in the streets and embracing there liberation. try telling that to the families of the soldeirs that are dying on a regular basis.
First of all, I guess my military chums (I live 30 minutes from Fort Bragg) are liars too. Or were they the only ones cheered in Iraq? Casualities are part of war. Its sad, but its true.
your links from cnn that either hold no grounds, or do not even prove your point
link 1: powell says that the idea that he gave bogus information as nonsense. colin powell, the man that stood up and lied to the UN, defending his own actions. hardly a credit to anything legitimate.
Did you read the whole article or just make assumptions? Read the last section again.
link 2:"Preliminary tests of chemicals found in barrels in northern Iraq suggest the presence of two weapons that the United Nations has barred Iraq from possessing"
note the word "suggest", a key word in the world of propaganda. what i quoted is in bold, what is not in bold "Experts cautioned that preliminary tests can be unreliable". hardly a credible article
It takes months to accurately determine the presence of chemical weapons. A little research will show you that a large report regarding WMD in Iraq is expected within the near future.
link 3:"Substances found at a remote northern Iraq site were undergoing additional tests Monday for the presence of chemical weapons, a U.S. military official said"
undergoing additional tests..... of course it never said that they didnt find chemicals.. but o wait!!! the _third to last paragraph_ says
"Other chemical finds initially indicating the presence of potential weapons of mass destruction have turned out to be pesticides or other industrial chemicals upon later testing." once again a powerful propaganda tool. suggest in the headlines a "smoking gun" and not deny this until the end of the article..
Please note the word I put in bold.
link 4: a sensationalistic story that says nothing. the down fall of present day journalism. there are heroic stories that come from war, then there is the news, i think cnn shuold stick with the news.
"hundreds of gas masks, canisters and chemical decontamination kits"
link 5:"U.S. troops have found 11 mobile laboratories buried south of Baghdad that are capable of biological and chemical uses, a U.S. general said Monday. "
that are capable of.... yes thats in bold, but whats not in bold "There were no chemical or biological weapons with the containerized labs". CNN follows a pretty clear pattern here... i hope u have figured it out by now.
Do you build a boat to bury in your backyard, marking it so you'll know its there?
link 6: once again creating the impression that something has been found.. but then not conclusivly saying anything.. also not at the end
"This report was written in accordance with Pentagon ground rules allowing so-called embedded reporting"
i hope u dont think that the pentagon does not approve these releases..
Yeah, I'm sure the Pentagon is telling them to lie.
link 7: it is abuot protection suites. not about WMD, i understand the implication, but that is exactly the faulty news that is being pushed to bush's propaganda. and do note, the US uses WMD, saddam did not. would it not be reasonable for there soldeirs to prepare?
Find me one, just one instance of the U.S. using chemical weapons? Do we possess them? Yes. Are they authorized for use? No. Are they being destroyed? Yes. And it would be perfectly reasonable for their soldiers to prepare - for their own usage of CW.
I have also failed to notice any link at all regarding the acquistion of any rights to the oil fields by any company, let alone the company Cheney was once part of.
so... u attack my sources, but u provide nothing of any crediblity your self.. i have appreciated your effort in this debate, but your "tired punchy" attitude had not served u well.
So... you attack my sources, but you provide nothing of any credibility yourself. I have appreciated your effort in this debate, but your "snotty" attitude has not served you well.
and my logic in the matter? try this for logic... it was a "coincidece" that 9-11 happened, when the bush administration needed it to carry out its agenda, and even its very policy.
Nevermind that terrorism has been a problem for the last several decades, and the U.S. had a rather lax attitude about defense spending over the last 10 years?
it is a "coincidence" that the bush administration is personally connected to the companies in the natural resource and military industry that are gettin extremely rich off this situation.
proof?
it is a "coincidence" that norad did not react according to its own protocal. this is a hole lot of "coincidence" to happen on one rather serious day. that is not logical, what i propose is...
Read the link provided by SerotoninsGone.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
Wow, I lost a really really long post... But anyways:
Obsolete,
The reason why the towers falling wasn't psylo's focus is because even if it was, he'd still have to explain the motive. And once you go down the road of motive, that's where the true argument is. You must find their motive, and how far they are willing to go before you can even consider this. Obviously psylo thinks they add up to enough for this to be a possibility.
BlackJack,
The steel did not melt. Where ever you found that information about the people finding melted steel was lying. Everybody knows this. Psylo's link that shows the steel couldn't have melted was right, but they forgot some other factors. I'll explain in a bit.
Right now, even though I'm more on Psylo's side, I'm going to aurgue against him about the tower's collapse.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
That's where I'm going to quote all the following stuff. Eager is a professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. so he probably knows what he's talking about.
NOVA: After the planes struck and you saw those raging fires, did you think the towers would collapse?
Eagar: No. In fact, I was surprised. So were most structural engineers. The only people I know who weren't surprised were a few people who've designed high-rise buildings.
So it is perfectly reasonable for us to think something was wrong as well. I mean a professional thought it woudln't go down at the time... So it's reasonable for us to question it as well.
Now regarding how the towers fell:
NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?
Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over.
Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways. He has a good point, but I am somewhat skeptical of some of it. He totally disagrees with a demolition expert who's probably done this more times than him. But hey, professionals have different opinions all the time.
Blackjack, you might want to pay good attention to this part:
NOVA: How high did the temperatures get, and what did that do to the steel columns?
Eagar: The maximum temperature would have been 1,600¡ÆF or 1,700¡ÆF. It's impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1,200¡ÆF or 1,300¡ÆF.
Investigations of fires in other buildings with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt the aluminum, which melts around 1,200¡ÆF. Most fires don't get above 900¡ÆF to 1,100¡ÆF. The World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300¡ÆF or 1,400¡ÆF. But that's all it would have taken to trigger the collapse, according to my analysis.
NOVA: You've pointed out that structural steel loses about half its strength at 1,200¡ÆF, yet even a 50 percent loss of strength is insufficient, by itself, to explain the collapse.
NOVA: There's a theory that the aluminum of the planes caught fire.
Eagar: Yes, a number of people have tried to reinforce that theory. Now, the aluminum of the planes would have burned just like a flare. Flares are made out of aluminum and magnesium, so are fireworks, and they burn hot enough to melt steel in certain cases.
However, they have had people sorting through the steel from the World Trade Center, and no one has reported finding melted steel, which means that we didn't have that aluminum flare. In any case, burning aluminum would have been white-hot, about 4,000¡ÆF, and someone would have seen it even through that dense black smoke.
Engineers have found evidence that the aluminum of the planes' fuselages and wings may have melted, but there is no evidence that it burned. If you read the bold, I have a feeling whoever said they found melted steel was talking out of his ass.
OK, when I posted I would no longer post on this topic, I lied.
And Obsolete and Psylo, don't slowly inch toward flaming. It was fine until a few posts ago...
|
On September 06 2003 01:47 BlackJack wrote:
no you see... he really did think bush planted bombs underneath the WTC.
no he didnt. lol.. i dont thik u read the thread 
|
bah! i linked to that site a few pages back klogon  '
and yea the flaming should die down so they dont close this thread ^^;; i think its the longest thread on this site
|
On September 06 2003 02:41 Iron[NM] wrote: Show nested quote +On September 05 2003 03:09 BlackJack wrote: On September 05 2003 02:53 Iron[NM] wrote:
Bush did not MURDER 4000 Americans. Al-Qeida did. This is pathetic. The leader of the free world murdering his citizens. You should be dropkicked for saying that past a joke. You may think differently of America but I am a proud American, and I trust my President.
To think that 50 million people voted just so Bush could commit mass murder is just sickening. You are an idiot and you are completely clueless. Oh, I try to defend the obviousness of Bush not planting bombs under the WTC after America put him into office and I am an idiot? At least I don't hack Blackhack. Don't ever address me ever again newbie.
How old are you? 12?
Bush couldn't have done it because we voted for him! I trust him! and I like Big Bird too! He is cool!
You make opinions without any facts. You are no smarter than the people who agree with psylo.
"At least I dont blackhack"
Good one! Did you come up with that by yourself?
don't post here again, child.
|
And Obsolete and Psylo, don't slowly inch toward flaming. It was fine until a few posts ago...
agreed. i have been fairly tired and irritated lately. my apologies. tomorrow i will explain the bush administrations relationship with the corporation that have gotten the contracts to "rebuild" iraq. i will also bring up isreal(which i am assuming will be a "hot" topic), but i will attempt to show a very biased and strong aliance, that plays a roll in the possible differing perspectives of 9-11.
the WTC collapse issue took over a part of this thread, but not by my doing. early on, i retracted that hole aspect of my argument. i have only responded to other people who brought up the issue in attempting to explain why it may make sense, usualy followed by a reminder that it was not an aspect of my argument.. i originally thought i should bring up the issue, becuase it was one in which nobody ever discussed in the mainstream media. i have heard random bitz and peices of every other aspect of the debate in the media, exept this.
obsolete, as to the sources, argue the information, not the name, as i did for u. your links were regarding WMD. find me one recent article that _confirms_ WMD. not speculation, not "more testing required", not "suggests", but confirms. i agree, that testing takes time, and final results are not in. but compare our success at finding WMD, with what bush/blair said about WMD. there is a very big differance..
|
Ok, I apologize for the tendencies towards flaming too; I suppose this argument is wearing me thin, a bit, to have been going on so long.
I will just leave you with one thought, however - Saddam was in power in Iraq for about 20 years. He has been characterized by brutality and cunning his entire life. He has had twenty years to hide things in his country. It takes more than a few months to uncover two decades worth of work.
EDIT: As to arguing the information, what if it is misleading or deceptive? I can say that the sky is a nice, solid black, but that doesn't make it so. Take your first article, for instance - that fellow was, as Serotonins exposed, essentially a fraud without the credibility to be writing what he did. Or as for Scott Ritter - I argued the information there. Five years ago he said Iraq's CW/BW programs could be reconstituted within 5 months. Now I'm not picking on you, or your sources in particular, but there has to be a certain amount of credibility to warrant investigation of a source.
|
just found an interesting article in the gaurdian. minister meacher served served for 6 years, and retired 3 months ago. he has been increasingly attackin the us/blair drive for war. here is a quote from the article in relation to meacher:
"He says that the plans of the neo-conservatives in Washington for action against Afghanistan and Iraq were well in hand before September 11. He questions why the US failed to heed intelligence about al-Qaida operatives in the US and the apparent slow reaction of the US authorities on the day, as well as the subsequent inability to lay hands on Bin Laden. "
article here:
Gaurdian
the point of this, is that it shows that my views on the matter are not isolated to a few, but rather are recognized on a much larger scale, by rather relevant people. further:
"Mr Meacher, who was environment minister, says: "The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy supplies." "
this is in complete congruence with my argument on 9-11(also my iraq argument, for those that remember).
|
On September 06 2003 07:22 ObsoleteLogic wrote:
Ok, I apologize for the tendencies towards flaming too; I suppose this argument is wearing me thin, a bit, to have been going on so long.
I will just leave you with one thought, however - Saddam was in power in Iraq for about 20 years. He has been characterized by brutality and cunning his entire life. He has had twenty years to hide things in his country. It takes more than a few months to uncover two decades worth of work.
seems reasonable. i hope that i am wrong with my assesment of the situation.
|
|
|
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
OK BlackJack,
So what? That is totally irrelevant. That doesn't prove that it was a controlled collapse, I was saying IT WASN'T A CONTROLLED COLLAPSE.
The guy says the temperatures were probably around 1200+ is because THEY FOUND MELTED ALLUMINUM. Yes, the same stuff planes are made out of. He also knows the temperature in which gas from a plane would normally burn at in open air. So he just made a estimate based on those facts. That's all people are really doing with the matter anyways...
I remember somebody else posted a while back that the tempertures probably weaked the steel 50% too. So BlackJack, I'm not the only person who found a source who thinks this way.
"People probably would have seen burning alluminum through the black smoke" There is a clear difference between MELTING and BURNING.
The guy wasn't even there and he has no idea what the tempatures were. Anybody who was "there" would have fried.
I posted that to accually go against psylo's claims of a possible controlled collapse. So...... bah, nvm.
But I'd still like to see how the top of the tower straightened out after tipping over on the decent. It does look awkard.
|
interesting facts, but my point was to show that my opinion is recognized on a much larger scale than what some may think. here is another example:
sept. 11 conspiracy claims recieve large readership
the reasoning behind foul play on 9-11, seems to be solid enough to interest many people. if the information was really that etreme or dubious, i doubt this would be the case. also note, that the book attempts to explain a strong cia connection to the attacks. once again in congruence with my argument.
|
This old post is unavailable due to an encoding issue. Please contact an admin if you would like this post restored for historical reasons.
|
On September 06 2003 18:44 Klogon wrote: OK BlackJack, Show nested quote +So what? That is totally irrelevant. That doesn't prove that it was a controlled collapse, I was saying IT WASN'T A CONTROLLED COLLAPSE. The guy says the temperatures were probably around 1200+ is because THEY FOUND MELTED ALLUMINUM. Yes, the same stuff planes are made out of. He also knows the temperature in which gas from a plane would normally burn at in open air. So he just made a estimate based on those facts. That's all people are really doing with the matter anyways... I remember somebody else posted a while back that the tempertures probably weaked the steel 50% too. So BlackJack, I'm not the only person who found a source who thinks this way. There is a clear difference between MELTING and BURNING. Anybody who was "there" would have fried. I posted that to accually go against psylo's claims of a possible controlled collapse. So...... bah, nvm. But I'd still like to see how the top of the tower straightened out after tipping over on the decent. It does look awkard.
So then why are you telling me? I am not the one who said it was a controlled collapse. And if you are thinking that you are proving me wrong about the steel melting, that is kind of funny.
Psylo was the one who posted the link about the steel melting.
|
On September 06 2003 05:20 BlackJack wrote: Show nested quote +On September 06 2003 02:41 Iron[NM] wrote: On September 05 2003 03:09 BlackJack wrote: On September 05 2003 02:53 Iron[NM] wrote:
Bush did not MURDER 4000 Americans. Al-Qeida did. This is pathetic. The leader of the free world murdering his citizens. You should be dropkicked for saying that past a joke. You may think differently of America but I am a proud American, and I trust my President.
To think that 50 million people voted just so Bush could commit mass murder is just sickening. You are an idiot and you are completely clueless. Oh, I try to defend the obviousness of Bush not planting bombs under the WTC after America put him into office and I am an idiot? At least I don't hack Blackhack. Don't ever address me ever again newbie. How old are you? 12? Bush couldn't have done it because we voted for him! I trust him! and I like Big Bird too! He is cool! You make opinions without any facts. You are no smarter than the people who agree with psylo. "At least I dont blackhack" Good one! Did you come up with that by yourself? don't post here again, child.
Are you stupid, Blackhack? The American people put Bush into office to protect America, and serve it. Not the idiotic statement of planting bombs under the World Trade Center. What opinions without facts? The American people elected Bush?
What are you trying to flame? The facts are this: Bush didn't plant bombs under the WTC and your really good at having your map hack on all the time.
Don't ever address me ever again.
|
iron u are a moron.... blackjack is arguing againt the idea that was was a controlled collapse, not for it. your maturity has a direct relationship with your reading comprehension
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
