General Chat / WWIII

That's a fantastic question. Would you believe it's your own government? Probably not, because that isn't what you want to believe. It's not a very safe frame of mind. I don't know that it's the government, and I certainly hope it isn't. But let me ask you a question. Did you even watch Loose Change? The whole thing? I'm assuming you did, since you speak about it like you did. If so, I apologize for doubting you, but as of now I'm pretty sure you didn't.

Second, do you honestly believe that airplanes brought down both towers of the World Trade Center? Because, if you do, please explain to me the logistics of that.

Oh boy. I could explain the logistics, but I'm honestly too tired at the moment (it's way too hot right now). But there's a very simple structural reason for the failure.

The conspiracy theory is intriguing, but if you honestly buy into it, I think you're digging a little TOO deep into the Bush-bashing corps.

Second, do you honestly believe that airplanes brought down both towers of the World Trade Center? Because, if you do, please explain to me the logistics of that.

Skyscrapers are not designed to resist serious lateral movement. Aside from a margin of error to compensate for wind, not much moves a high-rise laterally (excluding earthquakes, but NYC is exempt from that).

A fully loaded 747 is damn heavy. When it collides with a tower, it does two things:
1. Exerts much more lateral force than the building was designed to accept.
2. Destroys sections of the support structure.

The World Trade Center was an innovation in architecture because most of the load-bearing supports were contained in the external curtain wall. When the airplane struck, it severed these supports.

So why didn't it fall sideways and collapse then? Who knows. But the additional stress added by both the impact and the severing of supports weakened the surrounding superstructure.

And then we come to the fire. A sustained blaze cuts through the fire shielding, further weakening the supports, until the structure is too weak to support itself. The upper section collapses, generating a massive shock through the lower part of the tower, which it is definately not designed for.


In any case, no, I don't believe our government is behind the 9/11 attacks. There's no logic behind that - no reasoning for the US to attack itself. Whereas there is plenty of evidence that Al Queda is behind it (remember their earlier bombing of the WTC?).

The point is, it comes to a time when you have to decide to trust someone. So I trust in my own judgement. Using the information available to me, I can conclude that the United States Government is not behind the attack on the World Trade Center, nor are they behind the Pentagon crash (and if you try to tell me the Pentagon was never hit, I will show you goddamn proof.)

Are we in the right with the war in Iraq? Honestly, I don't know. I'm not losing any sleep over Saddam being out of power, that's for sure.

I don't think it's possible for us to know the true story yet. Classified documents are classified for a reason, and I accept that. Let's all come back to compare in 50 years.

In short, make up your own damn mind. I have.

-ACE

Skyscrapers are not designed to resist serious lateral movement. Aside from a margin of error to compensate for wind, not much moves a high-rise laterally (excluding earthquakes, but NYC is exempt from that).

The WTC was specially designed to resist aircraft collisions.

There's no logic behind that - no reasoning for the US to attack itself. Whereas there is plenty of evidence that Al Queda is behind it (remember their earlier bombing of the WTC?).

What's the best way to control someone? Through fear and terror.

You can then unite the country behind their commander-in-chief against outside aggressors, marking those who protest as traitors, heretics and terrorists. You tell them these enamies of the free world have missles aimed at your cities, insurgents primed on your boarders and sleeper cells infiltrating your society. Your society becomes paranoid and insular reducing the influence of outsiders giving you greater control of infomation and the media.

Although it is a slightly far-fetched scenario, it is not impossible. It's known that Bush asked one of his advisors extremely early into his Presidency how they could manufacture a reason to invade Iraq. They got one.

The government never said al Queda was in Iraq building bombs. Only that there were ties.

There is a book I suggest you all read, called the third terrorist. It's quite an intriguing look at the 1996 Oklahoma City bombings, that details an extremely interesting tie between the American bombers, Iraqi helpers, and the 9/11 conspirators.

Also the attempt on 9/11 was made partly as revenge for us imprisoning the operatives who carried out the first attack in '93. The leader of 9/11 was closely related to the mastermind of the first attack. I can't quite find the comments he made right now, but I will if you absolutely insist.


And I'm noticing an interesting thing here. Those of you who despise Bush, will beleive anything that comes out that looks negative to him, even disbeleiving your own eyes. I watched what happened on tv that day. There were clearly two planes flown into that building.
I find it odd that the same media that loves to bash Bush in anyway possible would help his team in such a grand conspiracy as the one you guys seem to be claiming.


And Jelly, why would trucks be leaving from Iraq to Syria then? It seems highly coincidental that they left right after the US more or less declared war.

Personally I'm with Corky on the WTC. The whole conspiracy is intriguing, as are all conspiracy theories, but I'm not buying it. It's just a bit too out there for me to believe.

Minnimee, you're a bit hypocritical in your post though. You finish with saying how the trucks leaving was coincidental, but if you're gonna base your judgement on a coincidental occurence for that, why not do the same for the coincidence that bombs struck the WTC to give Bush reason for war. Seems to me you're twisting you're boundaries of acceptance and belief to accomodate the opinions that have been thrusted down your throat. Now please, prove me wrong.

Edited by eman, 23 July 2006 - 06:57 PM.

The government never said al Queda was in Iraq building bombs. Only that there were ties.

There is a book I suggest you all read, called the third terrorist. It's quite an intriguing look at the 1996 Oklahoma City bombings, that details an extremely interesting tie between the American bombers, Iraqi helpers, and the 9/11 conspirators.

Also the attempt on 9/11 was made partly as revenge for us imprisoning the operatives who carried out the first attack in '93. The leader of 9/11 was closely related to the mastermind of the first attack. I can't quite find the comments he made right now, but I will if you absolutely insist.
And I'm noticing an interesting thing here. Those of you who despise Bush, will beleive anything that comes out that looks negative to him, even disbeleiving your own eyes. I watched what happened on tv that day. There were clearly two planes flown into that building.
I find it odd that the same media that loves to bash Bush in anyway possible would help his team in such a grand conspiracy as the one you guys seem to be claiming.
And Jelly, why would trucks be leaving from Iraq to Syria then? It seems highly coincidental that they left right after the US more or less declared war.

Trucks transport a lot of things, minnimee. And I'm sure if weapons were on those trucks, the CIA would be all over that shit and we'd go after Syria for those WMDs they got. Because that's what we do, isn't it?

Oh I have no doubt the planes were hi-jacked by Al Queda and flown into the towers as reported.

But what if the US Government had sponsored Osama Bin Laden to undertake 9/11? The CIA funded and kitted out their man in Afghanistan during the Afghan War against the Soviet Union. They gave him all the gear he needed to wage war and helped sent up camps to train his armies. But.. Afghanistan... isn't that were all the Al Queda training camps are/were? What a coincidence.

What if Osama was still on the payrole, used as a tool by the highest echelons of the US Government to terrify and control it's citizens. The War on Terror is just an extremely potent drug used to take away our civil liberties and personal privacy. I'm not just talking about you guys in the US, we're suffering from exactly the same tactics in the UK.

Except for the whole hatred Osama has of the US. A lot of his hatred actually has to do with the Cold War. In fact that why a lot of countries have hatred for us. They realize they were used, and they get pissed.

And my opinions are forced down my throat? Actually their my opinions. If youre gonna make that claim, then I'll accuse you of the same thing eman.

About the trucks, it just seems too coincidental that they left is what I was trying to say, I just phrased it poorly.

And technically 9/11 only gave justification for war in Afghanistan.

Edited by minnimee85, 23 July 2006 - 07:18 PM.

Heh. Well obviously. If Osama paraded around waving the Star and Stripes all the time it'd be a pretty shitty cover up!

The CIA funded and kitted out their man in Afghanistan during the Afghan War against the Soviet Union. They gave him all the gear he needed to wage war and helped sent up camps to train his armies. But.. Afghanistan... isn't that were all the Al Queda training camps are/were? What a coincidence.

That was a very bad mistake. I'll be the first to say that. But back then we were obsessed with fighting the Soviets anywhere we could.

What if Osama was still on the payrole, used as a tool by the highest echelons of the US Government to terrify and control it's citizens. The War on Terror is just an extremely potent drug used to take away our civil liberties and personal privacy. I'm not just talking about you guys in the US, we're suffering from exactly the same tactics in the UK.

*sigh*

Is there any way to prove you wrong? No.
Is there any way for you to prove me wrong? No.

You're basing your statement on extremely diverse incidents, and tieing it all together with leaps of logic that noone has yet explained to my satisfaction.

Why would the government see fit to 'rule by terror'? Sorry, we're not in medieval times anymore. Democracy works a lot better. People don't rebel against a government they put in place. Similarly, I'd like to believe that we vote for people who will carry out democracy honorably.

As I said - you have to make up your own damn mind.

-ACE

If he was used as a tool, he would have been more than willing to pretend to hate us minnimee.

Also, Ace, when you have fire burning for a couple of hours, the structural members will burn. That weakened the columns enough to cause buckling and structural failure, which produced an initial collapse that sent a shock through the building that initiated the "second" collapse (all of this happening continuously enough to look like one basic collapse).

If you want to talk about the supposed explosions, combusting mechanical systems and literally combusting structural members explain that as validly (and more validly IMO) than already-planted bombs meant to implode the building should the President ever order it.

Anyway, that's another topic. Lets get back at hand on Israel vs Lebannon (and perhaps beyond).

I knew that was coming. Read the Osama bin Laden I know (cant remember who its by, if I can find it, Ill get the author for you.) It details a strong hatred of the West by Osama. Also just to add legitimacy for you, it shows that Osama and Saddam hated each other, so I'd say most of the information is correct.

I myself don't believe a word of these more extreme theories but there are some compelling arguments you can toss up. It's Interesting stuff.

What's easier? Obeying to your citizin's demands and petitions or scaring the hell out of them so that they have no idea where to turn or who to turn to. You can then present yourself as a saviour, their only defence from this terrorist menace. The terrified sheep will rally behind you to safety, doing as they're told when they're told. Anyone who dissents is against their defender and is outcast as un-American or a traitor. What's easier? A hidden dictatorship created through terror. Thats what.

It was Bush that said, "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it."

But we could discuss this one forever. Back onto to subject of Israel, Lebannon and Palestine.

Edited by Pattern Against User, 23 July 2006 - 07:31 PM.

Well, at this point Hezbollah says they will view it as a victory if they merely survive, and Israel says they won't let Hezbollah leave this feeling victorious, so either we're fucked or someone's gonna intervene. Discuss.

I agree Israel should defend itself but this is sheer overkill. They blatently took this as an oppatunity to settle old scores with Lebannon and demolish the place. This isnt an attack on a terrorist organisation, it has become an attack on another sovreign state. Perhaps this is what Hezbollah wanted from the start. They can retreat into the relative safety of Syria, with the victory of a dented Israeli reputation for their gun-ho, excessive reaction and return to a ravaged Lebannon to reclaim their foothold. With scenes of death and destruction, I dont think the Lebannese whould be too bothered about their return. They would be too busy re-constructing their country. It's a sick and disgusting situation and no one can "win."

My girlfriend has the whole of her Dad's side of the family in Beirut and she's absolutely terrified she'll lose them all. The problem I have with the whole situation is that Israel are reacting for too generally against Hezbollah. They are destroying dwellings and non-military targets just like the terrorists are with their missles. They don't seem to care if their shells destroy an apartment block or a military stockade. They seem to be viewing Lebannon as the target instead of Hezbollah.

Edited by Pattern Against User, 23 July 2006 - 07:52 PM.

They don't seem to care if their shells destroy an apartment block or a military stockade. They seem to be viewing Lebannon as the target instead of Hezbollah.

I know some other Middle Eastern countries that can relate. Man, it sure is great MY country isn't involved with that kind of bullying.

I agree Israel should defend itself but this is sheer overkill. They blatently took this as an oppatunity to settle old scores with Lebannon and demolish the place. This isnt an attack on a terrorist organisation, it has become an attack on another sovreign state. Perhaps this is what Hezbollah wanted from the start. They can retreat into the relative safety of Syria, with the victory of a dented Israeli reputation for their gun-ho, excessive reaction and return to a ravaged Lebannon to reclaim their foothold. With scenes of death and destruction, I dont think the Lebannese whould be too bothered about their return. They would be too busy re-constructing their country. It's a sick and disgusting situation and no one can "win."

My girlfriend has the whole of her Dad's side of the family in Beirut and she's absolutely terrified she'll lose them all. The problem I have with the whole situation is that Israel are reacting for too generally against Hezbollah. They are destroying dwellings and non-military targets just like the terrorists are with their missles. They don't seem to care if their shells destroy an apartment block or a military stockade. They seem to be viewing Lebannon as the target instead of Hezbollah.

I agree that Israel is overdoing it a little bit, but aren't the Israeli people facing the same thing (to a lesser extent, of course, due to the weapon difference) when civilian areas are attacked in Israel?

At the same time that the Lebanese aren't the same as Hezbolla, haven't the Lebanese people put their differences aside and sided with the terrorist organization to take down Israel? I'm sure it's a byproduct of the war, but if the people nationalistically side with Hezbolla, I really don't know what to think.

The whole situation is obviously not pleasant but this conflict was far overdue. As far as I'm concerned Israel was more than willing to make concessions and there seriously is only so much you can relinquish in appeasement before you have to draw the line. Indeed they are taking far too many lives, but if Israel continued to just sit back and wait, they would be forced into more concessions. The next thing you would know, the Arabs (by the way, the term has such a negative connotation because of propaganda, but I don't mean it negatively at all. I'm simply describing the regional peoples and explaining all of this for clarification) would want Jerusalem because it's their rightful holy land.

Neither sides are right or wrong in their decisions that they have made. I personally think the Israelis have been more rational, and that is what I feel. That is my opinion. I still do not approve of the violence. But the world we live in won't change. War exists, and sometimes it's the only way. I don't know where I'm heading with this, and this is why sometimes it's too much to really think about all of this.