9/11 Hoaxes

[jimnyc]

I don't place this in the conspiracy theory section as this video actually tells the facts. Watch the first video. And some of the comments that were left:

<iframe src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=b9bc089f7d2b" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

In light of this hoax video lets check out the people that fell for it here on LL:

"Demolition, plain and motherfuckin' simple."- stfu_donny

"amazing how all this new footage is now coming out after 10 years. These were probably all videos that were confiscated and someone is more than likely leaking them and letting the truth be told."- virtualdesires

"I didn't 'create or post the video. As to whether it is fake or not, neither you nor I know the truth of that."- 24038462 (<<my personal="" favorite)

"Buildings (as a general rule) don't usually, spontaneously explode like that."- DirtyUncleBerty

And then the follow up video. Some people SWEAR these videos are real and that it PROVES that 9/11 was an inside job. I wonder how many other videos have been doctored? And with that, I'll say again, not a single piece of definitive proof has come out in well over 10 years to dispute what happened on 9/11.

<iframe src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=250552546db7" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe></my>

[Gaffer]

:lol: That is too funny. Good find on that.

[SassyLady]

That second nutter that reposted video reminds me of OCA!

[Nell's Room]

I must be the only one who watched the video but doesn't see a difference?

[SassyLady]

I must be the only one who watched the video but doesn't see a difference?

Did you watch the video of the guy that made the video as a hoax. He explains what the differences are.

[Nell's Room]

Did you watch the video of the guy that made the video as a hoax. He explains what the differences are.

I didn't realise I had to watch both. I watched him and while he says he made a fake video - which he obviously did - I am still one of those you know as a Truther, and have been for the last 11 years, since the day of 9/11.

[SassyLady]

I didn't realise I had to watch both. I watched him and while he says he made a fake video - which he obviously did - I am still one of those you know as a Truther, and have been for the last 11 years, since the day of 9/11.

Really? Why?

[Nell's Room]

Really? Why?

I tend to go with my gut on things. I have never believed those buildings came down because of planes. It did look exactly like a demolition to me, and it wasn't watching some fake video. I think the government knew about the attacks but allowed them to happen because this would give them leverage for the war in Iraq.

I am aware that most people see it differently, and that's cool with me.

[SassyLady]

I tend to go with my gut on things. I have never believed those buildings came down because of planes. It did look exactly like a demolition to me, and it wasn't watching some fake video. I think the government knew about the attacks but allowed them to happen because this would give them leverage for the war in Iraq.

I am aware that most people see it differently, and that's cool with me.

Are you talking about demolition of the Twin Towers or the other buildings that fell that day? If you didn't watch a "fake video" were you there watching them come down in person? Just curious.

[Nell's Room]

Are you talking about demolition of the Twin Towers or the other buildings that fell that day? If you didn't watch a "fake video" were you there watching them come down in person? Just curious.

The WTC towers. I watched it live on TV as it happened, and then about a hundred more other times over the next 72 hours. My first thought was that they had been blown up with explosives, perhaps because they may fall sideways and injure people or destroy more buildings. Then I discovered they actually 'fell'. Then the war on Afghanistan started which was because of 9/11 and then Bush decided to ignore Osama bin Laden and go after Saddam instead, apparently giving some reason relating to 9/11 in order to have the authority to invade. I just didn't trust what they were saying.

Of course, I never liked Bush and was so glad when his 2nd term was up.

[SassyLady]

The WTC towers. I watched it live on TV as it happened, and then about a hundred more other times over the next 72 hours. My first thought was that they had been blown up with explosives, perhaps because they may fall sideways and injure people or destroy more buildings. Then I discovered they actually 'fell'. Then the war on Afghanistan started which was because of 9/11 and then Bush decided to ignore Osama bin Laden and go after Saddam instead, apparently giving some reason relating to 9/11 in order to have the authority to invade. I just didn't trust what they were saying.

Of course, I never liked Bush and was so glad when his 2nd term was up.

So, would you have the same feeling about the WTC towers if Gore had been elected president?

[SassyLady]

BTW Nell....I, too, watched the towers fall that day and not once did I think it was a government conspiracy. I remembered Bin Laden trying to take down the towers a few years prior to that and my first thought was ... he found a way to make it happen.

I was watching it live when the second plane hit. I was watching when they came down like a pancake. It was way too perfect a collapse to have been a demolition. Unless, of course, you believe our government actually flew the planes into the towers in order to cover up the explosives that were set.

For someone who thinks Bush and his administration were totally screw-ups, how can you then think they had the brilliance to pull this off?

[jimnyc]

I must be the only one who watched the video but doesn't see a difference?


I didn't realise I had to watch both. I watched him and while he says he made a fake video - which he obviously did - I am still one of those you know as a Truther, and have been for the last 11 years, since the day of 9/11.


I tend to go with my gut on things. I have never believed those buildings came down because of planes. It did look exactly like a demolition to me, and it wasn't watching some fake video. I think the government knew about the attacks but allowed them to happen because this would give them leverage for the war in Iraq.

I am aware that most people see it differently, and that's cool with me.

That's exactly what this gent was trying to show, that people see things and make all kinds of comments based on a few seconds of a clip, become professionals and seemingly know more than the thousands of professionals who had their boots on the ground and fingers on the evidence. Many watched a clip that was a few seconds long and determined it to be ultimate proof that one of the buildings was brought down with explosives. Many will believe anything, regardless of proof and analysis that proves otherwise.

But yep, you're free to believe as you like. But understand, in 10+ years, NOT ONE single piece of evidence has been brought forth. Nothing more than Monday Morning QB's who "think" they know what happened. Not one solid piece of physical evidence in millions of pounds of rubble. It would have been a massive undertaking, but not a single leak or eyewitness. The only thing that most truthers run on is "No way buildings fall like that, when they do it is because of a controlled demolition". And again - NO EVIDENCE whatsoever to back this up but massive and massive amounts of evidence to backup the fact that airliners hit buildings, weakened them and they collapsed as a result. No one is saying everyone must believe that story if they don't like it, but it'll take a hell of a lot more than a gut feeling or "they shouldn't have feel like that" to overturn what the thousands involved, who actually investigated, came up with. Maybe when someone comes up with one single piece of physical evidence, then the truthers will gain a little more ground. But they've had 10 years and came up with nothing.

[Gaffer]

The WTC towers. I watched it live on TV as it happened, and then about a hundred more other times over the next 72 hours. My first thought was that they had been blown up with explosives, perhaps because they may fall sideways and injure people or destroy more buildings. Then I discovered they actually 'fell'. Then the war on Afghanistan started which was because of 9/11 and then Bush decided to ignore Osama bin Laden and go after Saddam instead, apparently giving some reason relating to 9/11 in order to have the authority to invade. I just didn't trust what they were saying.

Of course, I never liked Bush and was so glad when his 2nd term was up.

The bold says it all. And that is the one thing ALL truffers have in common.

Bush didn't ignore bin laden, he shifted focus. Afghan went from search and destroy to secure and hold. The taliban and queada forces had fled the country. Do you really want to go into depth on the UN resolutions and intelligence sources from around the world considering iraq. How do you feel about obambam getting involved in egypt, lybia, syria, urganda, yemen and other countries? Not to mention the upcoming war with iran?

The FBI, CIA, NSA and other agencies had information on the planned attacks. They weren't allowed to share that info because of policies put in place by.....clinton. The first attack on the trade center was carried out when clinton was in charge and nothing was done. So if you really want to place blame and get conspiratorial, that's where you should start.

[Nukeman]

I tend to go with my gut on things. I have never believed those buildings came down because of planes. It did look exactly like a demolition to me, and it wasn't watching some fake video. I think the government knew about the attacks but allowed them to happen because this would give them leverage for the war in Iraq.

I am aware that most people see it differently, and that's cool with me.
Do you have any idea how many man hours would be involved in not only planning a controlled demolition of a building that large but in the execution of said building.

There would be HUNDREDS of people involved in planning and the MONTHS to a YEAR to get the building ready for a controlled demolition, you and others that think like you seem to believe that you can just throw some charges in the building and bring it down...

Do us all a favor and do a LITTLE research as to whats actually involved with a controlled demolition!!!

[jimnyc]

The bold says it all. And that is the one thing ALL truffers have in common.

Bingo. And their hatred for all things Bush hasn't allowed them to find any evidence either, only "wishing" they could find evidence.

[aboutime]

Over the last several weeks. I have been visiting the Google YOUTUBE sites. Primarily to find comedy, military, and railroad vids because I just like Trains.
And, without fail. I always manage to trip into another 911 building 7 detonation vid where comments are LESS than welcome. If you happen to disagree with them in any way.
So. I have a little fun. Asking questions that are meant to incite.
And the responses become a WHO'S WHO of more swear word combinations...not even I remember hearing as a Dirty Old Disgusting Sailor. And the surprising thing is. Most of the people who bark the loudest, seem to be such defiant Bush, and American hating people. I almost feel sorry for their DAY CARE Teachers who must put up with them daily.
But...it's all FUN. No matter what combinations of four letter words they use.

[Nell's Room]

So, would you have the same feeling about the WTC towers if Gore had been elected president?

Yes. With complete and utter certainty.


BTW Nell....I, too, watched the towers fall that day and not once did I think it was a government conspiracy. I remembered Bin Laden trying to take down the towers a few years prior to that and my first thought was ... he found a way to make it happen.

I was watching it live when the second plane hit. I was watching when they came down like a pancake. It was way too perfect a collapse to have been a demolition. Unless, of course, you believe our government actually flew the planes into the towers in order to cover up the explosives that were set.

For someone who thinks Bush and his administration were totally screw-ups, how can you then think they had the brilliance to pull this off?

Bush was pretty daft for a POTUS. He wasn't exactly intelligent. I don't know if they pulled this off or not, I just have two theories about it:

1. They knew the attack was going to happen and allowed it to go ahead, in order to eventually gain leverage for the war in Iraq.
2. The government got members of the CIA to fly those planes into the buildings for the same reasons as above.


Do you have any idea how many man hours would be involved in not only planning a controlled demolition of a building that large but in the execution of said building.

There would be HUNDREDS of people involved in planning and the MONTHS to a YEAR to get the building ready for a controlled demolition, you and others that think like you seem to believe that you can just throw some charges in the building and bring it down...

Do us all a favor and do a LITTLE research as to whats actually involved with a controlled demolition!!!

It could have been planned for months. I think the reason why most Americans think it was terrorists is because the alternative is way too frightening. Imagine - your own government conspires to kill their own citizens. I get why that is so hard to believe.

I never liked Bush, true - but he didn't really bother me until he decided to invade Afghanistan. Then when he decided to invade Iraq, that is what made me detest the man. I saw no reason at all to go to Iraq, and this is when I really started to question what happened that day. It always looked controlled to me, but after Bush stated his desire to invade Iraq, I wondered if the whole thing wasn't planned.

[SassyLady]

Yes. With complete and utter certainty.



Bush was pretty daft for a POTUS. He wasn't exactly intelligent. I don't know if they pulled this off or not, I just have two theories about it:

1. They knew the attack was going to happen and allowed it to go ahead, in order to eventually gain leverage for the war in Iraq.
2. The government got members of the CIA to fly those planes into the buildings for the same reasons as above.



It could have been planned for months. I think the reason why most Americans think it was terrorists is because the alternative is way too frightening. Imagine - your own government conspires to kill their own citizens. I get why that is so hard to believe.

I never liked Bush, true - but he didn't really bother me until he decided to invade Afghanistan. Then when he decided to invade Iraq, that is what made me detest the man. I saw no reason at all to go to Iraq, and this is when I really started to question what happened that day. It always looked controlled to me, but after Bush stated his desire to invade Iraq, I wondered if the whole thing wasn't planned.

Why are you upset that Bush invaded Afghanistan? Do you live there?

Why are you ignoring the overwhelming data that does not support your theory?

Bush was not "daft" and was more intelligent than any of the people who ran against him and our current president. Don't believe all the anti-Bush hype you've heard at the liberal websites.

[revelarts]

Why are you upset that Bush invaded Afghanistan? Do you live there?



Do you have to live in country before you think it's wrong or bad to invade it?

If it's not my country it's OK for someone invade it!

c'mon Saasy your better than that.

[Gaffer]

Do you have to live in country before you think it's wrong or bad to invade it?

If it's not my country it's OK for someone invade it!

c'mon Saasy your better than that.

Rev if I ever meet up with you somewhere I'm going to slap you upside the head. :slap:

Do I have to give you another history lesson?

[jimnyc]

Bush was pretty daft for a POTUS. He wasn't exactly intelligent. I don't know if they pulled this off or not, I just have two theories about it:

1. They knew the attack was going to happen and allowed it to go ahead, in order to eventually gain leverage for the war in Iraq.
2. The government got members of the CIA to fly those planes into the buildings for the same reasons as above.

It could have been planned for months. I think the reason why most Americans think it was terrorists is because the alternative is way too frightening. Imagine - your own government conspires to kill their own citizens. I get why that is so hard to believe.

I'll reply to your post even though you conveniently ignored mine, likely because of that little thing called "evidence".

1. No evidence, and asinine. There would have been SO many more easier ways to "fake" something to go into Iraq, without killing 3,000 Americans. Oh, and leverage? They NEVER went into Iraq as a result of 9/11 anyway. Troops would have had boots in Iraq regardless. 9/11 changed a lot for Afghanistan, but not Iraq, which was 12 years of ignored resolutions in the making.

2. I don't know whether to laugh or shake my head in sadness. So which is it, they flew all those passengers in there and killed them? It was a fake plane controlled by the CIA as many believe, and they disposed of the passengers elsewhere?

And I don't care if it was planned for 50 years or 2 months - with something so huge you are going to leave some evidence or some eyewitnesses or have someone rat you out after the fact.

Don't you find it odd, that TEN YEARS people have been "searching", and NOT ONE piece of physical evidence has been found?

Most Americans believe it was terrorists because the idiots admitted to it and some of their bodies were recovered. Their plans were recovered. Footage of them was found elsewhere as they prepared. They were witnessed training to fly the planes. Passports of theirs were recovered. I could do this all day.

The alternative, however asinine to think with zilch for proof, wouldn't be frightening to me, and I would easily be able to believe it if there was actual proof in the face of MASSIVE amounts of proof to the contrary.

[Nukeman]

It could have been planned for months. I think the reason why most Americans think it was terrorists is because the alternative is way too frightening. Imagine - your own government conspires to kill their own citizens. I get why that is so hard to believe.

.

Dude like I said, YOU need to educate yourself as to "WHAT IS INCOLVED" with demolishing a building!!! It takes months to more than a year of planning and months to a year to get the building ready! YOU honestly think that hundreds of people could rib out wall cut support beams run cables from the outside of the building to the inside passing through many floors and NO ONE SAW OR NOTICED A THING!?!?!?!? Wow just wow that you and others think that is even possible. Really do a quick google search, won't take you that long!!!!!

[jimnyc]

Dude like I said, YOU need to educate yourself as to "WHAT IS INCOLVED" with demolishing a building!!! It takes months to more than a year of planning and months to a year to get the building ready! YOU honestly think that hundreds of people could rib out wall cut support beams run cables from the outside of the building to the inside passing through many floors and NO ONE SAW OR NOTICED A THING!?!?!?!? Wow just wow that you and others think that is even possible. Really do a quick google search, won't take you that long!!!!!

Even if they did no 'advanced' planning, and purely set charges in 2,000 different places - SOMETHING would always be left behind as evidence. You don't just plant explosives to drop one of the largest buildings on Earth and not leave any traces.

I know if I was concerned, or TRULY thought this was a sham and we were lied to - I would want cold hard facts to bolster my case. Debates, whether reality or written on websites, are won and lost with facts and evidence. All the truthers have is "theories". As a logical person, I would search high and low for my irrefutable proof. But after 10 years I would then submit to myself, that it's just not there, or the worlds perfect crime has been committed, better than a James Bond or Mission Impossible flick.

But I imagine people will still make some fake videos, others will eat them up & many will choose theory over fact. Some choose emotion over fact as well.

[revelarts]

I guess I'm a building 7 Stinker
Troohers Advocate hat today,
It just bugs it when people get dismissed with "crazy" or "kook" and "tell me the whoooole story, all the motives and means, the Why... and why not this other and all of it must be irrifutable then maybe I'll consider it... "
blah blah ... no you won't. why
"beuase but we already know, the gov't said so and your all idiots"
Ok fine whatever.


soooo anyway just FYI not trying to debate just putting this out there for the curious.


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


</object>

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6e3K9jcPdXc?version=3&feature=player_embedded" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>
Traped in 7 world trade Mr Hess
"I was on 23rd floor we walked down to 8th floor then there was an explosion"
(he's changed his story a bit now he says he assumed there was an explosion in the basment because he felt the building shake and there was sudden blast of thick smoke, the power went out and the sprinklers came on)
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_DuSeuxjiJQ?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>
Barry Jeenings Also with mr Hess
"We reached the 6th floor there was an explosion and the landing gave way we went back to the 8th floor." they waited the fire fighters on the ground told them to stay put then ran off as the 1st tower fell , then later they heard that the 2nd tower fell. "The whole time we were they i heard explosions though out the building." the explanations i got about 'fuel oil explosions or boilers' naw... I'm an old boiler guy... No." "When we got blown by the explosions and the stairwell fell Both towers were still standing we were able to look out of the window and see both towers."
"I did testify before an investigation, they asked the same questions you guys are I gave the same story i'm giving you now.. they said 'thank you very much' and sent me on my way." "I don't like the explanations as to why building 7 fell." "the explosionS were not fuel oil tanks! "
"I was there"
he also says Building had been vacated before most fire ever showed up he says.
(he changed his story a bit later as well, then changed it back some, he's dead now.)

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/877gr6xtQIc?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

Dutch Demolition expert is shown films of building 1 and 2 he says it does NOT look like controlled demolition. he's never heard of or seen building 7 before the interview. he's shown it and says
" It's controlled demolition" "those people knew what they were doing" "a team of experts" .
he is then told that it was building 7 and it fell on 9-11 as well. He's surprised. "are you sure, the 11th" " but it was implosion." "they worked hard..hmm" the interviewer tells him that the building was on fire as well he replies "I can't explain it"

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fcuJaZdsfv8?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

Here he's asked to and does reaffirms his earlier opinion. That Building 7 in his expert opinion was a controlled demolition. he says he subsequently looked at the buildings and thinks that it could not have come down by fire.
(hes dead now too, car accident)


A few thousand other engineers and achitects say fires didn't bring 7 down either. It had to be controlled demolition. But they aren't Gov't experts so they're expertise doesn't count AT ALL, becuase the gov't never makes mistakes or covers it's A55 or lies. never happens and why would they? they a all are just crazzzy nutbars ...who design office buildings all over the country.

[Nell's Room]

Why are you upset that Bush invaded Afghanistan? Do you live there?

Why are you ignoring the overwhelming data that does not support your theory?

Bush was not "daft" and was more intelligent than any of the people who ran against him and our current president. Don't believe all the anti-Bush hype you've heard at the liberal websites.

Bush invaded a country and killed many innocent people who lived there. Human lives were taken because of him. Why wouldn't I be against that? Just because I don't live in Afghanistan doesn't mean I can't feel for the innocent people living there.

Bush was daft - 'Why is our children not learning'. 'The human and fish can co-exist peacefully' and the 'Fool me once, shame on, shame on you' thing. He's dumber than a pile of bricks - at least until Sarah Palin came along. She makes George Bush look like Einstein.

I used to defend Bush when I saw the liberals come out with obvious lies about him. As much as I detest the man, I hate it when people fling shit just for the sake of it.

[Kathianne]

Bush invaded a country and killed many innocent people who lived there. Human lives were taken because of him. Why wouldn't I be against that? Just because I don't live in Afghanistan doesn't mean I can't feel for the innocent people living there.

Bush was daft - 'Why is our children not learning'. 'The human and fish can co-exist peacefully' and the 'Fool me once, shame on, shame on you' thing. He's dumber than a pile of bricks - at least until Sarah Palin came along. She makes George Bush look like Einstein.

I used to defend Bush when I saw the liberals come out with obvious lies about him. As much as I detest the man, I hate it when people fling shit just for the sake of it.

So is Obama daft? "57 states with 2 to go?"

[Nell's Room]

Jim, I did not ignore your post. Not responding to it is not the same as ignoring it. I read it, and I chose not to respond. I know you guys have evidence on your side and all I have is an opinion. That is fine with me. I just don't believe the official story, is all. I don't know what happened, or how it happened, but what the government says happened is not what actually happened. There was a cover up somewhere, that is what I truly believe.

[Nell's Room]

So is Obama daft? "57 states with 2 to go?"

That was rather humorous, actually. Nah, it was a slip of the tongue. I am willing to forgive Bush for saying idiotic things, but when you say stupid things constantly...I think Bush probably knew what he wanted to say, he just had trouble putting his thoughts into words, hence his constant slip ups.

[Kathianne]

That was rather humorous, actually. Nah, it was a slip of the tongue. I am willing to forgive Bush for saying idiotic things, but when you say stupid things constantly...I think Bush probably knew what he wanted to say, he just had trouble putting his thoughts into words, hence his constant slip ups.

Bush didn't come close to Obama on 'stupid slips of the tongue.' More importantly he didn't come close to stupid actions regarding both foreign and domestic policies, though would be hard to say that if not for the first 6 years.

[Nell's Room]

Bush didn't come close to Obama on 'stupid slips of the tongue.' More importantly he didn't come close to stupid actions regarding both foreign and domestic policies, though would be hard to say that if not for the first 6 years.

Obama's actions haven't affected other people besides Americans. When the POTUS makes a decision, like Bush, that affects my country negatively, I don't like it. Obama and his decisions have had no effect on us here, so I don't see his choices as being worse than Bush's.

[logroller]

Hey truthers, I've a question for you. Assuming the conspirators of 9/11 managed to employ the WMDs necessary to bring down the towers without detection; why didn't they plant a few WMDs in Iraq to validate our invasion?

[Kathianne]

The only 'hoax' to come out from 9/11 has to do with the knee jerk reaction to all hits being, 'not terrorism, or 'home grown' terrorism.' Every frickin' time.

[revelarts]

Again just for the curious,
Evidence? well.. it's not Irrefutable for some folks so it no good at all.

But this Guy and his scientist friends over in Europe tested the 911 dust samples and found what Steven Jones found, Nano termite, military grade.

but ignore them, I'm not here to debate it, it's not IRREFUTABLE PROOF of explosive material Like maybe finding explosive material and sign confessions or sumthin.
And Steven Jones was fired from his College post after he spoke about 911, cause hes just a crazy talking kook pot.


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/alo2DKG-PdI?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/alo2DKG-PdI?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

What did you find?
"we found very sophisticate nano thermite"

[Nell's Room]

Hey truthers, I've a question for you. Assuming the conspirators of 9/11 managed to employ the WMDs necessary to bring down the towers without detection; why didn't they plant a few WMDs in Iraq to validate our invasion?

There was no need to. Just saying that they believed Saddam had WMD was enough.

[Kathianne]

There was no need to. Just saying that they believed Saddam had WMD was enough.

and yet, with all the spin, few believed even then, that Iraq was behind 9/11. Not Bush, not the American people. Nice attempt though.

[Nell's Room]

and yet, with all the spin, few believed even then, that Iraq was behind 9/11. Not Bush, not the American people. Nice attempt though.

I have never believed Iraq was behind 9/11. Why would you think that?

[logroller]

There was no need to. Just saying that they believed Saddam had WMD was enough.
Oh really. So you're saying that if they'd found nuclear triggers and what not, you'd think no different about the Saddam regime coming to an end. I mean seriously, you think that if they'd found a knife on Trayvon Martin there'd be no difference in public opinion?

[revelarts]

Hey truthers, I've a question for you. Assuming the conspirators of 9/11 managed to employ the WMDs necessary to bring down the towers without detection; why didn't they plant a few WMDs in Iraq to validate our invasion?


....."crazy" or "kook" and "tell me the whoooole story, all the motives and means, the Why... and why not this other and all of it must be irrefutable then maybe I'll consider it... "

blah blah ... no you won't....

They can regrow body parts now huh? then why can't they cure a cold huh HUH tell me that?!

kinda lame argument there.

[Kathianne]

I have never believed Iraq was behind 9/11. Why would you think that?

#35 seemed to imply that Americans thought so, just not true. By 3 pm on 9/11 there were signs in windows of NYC businesses calling for a hit on bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Folks here are not the rubes Australians and New Zealanders would care to portray.

[Nell's Room]

Oh really. So you're saying that if they'd found nuclear triggers and what not, you'd think no different about the Saddam regime coming to an end. I mean seriously, you think that if they'd found a knife on Trayvon Martin there'd be no difference in public opinion?

I didn't think the Saddam regime should have come to an end in the way that it did. Saddam was not a threat to the US. Yes, he was a horrible bastard who treated his people like shit, but so do dictators in other countries, yet America ignores them and focuses on those countries that seem to have something that America wants...want to take a guess as to what that is?

I guess I seem a tad anti American here, and to be honest, I am. Have been for years. I am not anti American people, though - the folks I have met here seem nice enough, and at least you guys don't throw insults around like some folks on other forums. I appreciate that.

I dislike America because I believe it has too much power, and it enjoys wielding this power. Instead of letting sleeping dogs lie, America seems to stir up trouble - for example, with Iran, North Korea testing a weapon. America wants NK to get rid of their nukes but they want to keep their own, because for some reason only America can be trusted with a nuclear weapon, even though the US is the only country to actually use a nuclear weapon.

Having said that, I would like to visit America one day. My friend traveled there for two months and loved it, and my sister has just returned from her 10 day trip. I'd like to go to LA and New York someday.

[Nell's Room]

#35 seemed to imply that Americans thought so, just not true. By 3 pm on 9/11 there were signs in windows of NYC businesses calling for a hit on bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Folks here are not the rubes Australians and New Zealanders would care to portray.

I did not know this. It wasn't reported, which doesn't really surprise me.

[logroller]

They can regrow body parts now huh? then why can't they cure a cold huh HUH tell me that?!

kinda lame argument there.

They can regrow body parts? So if someone loses a leg, they can just regrow one? That's amazing!

It's not even an argument really, it's a proposition. If they went to the extent of bringing down the towers, (which would be no simple feat), why not plant some evidence in Iraq to validate their initial pitch for the invasion? Whys that a lame thing to ask; because it doesn't fit your conspiracy model? Make something up atleast, dang; just dismissing my question is whats lame.

[Kathianne]

I did not know this. It wasn't reported, which doesn't really surprise me.

You may want to watch this:

http://www.frugalsites.net/911/sept11.html

[Kathianne]

You may want to watch this:

http://www.frugalsites.net/911/sept11.html

You'll see that folks understood the Taliban, bin Laden, Al Queda. That was on 9/11.

[Kathianne]

I did not know this. It wasn't reported, which doesn't really surprise me.

It was reported, your media either did not report or you were selective in media you watched.

[Kathianne]

A very good resource, though I've found some editing:

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/

From Smithsonian Institutes 9/11 project.

[revelarts]

They can regrow body parts? So if someone loses a leg, they can just regrow one? That's amazing!

It's not even an argument really, it's a proposition. If they went to the extent of bringing down the towers, (which would be no simple feat), why not plant some evidence in Iraq to validate their initial pitch for the invasion? Whys that a lame thing to ask; because it doesn't fit your conspiracy model? Make something up atleast, dang; just dismissing my question is whats lame.

The question is not really valid. it's a poor proposition.
2 reasons.
1. if there is evidence that a group committed one crime, one incredible bank rober lets say. but then they do a crap job on a different job shortly afterwards it DOES NOT negate the evidence of the 1st crime.

2. ,No one, at least not me, is claiming they know who committed or ordered the crime, only that crime was committed , bombs in the buildings. Which was followed by a cover up of some proportions, people can only speculate the motives or the details or the players but the evidence seems to indicate that there were bombs in the building. Alquida ALONE does not fit that picture.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vJ6cJ_jGqLo?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640">

"I saw where the plane hit and about 20 stories below i saw explosions going down the corner ..popping one after another... THEN it came down.... it was fast... like firecrackers going down the corner of the building..."
</object>

[logroller]

The question is not really valid. it's a poor proposition.
2 reasons.
1. if there is evidence that a group committed one crime, one incredible bank rober lets say. but then they do a crap job on a different job shortly afterwards it DOES NOT negate the evidence of the 1st crime.

2. ,No one, at least not me, is claiming they know who committed or ordered the crime, only that crime was committed , bombs in the buildings. Which was followed by a cover up of some proportions, people can only speculate the motives or the details or the players but the evidence seems to indicate that there were bombs in the building. Alquida ALONE does not fit that picture.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px" width="640" height="360">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vJ6cJ_jGqLo?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640">

"I saw where the plane hit and about 20 stories below i saw explosions going down the corner ..popping one after another... THEN it came down.... it was fast... like firecrackers going down the corner of the building..."
</object>
So firecrackers are to blame? Well that's entirely reasonable.

My question is more valid than comparing 9/11 to a bank robbery.

We're talking about a well orchestrated plan that took years of planning. It's well documented that the use of planes as missiles had been considered by national security experts. Hell the Japanese did it during WWII-- not a new idea by any stretch of th imagination. Bombing the world trade center-- did that in 1993--again, nothing new. Assuming bombs actually brought down the buildings, why not just blame that on terrorists too? i don't see a reason for the cover up unless the government was complicit.

But back to your point 1; you have to admit taking down the twin towers was no easy feat. If a group was capable of doing that, how can you reasonably believe they would just drop the ball when it came to time to plant a little evidence? It's just not reasonable rev.

[abso]

Why are you upset that Bush invaded Afghanistan? Do you live there?

i don't care at all about the subject or the videos, but that particular comment made me want to say:

does someone have to suffer from war so that he can be upset when he see other people suffer from it ? :rolleyes:

No he doesn't live in Afghanistan, he doesn't live anywhere outside US too, so why doesn't he support war on the whole world !!!!, He is so weird indeed ;)

[logroller]

i don't care at all about the subject or the videos, but that particular comment made me want to say:

does someone have to suffer from war so that he can be upset when he see other people suffer from it ? :rolleyes:

No he doesn't live in Afghanistan, he doesn't live anywhere outside US too, so why doesn't he support war on the whole world !!!!, He is so weird indeed ;)

He's Australian I believe.

[revelarts]

So firecrackers are to blame? Well that's entirely reasonable.
.
yes.. that's what it was Log, Firecrackers.



My question is more valid than comparing 9/11 to a bank robbery.

We're talking about a well orchestrated plan that took years of planning. It's well documented that the use of planes as missiles had been considered by national security experts. Hell the Japanese did it during WWII-- not a new idea by any stretch of the imagination. Bombing the world trade center-- did that in 1993--again, nothing new. Assuming bombs actually brought down the buildings, why not just blame that on terrorists too? i don't see a reason for the cover up unless the government was complicit.

But back to your point 1; you have to admit taking down the twin towers was no easy feat. If a group was capable of doing that, how can you reasonably believe they would just drop the ball when it came to time to plant a little evidence? It's just not reasonable rev.

AS you said the 1st bombing was in 1993. 1993-2001 seems to a pretty long time to plan.
Several Gov't sources have said that they knew that the towers remained a target since 1993.
(I would give sources for evidence and testimony of planning but it's not "irrefutable" so whats the point.)

If folks inside the White house and Pentagon are to be believed the Iraq war was not a long well thought out plan but it was put together in a more opportunistic manner. "talking about Iraq from day one of 9-11" Richard Clark
never let a tragic situation go to waste.

It's reasonable enough,
but not irrefutable, but neither is your position.

were's the real question what take into account more or all of the evidence.
We don't know who ordered the bombs or how just that there were bombs.
there's evidence of bomb material in the debris.
and witnesses on the ground testimony.
more firecrakers... just firecrackers no worries.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iBddCcedbK4?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

Another scientist, Chemical engineer, who found the termite in 9-11 dust he got from a museum.
Nano aluminum ,not homemade.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JZNQq7XBLwc?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

just curious

[jimnyc]

Rev, with respect, do you have actual verified articles of whatever it is you're posting? I'm not a big fan of watching Youtube videos as you know, unless of course it's a simple 2 minute replay from CNN,ABC,CBS,NBC or another MSM media of your choice. But it's not because it's in video form, I just choose to debate "words" and be able to research based on words. If something is good enough to make it onto youtube and passed around amongst the masses - then why not good enough to be picked up by major media, and better, certain members of congress? Wouldn't you think if this stuff was verifiable and fact, that certain congressmen would LOVE to pounce on it?

[fj1200]

Bush invaded a country and killed many innocent people who lived there. Human lives were taken because of him. Why wouldn't I be against that? Just because I don't live in Afghanistan doesn't mean I can't feel for the innocent people living there.

You might want to brush up on some history.


... all I have is an opinion. That is fine with me.

Never mind, don't want to get in the way of that.

[logroller]

yes.. that's what it was Log, Firecrackers.



AS you said the 1st bombing was in 1993. 1993-2001 (tel:1993. 1993-2001) seems to a pretty long time to plan.
Several Gov't sources have said that they knew that the towers remained a target since 1993.
(I would give sources for evidence and testimony of planning but it's not "irrefutable" so whats the point.)

If folks inside the White house and Pentagon are to be believed the Iraq war was not a long well thought out plan but it was put together in a more opportunistic manner. "talking about Iraq from day one of 9-11" Richard Clark
never let a tragic situation go to waste.

It's reasonable enough,
but not irrefutable, but neither is your position.

were's the real question what take into account more or all of the evidence.
We don't know who ordered the bombs or how just that there were bombs.
there's evidence of bomb material in the debris.
and witnesses on the ground testimony.
more firecrakers... just firecrackers no worries.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px" width="640" height="360">

</object>Another scientist, Chemical engineer, who found the termite in 9-11 dust he got from a museum.
Nano aluminum ,not homemade.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px" width="640" height="360">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JZNQq7XBLwc?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

just curious
Curiousity is fine rev; I'm not looking for anything irrefutable, just a common sense explanation for why the government would conspire to conceal these things. The only thing I think of is they were complicit in its planning. But why? If it was to invade Iraq, and given what you said about day 1 mentioning of Iraq, it would logically flow that was part of the plan as well. Furthermore, WMD in Iraq would be part of that plan as well. Yet none were found. So why go to the extent of covering up our involvement in 9/11, all part of plan, thn go into Iraq under the auspices of finding WMD(though we kinda knew they didn't) only to find nothing? Why not allow the discovery of the evidence in the twin towers and then plant that same evidence in Iraq? I came up with that plan in a few minutes, not years.

[jimnyc]

Curiousity is fine rev; I'm not looking for anything irrefutable, just a common sense explanation for why the government would conspire to conceal these things. The only thing I think of is they were complicit in its planning. But why? If it was to invade Iraq, and given what you said about day 1 mentioning of Iraq, it would logically flow that was part of the plan as well. Furthermore, WMD in Iraq would be part of that plan as well. Yet none were found. So why go to the extent of covering up our involvement in 9/11, all part of plan, thn go into Iraq under the auspices of finding WMD(though we kinda knew they didn't) only to find nothing? Why not allow the discovery of the evidence in the twin towers and then plant that same evidence in Iraq? I came up with that plan in a few minutes, not years.

They could have rigged some bombings abroad, or further shooting at our planes, or even better - a surprise find of WMD being imported/exported. But nope, they "chose" to kill 3,000 Americans so that they could invade 2 years later?

And if this stuff were remotely true - why aren't true patriots like Ron Paul standing up in Congress with this information as proof? Why don't our leaders like RP care about this information? I know the answer of course. :)

[logroller]

See that's what I don't get Jim. Im not so blinded by allegiance to our leaders that I believe everything they say; but what's that's saying about the simplest explanation being the right one. I look at these conspiracy theories much the same way; why would they make it so complicated only to forgo a comparitively simple thing that would have not only made it a lot more believable, but would have validated their position. Atleast theories surrounding the JFK assassination made sense; I mean, find a patsy and then kill him-- simple, believable.

[jimnyc]

See that's what I don't get Jim. Im not so blinded by allegiance to our leaders that I believe everything they say; but what's that's saying about the simplest explanation being the right one. I look at these conspiracy theories much the same way; why would they make it so complicated only to forgo a comparitively simple thing that would have not only made it a lot more believable, but would have validated their position. Atleast theories surrounding the JFK assassination made sense; I mean, find a patsy and then kill him-- simple, believable.

Yep, and anyone trying to pull off the most massive conspiracy since time has been kept, would most likely take a lot of steps to cover their behinds. So why simply blow up a building demolition style and leave remnants of the bombs? I say that very lightly, as I don't think ANY type of bomb making materials have ever been found, just don't feel much like debating shit that I debated 10 years ago. And explosions. Um, yeah, buildings that are on fire and in danger of collapsing very well might have smaller explosions and such prior to collapse.

It reminds me of when youtube videos and pictures made their rounds, showing perfectly angled steel columns that were cut and "proof" of explosives, cuts and thermite. Then lo and behold, a video comes out showing the exact same column, but when it was being cut by crews doing the cleanup.

Then our politicians. They fight about EVERYTHING. If the remotest of evidence were even close to being true, some would be SCREAMING about it, blaming Bush or the government in general. While a small handful make complaints about the investigation in general, you don't see these men running with these youtube videos to their counterparts in congress and declaring it evidence of anything.

But back to your point, IF, if they wanted to pull something like this off. Simply plant WMD somewhere as proof and then reason is now there to fully go in to sweep the place. WHY would they use 9/11 to go into Iraq when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? There's a few blurbs about it in the past, but only the most naive believed they had anything to do with it, and the rest of us knew it had to do with Saddam and failed resolutions.

In other words, a bunch of people pulled of the best plan ever, left no evidence, no eyewitnesses. Nothing. Just rubble. No one on the ground found a damn thing. The perfect crime. And after all that, these geniuses couldn't do anything to make it worth while, like planting JUST ONE wmd in Iraq?

[jimnyc]

Barry Jennings
(he changed his story a bit later as well, then changed it back some, he's dead now.)

Dutch Demolition expert Danny Jowenko<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"></object> (hes dead now too, car accident)

Just noticed these mixed in with your replies, Rev. Are you inferring as well that these gents were killed as some sort of conspiracy? Maybe the tree that Jowenko crashed into was part of it? And that maybe allowing Jennings to tell his story endlessly was part of the master plan? :lol:

[jimnyc]

I'm still reading.... So we have Jowenko, a man who bases his theory solely on video of the event, no hands on at all from what I read. Dies much later in a single car crash. Must be a conspiracy.

Barry Jennings... Dylan Avery and his cohorts announce they have interviewed him. Then later claim they can't air it as Jennings won't allow it. Jennings claims he was harassed at his place of employment by truthers and wants no part of them as a result. Odd actions from a man wanting his voice heard and supposedly was already interviewed. Why call him at work if the video was already in hand? NO professional would even make such a video interview without permission prior. Or maybe I'm the conspiracy theorist.

No physical evidence after 10 years. The man who claims to have proof of thermite - why isn't he here in the NY/Washington area, and others screaming with the proof? I assure you, if they did, they would be heard by SOMEONE who could verify.

Hell, for that fact, I've yet to even see the truthers successfully debunk any part of the official 9/11 events from the commission. Ask for more, yes, but nothing outright proven to be wrong, only theories, and 99.99% of them from people who weren't there and never touched a piece of evidence.

As they say, where's the beef? If you're a truther, and you want to convince me, or congress, other than theories - what do you bring to the table? Youtube videos and architects won't sway anyone, especially when there are architects that were actually there in the rubble stating otherwise. Or are they all in on it too? And it's even funnier when some of these "architects" and other professionals are found to have expertise in a totally different field. Odd.

This is why they are still merely theories. You can call it more if you like, Rev and others, but there's very good reason that even nutters like Paul and Kucinich didn't run in front of Congress with this great "evidence".

[Gaffer]

I didn't think the Saddam regime should have come to an end in the way that it did. Saddam was not a threat to the US. Yes, he was a horrible bastard who treated his people like shit, but so do dictators in other countries, yet America ignores them and focuses on those countries that seem to have something that America wants...want to take a guess as to what that is?

I guess I seem a tad anti American here, and to be honest, I am. Have been for years. I am not anti American people, though - the folks I have met here seem nice enough, and at least you guys don't throw insults around like some folks on other forums. I appreciate that.

I dislike America because I believe it has too much power, and it enjoys wielding this power. Instead of letting sleeping dogs lie, America seems to stir up trouble - for example, with Iran, North Korea testing a weapon. America wants NK to get rid of their nukes but they want to keep their own, because for some reason only America can be trusted with a nuclear weapon, even though the US is the only country to actually use a nuclear weapon.

Having said that, I would like to visit America one day. My friend traveled there for two months and loved it, and my sister has just returned from her 10 day trip. I'd like to go to LA and New York someday.

So how should his regime have ended? A horrible bastard that treated people like shit? That describes me. He killed 150,000 people a year. Men, women and children. Mass graves were found all over the country. Torture houses were common throughout the country. That's not a horrible bastard, that's a mass murdering monster.

There are other countries controlled by such monsters. And we have a world full of people like you that condemn the US every time it goes after such monsters. The reason your national language is not Japanese is because the US went after that monster as well. You really need to study history a bit more.

You don't like that the US has nukes? So do England and France. Do you condemn them as well? How about Russia and China? Then there is Pakistan and India, both of which are poised for a nuclear war at any time with each other. Then there is NK and iran, two countries controlled by monsters. You think they would actually give up their nukes? It's a big bad world out there and the US is the only one keeping a lid on things.

Afghan was never invaded. You got your history wrong again. We sent in special forces and air support for the afghans to take back their country from the taliban and al queada. Troops were added after the country was reclaimed by the resistance fighters. They were invited in to help secure the country. There was never an invasion. And it is actually a NATO operation with the US taking the lead again.

Iraq would have been invaded even if 9/11 had never happened. It was in the works because of the UN resolutions and a fear that saddam had WMD's. It was US led. But it included forces and support from 40 other countries, including your own.

Your definitely a liberal because you have knee jerk responses to everything you see without knowing the true facts about anything. In world events you are only seeing a small piece of a huge puzzle. And that piece is usually incorrect or meant to be misleading.

[revelarts]

The question is not really valid. it's a poor proposition.
2 reasons.
1. if there is evidence that a group committed one crime, one incredible bank rober lets say. but then they do a crap job on a different job shortly afterwards it DOES NOT negate the evidence of the 1st crime.

2. ,No one, at least not me, is claiming they know who committed or ordered the crime, only that crime was committed , bombs in the buildings. Which was followed by a cover up of some proportions, people can only speculate the motives or the details or the players but the evidence seems to indicate that there were bombs in the building. Alquida ALONE does not fit that picture.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">
</object>


Rev, with respect, do you have actual verified articles of whatever it is you're posting? I'm not a big fan of watching Youtube videos as you know, unless of course it's a simple 2 minute replay from CNN,ABC,CBS,NBC or another MSM media of your choice. But it's not because it's in video form, I just choose to debate "words" and be able to research based on words. If something is good enough to make it onto youtube and passed around amongst the masses - then why not good enough to be picked up by major media, and better, certain members of congress? Wouldn't you think if this stuff was verifiable and fact, that certain congressmen would LOVE to pounce on it?
"As a logical person, I would search high and low for my irrefutable proof."Jimnyc
confirmed by SOMEONE, but not the scientist and chemicist and architects and demolition experts I point out but SOMEONE Jim says "of congress", aaaannnd "The MSM" , ANNNNND "in writting" and not in video form, then someone might think this maybe could be "verifible and fact"

right Jim.

Becuase everyone is ready to change theire minds once any IRRIFUTABLE evidence is found as apposed to theory.


Curiousity is fine rev; I'm not looking for anything irrefutable, just a common sense explanation for why the government would conspire to conceal these things. ... But why? If it was ... it would logically flow ..... So why go to .... Why not allow ....
I can't tell you why Log . as i mentioned before I don't know. If we are Honest we just have to look at the evidence and see where it leads.
If a kid sees his mother dead and bleeding with a bullet wound in her stomach and his dad's Gun is there on the counter smoking and they find ONLY his prints on it. The kid may never know WHY since everything seemed GREAT to him before that but the fact remains the mom is dead by by her dads gun only used by him. brothers and sisters denials and protesting of 'what a great marraige they had' and that 'it doesn't make sense' won't change the plain details of the case. The WHY, the motives and plans are another question.

If you are waiting for that you may never get it.



They could have...
And if this stuff were remotely true - why aren't true patriots like Ron Paul standing up in Congress with this information as proof?
Why don't our leaders like RP care about this information? I know the answer of course. :)
"As a logical person, I would search high and low for my irrefutable proof."Jimnyc
confirmed by SOMEONE, but not the scientist and chemicist and architects and demolition experts I point out but SOMEONE Jim says "of congress", aaaannnd "The MSM" , ANNNNND "in writting" and not in video form, then someone might think this maybe could be "verifible and fact"

right Jim.


See that's what I don't get Jim. Im not so blinded by allegiance to our leaders that I believe everything they say; but what's that's saying about the simplest explanation being the right one. I look at these conspiracy theories much the same way; why would they make it so complicated ... simple thing that would have not only made it a lot more believable, .....-- simple, believable.

so evidence of explosive material and Eye and ear wittnesess is not good enough, it has to be simple too.
OK



Yep, and anyone trying to pull off the most massive conspiracy since time has been kept, would most likely.... So why simply ... blow up a building demolition style and leave remnants of the bombs? I say that very lightly, as I don't think ANY type of bomb making materials have ever been found, just don't feel much like debating shit that I debated 10 years ago. And explosions. Um, yeah, buildings that are on fire and in danger of collapsing very well might have smaller explosions and such prior to collapse.
Wittness including fire and police say there were BOMBS going off you've ignored this for 10 years.
I just posted 3 sets of scientist who independently confirm EXPLOSIVE material in the debris.
You want congress and the MSM, SOMEBODY else to confirm it.



It reminds me of when youtube videos and pictures made their rounds, showing perfectly angled steel columns that were cut and "proof" of explosives, cuts and thermite. Then lo and behold, a video comes out showing the exact same column, but when it was being cut by crews doing the cleanup.straw man



Then our politicians. They fight about EVERYTHING. If the remotest of evidence were even close to being true, some would be SCREAMING about it, blaming Bush or the government in general. While a small handful make complaints about the investigation in general, you don't see these men running with these youtube videos to their counterparts in congress and declaring it evidence of anything.
"As a logical person, I would search high and low for my irrefutable proof."Jimnyc
Confirmed by SOMEONE, but not the scientist and chemist and architects and demolition experts I point out but SOMEONE Jim says "of congress", aaaannnd "The MSM" , ANNNNND "in writting" and not in video form, then someone might think this maybe could be "verifible and fact"

right Jim.




But back to your point, IF, if they wanted to pull something like this off. Simply plant WMD somewhere as proof and then reason is now there to fully go in to sweep the place. WHY would they use 9/11 to go into Iraq when Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11? There's a few blurbs about it in the past, but only the most naive believed they had anything to do with it, and the rest of us knew it had to do with Saddam and failed resolutions.

In other words, a bunch of people pulled of the best plan ever, left no evidence, no eyewitnesses. Nothing. Just rubble. No one on the ground found a damn thing. The perfect crime. And after all that, these geniuses couldn't do anything to make it worth while, like planting JUST ONE wmd in Iraq?
No one here is trying to prove motives, you and Log are avoiding the evidence. By resorting to... well... theory.
"If they did this, why couldn't they do that." That's a theory right?





I'm still reading.... So we have Jowenko, a man who bases his theory solely on video of the event, no hands on at all from what I read. ...
so a demolition expert NOT There views a video and hes not credible
but gov't reseachers ALSO NOT there and NOT demolition experts view a video and they ARE credible.
OK




Barry Jennings... Dylan Avery and his cohorts announce they have interviewed him. Then later claim they can't air it as Jennings won't allow it. Jennings claims he was harassed at his place of employment by truthers and wants no part of them as a result. Odd actions from a man wanting his voice heard and supposedly was already interviewed. Why call him at work if the video was already in hand? NO professional would even make such a video interview without permission prior. Or maybe I'm the conspiracy theorist.straw man




No physical evidence after 10 years. The man who claims to have proof of thermite - why isn't he here in the NY/Washington area, and others screaming with the proof? I assure you, if they did, they would be heard by SOMEONE who could verify.
"As a logical person, I would search high and low for my irrefutable proof."Jimnyc
confirmed by SOMEONE, but not the scientist and chemicist and architects and demolition experts I point out " but SOMEONE Jim says "of congress", aaaannnd "The MSM" , ANNNNND "in writting" and not in video form, then someone might think this maybe could be "verifible and fact"

right Jim.




Jim I'll give you this, At least you mentioned the content of what i posted before you dismissed it without critical review THEN you went off on various tangents , Log never ackknowledge any of it.


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">
</object>
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


</object>

[logroller]

Rev you accuse Jim of strawman fallacy; yet this is the second time to have done so as well. A crime of passion between a husband and wife is in no way comparable to a conspiracy. Means, motives or otherwise-- they aren't anywhere near the same considerations. If that same man would have robbed the bank, then came home and shot his wife, then went to the world trade centers and used that same gun, firing into the lobby and the buildings fell down-- I'd be asking some questions too. That, of course, wasn't how it happened. Atleast try and keep your theories grounded in the really of the circumstance.

[logroller]

Rev I didn't acknowledge the content of your videos? I accepted them, prima facie. I assumed them to be true. Then I continued to ask why such would be done, covered up etc. just because I don't want delve into the nano details doesn't mean I don't believe you. There's an expression, where there's smoke there's fire. It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask why I should be concerned with fire; I needn't analyze the smoke to answer that question.

[revelarts]

Rev you accuse Jim of strawman fallacy; yet this is the second time to have done so as well. A crime of passion between a husband and wife is in no way comparable to a conspiracy. Means, motives or otherwise-- they aren't anywhere near the same considerations.

the same exact principals of investigation apply.
The facts determine the physical nature of the crime.

Was a gun used was a knife, a bomb a plane?
Where did the knife , gun, bomb plane come from
Who had access to the knife gun, bomb or plane,
When did they have access to it,

and finally WHY would they do it?

the why does not dismiss all of the other evidence.
and the fact that it may or may not have been out of passion, premeditated or conspiracy is important but not determinative of guilt.

Also a BETTER motive does not prove guilt, the raw evidence does.

[revelarts]

Rev I didn't acknowledge the content of your videos? I accepted them, prima facie. I assumed them to be true. Then I continued to ask why such would be done, covered up etc. just because I don't want delve into the nano details doesn't mean I don't believe you. There's an expression, where there's smoke there's fire. It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask why I should be concerned with fire; I needn't analyze the smoke to answer that question.

OK thanks I missed that.
It seems as if you Dismissed the evidence becuase you can't see a good motive.
Or that the motive seemed Soo far fetched to you that the evidence Couldn't really prove what it appears to prove.

[logroller]

OK thanks I missed that.
It seems as if you Dismissed the evidence becuase you can't see a good motive.
Or that the motive seemed Soo far fetched to you that the evidence Couldn't really prove what it appears to prove.
I didn't dismiss anything. I'm open to consideration of a variety of plots; but when a plot comes to an illogical turn, I go back and look at what else may be the more likely explanation. Like I asked originally, why not plant evidence in Iraq? Your only explanation is they didn't think about it. But the extent of planning which would be necessary to bring about the chain of events prior simply were not overlooked? Or why, if there was a bomb inside the buildings, were those bombs not blamed on the same group of conspirators who flew the planes? I'm not looking for irrefutable logic; just reasonable logic. Meanin I need some reason. Not just, I don't know but here's proof of a bomb. Ok there's smoke; why should care if there's a fire-- get it, a reason.

[revelarts]

I didn't dismiss anything. I'm open to consideration of a variety of plots; but when a plot comes to an illogical turn, I go back and look at what else may be the more likely explanation. Like I asked originally, why not plant evidence in Iraq? Your only explanation is they didn't think about it.
But the extent of planning which would be necessary to bring about the chain of events prior simply were not overlooked?
Well technically i said it didn't seem well planned, And based on what insiders have said it seemed more of a plan of opportunity than premeditated.
Both Colon Powell and Condi Rice had said shortly before 9-11 that Iraq was "Contained" and "NOT a threat". Not much of pre-plan for attack set up there. However, I've posted Quotes from Bush before his election that show that he was ready to attack attack Iraq if he felt the slightest need. And the Hardcore Neo cons (including Cheney and Rumsfeld) had written that they wanted to attack Iraq and OTHER countries during the Clinton admin but felt it it would take a "Pearl Harbor" level event to get the people roused enough to support it.



Or why, if there was a bomb inside the buildings, were those bombs not blamed on the same group of conspirators who flew the planes? I'm not looking for irrefutable logic; just reasonable logic.

I never said that Alquida and or their friends didn't plant the bombs, or if some other terrorist, or if a rouge element in the gov't , or heck even the owners of lessors of the buildings (insurance money is a real motive).
The question comes what is MORE likey based on what we can find so far.
That's why people are asking for another investigation. we can speculate all day on who. we don't know enough for sure. But at this point it seems that there is evidence that Its not ONLY the hijackers in the plane that were responsible. We get to our reasons as we START asking questions of and about all possible suspects not if we immediately rule out suspects becuase we don't like the implications and it seems to remote.




Meanin I need some reason. Not just, I don't know but here's proof of a bomb. Ok there's smoke; why should care if there's a fire-- get it, a reason.
Heck, many are just trying to get people to acknowledge the smoke.
Those apposed are saying
"that would mean there's a fire were I don't think there COULD EVER be a fire LIKE THAT so your CRAZY-Idoits,kookbar,nutbags etc... so move along and focus on this twig over here we all acknowledge was burning.
I've never said i don't CARE if there's a fire what I'm saying is yes theres a fire but we need more info about it's nature NOT closing the question if the FULL background can't be given BEFORE we even investigate.

how can we tell if its a gas fire, a wood, fire a combo, an oil fire, a coal fire, etc..
Yes i see smoke and it not JUST a twig, what else it is I don't know yet
but i can speculate as well as the next guy until some starts asking the factual questions.

[jimnyc]

"As a logical person, I would search high and low for my irrefutable proof."Jimnyc<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">
</object>

You forgot the fact that I have indeed read a million facts and evidence into this tragedy and am MORE than comfortable with the facts. Just because I won't watch video after video doesn't mean I have changed in that respect. It's up to YOU to prove to others that our conclusions are wrong. You haven't even come close. I thought you said Ron Paul was one who wanted more answers about 9/11. What has he stated for the record regarding thermite, Barry Jennings testimony & the other stuff that you brought up here, which has been discussed many times before?

[jimnyc]

"As a logical person, I would search high and low for my irrefutable proof."Jimnyc
confirmed by SOMEONE, but not the scientist and chemicist and architects and demolition experts I point out but SOMEONE Jim says "of congress", aaaannnd "The MSM" , ANNNNND "in writting" and not in video form, then someone might think this maybe could be "verifible and fact"

right Jim.

Becuase everyone is ready to change theire minds once any IRRIFUTABLE evidence is found as apposed to theory.

Ranting and looking foolish again, Rev? Yes, rational people do tend to listen to facts. Odd that you'll just discard millions of pages of actual proof and evidence and take a few minutes of Youtube video clips as gospel.


"As a logical person, I would search high and low for my irrefutable proof."Jimnyc
confirmed by SOMEONE, but not the scientist and chemicist and architects and demolition experts I point out but SOMEONE Jim says "of congress", aaaannnd "The MSM" , ANNNNND "in writting" and not in video form, then someone might think this maybe could be "verifible and fact"

right Jim.

Oh, I see, I whipped your foolish ass once again on this subject and embarrassed you. So now you're going to keep repeating something that you apparently were too dumb to comprehend! Has it really come to this, Rev, that you can't even have original thoughts? That you'll copy and paste in the face of embarrassment rather than answer what are very easy questions or address grammar school level statements?


Wittness including fire and police say there were BOMBS going off you've ignored this for 10 years.
I just posted 3 sets of scientist who independently confirm EXPLOSIVE material in the debris.
You want congress and the MSM, SOMEBODY else to confirm it.

No, read the debate I had in the debate forum and read what the lead firemen in WTC 7 REALLY had to say on the matter. And yes, I would prefer confirmation. For starters HOW did these scientists get the material? What lab did the testing? Was this authorized and handled properly from investigators? After you answer those questions, than yes, I would wonder why not a single soul on Earth will air these findings and why not a single politician in America wants to go in front of congress demanding answers with these results. What does Ron Paul, another truther, have to say about this testing?


straw man

Call it what you will, but there are many instances PROVEN where wrong information was passed off as conspiracy. I think it's worth noting that idiots out there will see a picture, or a 2 minute video, and think it's proof of something.


"As a logical person, I would search high and low for my irrefutable proof."Jimnyc
Confirmed by SOMEONE, but not the scientist and chemist and architects and demolition experts I point out but SOMEONE Jim says "of congress", aaaannnd "The MSM" , ANNNNND "in writting" and not in video form, then someone might think this maybe could be "verifible and fact"

right Jim.

How sad, one or 2 sentences and back to this crap again. But I suppose if I had my ass turned inside out on the subject so many times I would probably start drooling and repeating myself too!


No one here is trying to prove motives, you and Log are avoiding the evidence. By resorting to... well... theory.
"If they did this, why couldn't they do that." That's a theory right?

Yes, sure is, but it's all that's left after beating the dead horse with the truth and facts.


so a demolition expert NOT There views a video and hes not credible
but gov't reseachers ALSO NOT there and NOT demolition experts view a video and they ARE credible.
OK

The researchers who I am choosing to believe spent lengthy amount of time in the rubble, with the steel, with the areas collapsed by fire. Then they took a bunch of it for sampling, Did they use video of that day as part of their investigation? I'm sure they did. But I'm betting even they would say they are wrong in their duties if they came to a conclusion on video alone, on something as massive and complex as this.


"As a logical person, I would search high and low for my irrefutable proof."Jimnyc
confirmed by SOMEONE, but not the scientist and chemicist and architects and demolition experts I point out " but SOMEONE Jim says "of congress", aaaannnd "The MSM" , ANNNNND "in writting" and not in video form, then someone might think this maybe could be "verifible and fact"

right Jim.

Oh brother. Why do the nutters turn into repeating assholes in the face of facts and questions about their theories?


Jim I'll give you this, At least you mentioned the content of what i posted before you dismissed it without critical review THEN you went off on various tangents , Log never ackknowledge any of it.

Someone simply watching a video from thousands of miles away doesn't need critical review. Nor does a man stating he thinks he heard bombs. There has been NOTHING submitted, here or anywhere, other than theories for review. WHY can't the nutters explain a way the FACTS from that day and always obfuscate to something else? WHY is there no physical evidence that anyone can provide to backup the nutters stances?

[jimnyc]

Worthy of adding to the mix, for those of you that might be impressed by the names/qualifications of the "experts" we hear so often of, the architects and others that know so much more than the people who actually investigated 9/11 & WTC7:


RE: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

As Pat and I get further into this subject, we will inevitably get into people not directly involved in the movie, but those that feed the frenzy of conspiratorial theory. One such organization is the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth", who pop up with increasing frequency as some type of "expert" authority for the 9/11 "truth" movement. Sort of a Jedi Council for conspiracy nutbars. So I decided to look into them further, and see just how authoritative they are.

A look at their website (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/PressRelease30Jan2006.html) reveals they are certainly full of themselves. Boldfaced headlines scream out the word, "experts" at every turn:

EXPERTS CLAIM OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY IS A HOAX

Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium.

Duluth, MN (PRWEB)
January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.

Their most famous member, and co-founder, is Steven Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University. He has become famous for publishing a paper on the WTC collapse. Thus far this paper though, has only been reviewed, not in a journal on physics, or structural engineering, but in a Marxist journal of political economy (http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/jones.htm). BYU itself has rejected his work. Dr. Jones primary research has been, not in structural engineering or the reaction of metals to heat, but in cold fusion, which even in the physics community is regarded as bordering on alchemy. Even more bizarrely, his other famous published work was one right out of the World Weekly News, claiming that Jesus visited Central America (http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm) based on ancient Indian artwork.

So maybe the "scholars" have other "experts" from whom Dr. Jones (Indiana?) is relying on, so I decided to look over their list of "full members" described here (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html) as:

Currently, S9/11T has four categories of members: full members (FM), who have or have had academic appointments or the equivalent;

I compiled the list of members and categorized them by specialty, position and institution, which actually was rather difficult. Oddly enough many of the members don't list their qualifications or university, which is quite strange, since every professor I have ever met is more than happy to go on for hours about their academic credentials.

I came up with a list of 76 members, expecting it to be full of Ivy League engineers and distinguished Middle Eastern scholars, experts bent on proving that the US government, and not Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Centers. I was wrong.

Out of the 76 "experts" the most common academic discipline was philosophy, with 9 members, including a co-founder. Since 7 members did not even list an academic discipline, this was 1/7 of their credentialed membership. English/literature and psychology came in next with 5 members each. Even theology and "humanities" came in with 4 and 3 members respectively. Among actual scientific fields, physics was way in front, with 5 members, including the aforementioned Dr. Jones. I am not sure as to their academic credentials though, at least one of the "physicists", Jeffrey Farrer (http://www.physics.byu.edu/directory.aspx?personid=23), isn't even a professor, he is a lab manager at BYU. One has to wonder whether Steven Jones' janitor is also listed as an associate member?

So how many engineers do they have? Out of the 76, a grand total of 2. Jean-Pierre Petit, a French aeronautical engineer, who despite the obvious handicap of being French actually seems to have a relevant qualification. Curiously enough though, he doesn't seem to have written a single word on 9/11. He has written though, on a mysterious plot by the US military to bomb Jupiter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Pierre_Petit) with anti-matter weapons!

The second engineer is Judy Wood, who has been mentioned in the comments here for her bizarre billiard ball from the top of the World Trade Center theory. OK, Ms. Wood is an actual Mechanical Engineer at Clemson, but thus far her work has been primarily focused on the stresses of dentistry (http://www.ces.clemson.edu/%7Ewoodj/). A fascinating field no doubt, but hardly relevant to planes crashing into buildings.

So how many structural engineers are listed? Absolutely zero. How many experts in Middle Eastern studies, or the Arabic language? Also zero. But they do have a professor of social work!

So I thought, maybe I am being too narrow minded? Maybe these are just America's best and brightest minds, even if they are working out of their fields of specialty. Noam Chomsky at least, regardless of what you think of his kooky politics, is a respected professor of linguistics at MIT. So I looked up this list of the top 20 universities in the world (17 located in the US) from the Economist (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4339960), expecting to find the schools of our distinguished scholars to be well represented on it.

Wrong. A total of one professor, Kevin Barrett, a Professor of Folk Lore at the University of Wisconsin-Madison was represented.

Total number of "scholars" from the Ivy League, zero. Total number of "scholars" from Tunxcis Community College, one.

[revelarts]

You forgot the fact that I have indeed read a million facts and evidence into this tragedy and am MORE than comfortable with the facts. Just because I won't watch video after video doesn't mean I have changed in that respect. It's up to YOU to prove to others that our conclusions are wrong. You haven't even come close. I thought you said Ron Paul was one who wanted more answers about 9/11. What has he stated for the record regarding thermite, Barry Jennings testimony & the other stuff that you brought up here, which has been discussed many times before?

Ok,
here's the actual paper written by the European science group
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM


here's the intro

<tbody>




</tbody>
[DOI: 10.2174/1874412500902010007]
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31

"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

The paper ends with this sentence: “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

here's the link to the PDF
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf



--------------------------------
Mark Basile theindependent chemist'ssemi MSM interview -really its a college radio station in NH i think.
The video seems better to me but it's link to the audio is here
http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/33735

excerpt from transpcript

...Mark Basile:
Yeah I, I.. You know. I, I don't think that the building basically should have experienced the temperatures that would have been required to produce these microspheres. I know somewhere... I don't think I personally saw it, but uh... I think in all the stuff that I've looked at somebody even saw a molybdenum microsphere and there's basically... I mean the only way you're gonna do that is through..well..two ways..you know.. A thermite reaction could do it, an electrical discharge would be capable of making one, so you can't discount that, but uhm.. But there's some other microspheres that have been found that, you know, would take even, you know, higher temperatures and so on, but..
George Corrette:
Right uhm, so.. one of the things that uhm, we discu... I mean.. has been talked about is, often is said, well, you know, uh.. thermite isn't explosive, it's an incendiary. Tell us a little bit, a Mark, about nano-thermite and some of the characteristics it has and how it's been developed to be more than just an incendiary.
Mark Basile:
Well uh.. Basically, you know, thermite is a reaction of two.. uhm, two materials, and the classic thermite is when you take aluminum and in the old days it was aluminum powder, and it was used for doing things like say welding steel railroad ties together, was actually used for that. And they would basically take like powdered aluminum, and mix it with iron oxide or in essence rust, and when you get this ignited it burns just like say for instance gun powder, but it doesn't produce a lot of volume of gas like gunpowder does to produce an explosion. What thermite does is it just reacts and produces incredibly... a lot of energy and in essence heat, and a very high temperature. So the reason they would use it is, they'd put this into basically a crucible that they could open the bottom of, with a little trap door... They'd ignite the thermite and it would basically produce a pool of molten iron inside there which they could then release down onto the tracks and weld them and grind away the excess material. But it gets so hot, that when you take the aluminum metal and you mix it with iron oxide, basically what's happening is the aluminum grabs on to the oxygen and the rust, and it makes aluminum oxide, and then you produce free iron.
Because the aluminum likes oxygen, and it's basically more reactive than the iron, so it grabs on to the oxygen and you produce aluminum oxide and iron. You produce molten iron, but you also produce molten aluminum oxyde, which doesn't melt until 2000 degrees centigrade, that's how hot it is. But you can also make thermites by mixing basically different metals and different oxides. Like you could substitute for the iron oxide, you could put in copper oxide, or molybdenum oxide and.. You'll get different amounts of energy and different things that'll be produced, like you'll produce molten copper, you'll produce molten molybdenum, or whatever the case may be from the reaction. But in all cases you're going to basically produce a lot of energy and molten metal. Now in nano-thermite, in these particular chips that we found, basically, what's a little bit different here is, that the way these have been .. Well I can't tell you exactly how these were made, but.. uhm.. If you go to the literature and look at how people are typically making them these days... What they do is they basically take an iron, for instance if we were going to do it with iron or aluminum again.. They would take iron and take a salt of it for instance, like iron nitrate or iron chloride, whatever the case may be, and they would uhm.. with a base basically, convert the iron into like an iron hydroxide or an iron oxide type form, in solution, but then they basically add some materials to make this almost like a gelatin form or a gel.
George Corrette:
Yes, we've heard about the sol-gels, Kevin Ryan had mentioned that this may very well be the application for the nano-thermites.
Mark Basile:
Well it could be, but it basically allows you to get this nano-structure and that's the beginning of it. So basically what they do is they produce an iron oxide gel, and into that you disperse your aluminum particulates, and basically by controlling the ratios of some of theses different materials, you can, you know, get a working time in essence, where you can get everything well mixed. And then with a continued period of time the material will begin to really set up just like say jello would. You know in the beginning it's a solution almost, but then it really sets up. And then by doing different things by the way that you dry it, and either not compress it or compress it, you can get varying densities. But basically, what you've produced here though, is a uhm.. the..one of the gelling agents that gets used a lot is silica-type materials. And so what you wind up with is.. The way I'd describe it to people would be: if you picture soap bubbles, and soap bubbles basically have a lot of surface; each one of those bubbles is a liquid layer, and if this layer of liquid is a ...uhm... In essence it winds up being like glass, when you do this with silicate or silicon dioxide type materials that you're using as your gelling agents. You pretty much wind up with these very small micro-bubbles of in essence glass or silica, that uhm... All on the inside of these are coated with these small particulates and all depending on how you play with your chemistry you can vary the sizes and so on. But again we're talking generally micro- and nano-type structures. They'll be coated all over on the inside with these very small particles of aluminum and iron-oxide. And when you get this ignited it has the potential, again, all depending on how you play with things to either have very fast burn rates or you can control them to be a bit slower, but then you can also play with what other materials you fill in here, so that when this energy is released....
You know how I mentioned before you don't get a big volume of gas release from thermite. But if you were to integrate into the structure something that would give you that, then you'd get this energy released along with a big gas release. So you can pretty much tailor these materials to give you pretty much the properties you want. But the other interesting thing about these chips that really kind of shows you that they are the nano-thermite, is that when you take these small little chips and you ignite them... If you woulda take one and grind it up beforehand; just the red layer... There is no free iron in it. When I say free iron, like, you know, little beebees of iron metal, that exist in these. You know it's iron oxide, it's not free iron. But when you ignite one, and then you break it up afterwards, you basically find these little droplets, although they're not actually I mean, as a portion of the total volume of the chip they rather significant, but they're still small because these chips are small. But you basically produce molten iron, which then when it cools down again becomes these droplets of iron. As well as the whole the nanostructure that I talked about there, kind of gets destroyed in large part during this combustion process, but some of it at the end is still there and all these inner chambers basically are coated with a very thin metallic layer after it freezes again, so... There is few interesting things that go on in them.
George Corrette:
So when we're talking about these chips that have been found in the dust, very small... What is it that makes one side of them consistently red and one side gray... What does that indicate about the reaction that's taken place. Is some of it unreacted uhm... at when you see this?
Mark Basile:
Well in the little chip that I've... The biggest one that I've reacted at this point is about one and a half by two millimeters across, and the thickness of the red layer is.. They vary a little bit, but basically they're on the order of a few sheets of paper, actually is... is the layer.. You know it's anywhere from like .. say then to thirty thousands in thickness. They vary from one to the next. Uhm... and then the gray layer on the other side is of a comparable thickness. But the gray layer basically seems to be largely iron, although there's some other stuff that's integrated into it too, it seems to have a fairly high carbon and oxygen content as well. But it doesn't ignite, it's just the red layer that ignites. I think if you had a big enough chunk of this, uh.. that I can envision that the gray layer would probably wind up getting consumed into this molten mass of iron that might be produced, but with these small chips you don't get the progression of the event to that level... But I can only speculate.....

[revelarts]

Worthy of adding to the mix, for those of you that might be impressed by the names/qualifications of the "experts" we hear so often of, the architects and others that know so much more than the people who actually investigated 9/11 & WTC7:

straw man
I've never mention the schlors "Group" only Dr. Steven Jones.

"Jones earned his bachelor's degree in physics, magna cum laude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_cum_laude), from Brigham Young University in 1973, and his Ph.D. in physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics) from Vanderbilt University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanderbilt_University) in 1978. Jones conducted his Ph.D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ph.D.) research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Linear_Accelerator) Center (from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_University) and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alamos_Meson_Physics_Facility).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones#cite_note-Jones_BYU_CV-0)"


sorry if he's not "expert" enough for you Jim.
Only Ivy league and gov't experts count.

You know what I'm done here.

[jimnyc]

straw man
I've never mention the schlors "Group" only Dr. Steven Jones.

"Jones earned his bachelor's degree in physics, magna cum laude (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_cum_laude), from Brigham Young University in 1973, and his Ph.D. in physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics) from Vanderbilt University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanderbilt_University) in 1978. Jones conducted his Ph.D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ph.D.) research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Linear_Accelerator) Center (from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornell_University) and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alamos_Meson_Physics_Facility).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones#cite_note-Jones_BYU_CV-0)"


sorry if he's not "expert" enough for you Jim.
Only Ivy league and gov't experts count.

You know what I'm done here.

Steven Jones, the one who wrote the paper referenced in your prior post? The one who's peer reviewed paper was even scoffed at by his own school? Is this the one and same:


Their most famous member, and co-founder, is Steven Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University. He has become famous for publishing a paper on the WTC collapse. Thus far this paper though, has only been reviewed, not in a journal on physics, or structural engineering, but in a Marxist journal of political economy (http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/jones.htm). BYU itself has rejected his work. Dr. Jones primary research has been, not in structural engineering or the reaction of metals to heat, but in cold fusion, which even in the physics community is regarded as bordering on alchemy. Even more bizarrely, his other famous published work was one right out of the World Weekly News, claiming that Jesus visited Central America (http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm) based on ancient Indian artwork.

[jimnyc]

sorry if he's not "expert" enough for you Jim.
Only Ivy league and gov't experts count.

You know what I'm done here.

Yes, he's an expert in his field. Just not in THIS field, and even his peers have rejected his work.

With the evidence you continue to produce, I would call it quits too, or maybe post next time in the humor section! :lol:

[ConHog]

So how should his regime have ended? A horrible bastard that treated people like shit? That describes me. He killed 150,000 people a year. Men, women and children. Mass graves were found all over the country. Torture houses were common throughout the country. That's not a horrible bastard, that's a mass murdering monster.

There are other countries controlled by such monsters. And we have a world full of people like you that condemn the US every time it goes after such monsters. The reason your national language is not Japanese is because the US went after that monster as well. You really need to study history a bit more.

You don't like that the US has nukes? So do England and France. Do you condemn them as well? How about Russia and China? Then there is Pakistan and India, both of which are poised for a nuclear war at any time with each other. Then there is NK and iran, two countries controlled by monsters. You think they would actually give up their nukes? It's a big bad world out there and the US is the only one keeping a lid on things.

Afghan was never invaded. You got your history wrong again. We sent in special forces and air support for the afghans to take back their country from the taliban and al queada. Troops were added after the country was reclaimed by the resistance fighters. They were invited in to help secure the country. There was never an invasion. And it is actually a NATO operation with the US taking the lead again.

Iraq would have been invaded even if 9/11 had never happened. It was in the works because of the UN resolutions and a fear that saddam had WMD's. It was US led. But it included forces and support from 40 other countries, including your own.

Your definitely a liberal because you have knee jerk responses to everything you see without knowing the true facts about anything. In world events you are only seeing a small piece of a huge puzzle. And that piece is usually incorrect or meant to be misleading.


That's what I don't get. The US has over 200 years of proudly stomping on monsters when we can.

Saadam spit in our face for 20 years, not to mention what he did to his own people. And there can't be any doubt that that sumbitch was funding terrorists.

Fuck him, he couldn't die fast enough.

But Bush did make a mistake. He should have whacked him with the same team Obama went after Bin Laden with. That is one thing Obama got right, don't invade Pakintan, just kill the fucker and get out .

[OCA]

That second nutter that reposted video reminds me of OCA!

I saw a black whore in Balt. city today, reminded me of you.

[OCA]

Bush didn't come close to Obama on 'stupid slips of the tongue.' More importantly he didn't come close to stupid actions regarding both foreign and domestic policies, though would be hard to say that if not for the first 6 years.

Cutting taxes while starting a two wars was not a stupid action?

I think most economists would say that it was irresponsible at the very least.

[Nell's Room]

So how should his regime have ended? A horrible bastard that treated people like shit? That describes me. He killed 150,000 people a year. Men, women and children. Mass graves were found all over the country. Torture houses were common throughout the country. That's not a horrible bastard, that's a mass murdering monster.

There are other countries controlled by such monsters. And we have a world full of people like you that condemn the US every time it goes after such monsters. The reason your national language is not Japanese is because the US went after that monster as well. You really need to study history a bit more.

You don't like that the US has nukes? So do England and France. Do you condemn them as well? How about Russia and China? Then there is Pakistan and India, both of which are poised for a nuclear war at any time with each other. Then there is NK and iran, two countries controlled by monsters. You think they would actually give up their nukes? It's a big bad world out there and the US is the only one keeping a lid on things.

Afghan was never invaded. You got your history wrong again. We sent in special forces and air support for the afghans to take back their country from the taliban and al queada. Troops were added after the country was reclaimed by the resistance fighters. They were invited in to help secure the country. There was never an invasion. And it is actually a NATO operation with the US taking the lead again.

Iraq would have been invaded even if 9/11 had never happened. It was in the works because of the UN resolutions and a fear that saddam had WMD's. It was US led. But it included forces and support from 40 other countries, including your own.

Your definitely a liberal because you have knee jerk responses to everything you see without knowing the true facts about anything. In world events you are only seeing a small piece of a huge puzzle. And that piece is usually incorrect or meant to be misleading.

Yes, he was a horrible bastard, but it is NOT the job of America to play hero and rescue everyone. I don't know why you don't get that. Sure, he killed many people - but what about people in African countries who are starving to death? What about the women and children in Sudan who are being raped daily? I do not see America marching in to save them all. Like I said, I believe that the US will only ever act against a country if there is something in it for them. If it makes America look good, then they'll do whatever they have to do.

As for the US 'saving' us from the Japanese, don't make me laugh. Your idea of 'saving' us was to drop a nuclear bomb because you were too lazy to fight a war the proper way. Too many Americans were dying, and it was much better than a bunch of Japs get blasted to kingdom come than America lose any more of its precious soldiers.

I did not agree with my countries decision (actually, the Liberal Party were in power then,and our PM, John Howard, was kissing Bush's arse) to invade Iraq. I was opposed to the war. I watched it on TV, those bombs raining down, innocent people died that day and they still die today.

You can say that you didn't 'invade' Afghanistan, instead using the words 'take back their country' to make it somehow okay. Being the hero is a lot better than admitting you blew the crap out of a country to try and boost your popularity. Is Afghanistan a better country? Maybe - do they want Americans to bugger off? Probably.

Instead of starting a war, and demanding other countries come in and help out, fight your own battles. You start something, you finish it. If America is the most powerful country on earth, why do you need our help?

I have objection to helping out as long as the majority of Australians agree to it. Likewise, America can help us out if the majority of Americans wish to help us, as war affects them too, not just the soldiers.

The above was probably a little insulting, some of you may think, but I am rather passionate in my beliefs, so forgive me for any insult I may have caused.

[fj1200]

... but I am rather passionate in my beliefs, although not very accurate with my facts.

I thought I'd slip that in for ya'.

[Nell's Room]

I thought I'd slip that in for ya'.

Opinion is not necessarily a fact. I never said my comments were facts, just opinions. Big difference, my friend. :)

[fj1200]

Opinion is not necessarily a fact. I never said my comments were facts, just opinions. Big difference, my friend. :)

Correct, it's just that your opinions are based on the wrong "facts."

[Nell's Room]

Correct, it's just that your opinions are based on the wrong "facts."

That is your opinion. :)

[fj1200]

That is your opinion. :)

Maybe, ;) but how many "Japs" were saved by the US not having to invade?

[Nell's Room]

Maybe, ;) but how many "Japs" were saved by the US not having to invade?

We will never know.

[fj1200]

We will never know.

We can estimate, and many have.

[Nell's Room]

We can estimate, and many have.

How many Americans would have died?

[fj1200]

How many Americans would have died?

A lot.

[Nell's Room]

A lot.

And so would a lot of Japanese, but we can not know how many. An estimate could be way off.

[fj1200]

And so would a lot of Japanese, but we can not know how many. An estimate could be way off.

And more without dropping the bomb. Not to mention what was happening in China and other Asian countries by the Japanese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_N agasaki#Speedy_end_of_war_saved_lives

How many Australians were saved?

[ConHog]

And so would a lot of Japanese, but we can not know how many. An estimate could be way off.

Actually computer models are pretty accurate and combined with historical data it is estimated that 4M lives were saved by not invading Japan.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1708051/posts

[Nell's Room]

And more without dropping the bomb. Not to mention what was happening in China and other Asian countries by the Japanese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_N agasaki#Speedy_end_of_war_saved_lives

How many Australians were saved?

I do not believe that dropping the bomb was a good thing. Killing innocent people in such a way is not right. Its lie saying that two wrongs really do make a right, and they don't.
I do not know how many Aussies would have been killed, their deaths wouldn't affect me today.

[Nell's Room]

Actually computer models are pretty accurate and combined with historical data it is estimated that 4M lives were saved by not invading Japan.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1708051/posts

As I said, I do not believe that dropping the bomb was the right thing to do, no matter how many lives it may have saved.

[fj1200]

I do not believe that dropping the bomb was a good thing. Killing innocent people in such a way is not right. Its lie saying that two wrongs really do make a right, and they don't.
I do not know how many Aussies would have been killed, their deaths wouldn't affect me today.

I'm sure they would have been much happier being firebombed.

[Dilloduck]

As I said, I do not believe that dropping the bomb was the right thing to do, no matter how many lives it may have saved.

You worried about radiation or what ?

[Nell's Room]

You worried about radiation or what ?

My first thought is the deaths of those innocent people who did not have to die. They hadn't committed any crime and had nothing to do with the war, yet they were killed. My thoughts are with them.

[Nell's Room]

I'm sure they would have been much happier being firebombed.

I believe they would have preferred to have lived.

[fj1200]

My first thought is the deaths of those innocent people who did not have to die. They hadn't committed any crime and had nothing to do with the war, yet they were killed. My thoughts are with them.

They had quite the likelihood of dying anyway.

Because the USAAF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAAF) wanted to use its bombs on previously undamaged cities in order to have accurate data on nuclear-caused damage, Kokura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokura), Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Niigata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niigata) were preserved from conventional bombing raids. Otherwise they would all have been fire-bombed.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_N agasaki#cite_note-25) Intensive conventional bombing would have continued or increased prior to an invasion.

[fj1200]

I believe they would have preferred to have lived.

Do you think they had complete deniability from Japanese atrocities?

[Nell's Room]

They had quite the likelihood of dying anyway.

Firebombed by the USA?

[Nell's Room]

Do you think they had complete deniability from Japanese atrocities?

They were not responsible for anything their government did. I am not responsible for the actions of my fellow citizens, am I?

[Dilloduck]

My first thought is the deaths of those innocent people who did not have to die. They hadn't committed any crime and had nothing to do with the war, yet they were killed. My thoughts are with them.

Civilians are killed in all wars. There were no precise weapons at the time. Do you understand they were also starving ? Leaders of countries are morally responsible for their own people. Helh the German generals were trying to kill Hitler so they could save what was left of Germany AND the German people.

[Nell's Room]

Civilians are killed in all wars. There were no precise weapons at the time. Do you understand they were also starving ? Leaders of countries are morally responsible for their own people. Helh the German generals were trying to kill Hitler so they could save what was left of Germany AND the German people.

I realise that civilians are killed in all wars, but in dropping the bombs, civilians were killed on purpose...that purpose was to end the war.

[gabosaurus]

That video (among others) has been around for the last 10 years. It's for crackpots who still believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Ronald Reagan.
I have long believed that the Bushies were nowhere near smart enough to mastermind an inside job on 9-11.
My belief has always been that Bush either knew an attack was coming and did nothing about it, or knew something was about to happen and was too clueless to prevent it.
Either way, Dubya benefited for the next eight years. He got his wish to depose Saddam and got a plank to launch his bogus "war on terror," which greatly aided him in 2004.
But an inside conspiracy? No way in hell.

[Dilloduck]

I realise that civilians are killed in all wars, but in dropping the bombs, civilians were killed on purpose...that purpose was to end the war.

Why did their leaders allow it to go on and on ?

[fj1200]

They were not responsible for anything their government did. I am not responsible for the actions of my fellow citizens, am I?

They didn't fund the war? They didn't contribute to the war effort? They didn't???


I realise that civilians are killed in all wars, but in dropping the bombs, civilians were killed on purpose...that purpose was to end the war.

Why is firebombing a better death than "the bombs"?

[Nell's Room]

Why did their leaders allow it to go on and on ?

Who knows? Maybe in some sick way, they wanted it to.

[Nell's Room]

They didn't fund the war? They didn't contribute to the war effort? They didn't???

Did they choose to contribute?


Why is firebombing a better death than "the bombs"?

It isn't.

[Dilloduck]

Who knows? Maybe in some sick way, they wanted it to.

so if the civilians deaths are caused by their own leaders it's somehow better ? Be grateful America dropped the bombs to stop the carnage. Their leaders would have been happy to watch them all die for the Emperor.

[Nell's Room]

so if the civilians deaths are caused by their own leaders it's somehow better ? Be grateful America dropped the bombs to stop the carnage. Their leaders would have been happy to watch them all die for the Emperor.

I do not approve of their own countries killing them and nor do I approve of America playing the hero. I am stuck between a rock and a hard place here.

[fj1200]

Did they choose to contribute?

Probably.


It isn't.

OK, so now that we've established that they would have been subjected to some form of bombing and faced a high likelihood of death, isn't the more ethical death one that is done quickly and designed to ease overall suffering?

[Dilloduck]

I do not approve of their own countries killing them and nor do I approve of America playing the hero. I am stuck between a rock and a hard place here.

That kills people.

[Nell's Room]

That kills people.

I wish we did not have to kill people.

[Nell's Room]

Probably.

How so?


OK, so now that we've established that they would have been subjected to some form of bombing and faced a high likelihood of death, isn't the more ethical death one that is done quickly and designed to ease overall suffering?

Death is best when it is over quickly, but what of the after effects of those bombs?

[fj1200]

How so?

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Hiroshim a_during_World_War_II


The city of Nagasaki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagasaki) had been one of the largest sea ports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_port) in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ordnance), ships, military equipment, and other war materials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Nagasaki _during_World_War_II


Death is best when it is over quickly, but what of the after effects of those bombs?

And the after effects of firebombings on those and many other cities and the atrocities that were stopped by ending the war early?

[abso]

He's Australian I believe.

This is irrelevant to my point, isn't it ? :D

[OCA]

Probably.



OK, so now that we've established that they would have been subjected to some form of bombing and faced a high likelihood of death, isn't the more ethical death one that is done quickly and designed to ease overall suffering?

Oh so now nukin' em was ethical? I've heard some stretches of justification before but that 1 goes straight to the top.

[jimnyc]

I didn't think the Saddam regime should have come to an end in the way that it did. Saddam was not a threat to the US. Yes, he was a horrible bastard who treated his people like shit, but so do dictators in other countries, yet America ignores them and focuses on those countries that seem to have something that America wants...want to take a guess as to what that is?

I guess I seem a tad anti American here, and to be honest, I am. Have been for years. I am not anti American people, though - the folks I have met here seem nice enough, and at least you guys don't throw insults around like some folks on other forums. I appreciate that.

I dislike America because I believe it has too much power, and it enjoys wielding this power. Instead of letting sleeping dogs lie, America seems to stir up trouble - for example, with Iran, North Korea testing a weapon. America wants NK to get rid of their nukes but they want to keep their own, because for some reason only America can be trusted with a nuclear weapon, even though the US is the only country to actually use a nuclear weapon.

Having said that, I would like to visit America one day. My friend traveled there for two months and loved it, and my sister has just returned from her 10 day trip. I'd like to go to LA and New York someday.


I do not approve of their own countries killing them and nor do I approve of America playing the hero. I am stuck between a rock and a hard place here.

I can make an EXTREMELY long list right now, but I'm unsure if whether or not it's worth my time. In the past 60-100 years there have been MANY natural disasters and tragedies throughout the world. Who is ALWAYS the first country to show up with help? Who shows up with aircraft carriers full of people to help and offer aid? Earthquakes, tsunamis, flooding... Who gives $$ aid to those countries, probably 50x more than the 2nd leading country to offer financial aid?

America could EASILY close our national debt 5x over right now if we had the money back we donated to stricken countries. But we don't complain about helping anyone in the world when their people are suffering from national disasters.

Let me ask you, WHO comes to the USA and assists when WE are hit with disasters? Australia? LOL that's a laugh! NO ONE DOES. And you know what? We STILL send help and $$ every time another country is in need and needs food and $$ after such disasters.

But people like you want to whine and complain about America, about how we "play the hero". FROM MY VANTAGE POINT I WOULD SAY WE ARE!! But not a peep from foreigners about the tremendous efforts we continue to make, year after year, only bitching about things you don't like. We STILL give $$ away like its water to third world countries. How much does Australia give to all of these countries? Don't bother looking, it's a VERY SMALL fraction of what the US does year after year after year. So yeah, if you don't want us being the worlds heroes, maybe pull up a bootstrap and try assisting your fellow man yourself before being so quick to judge.

[OCA]

I can make an EXTREMELY long list right now, but I'm unsure if whether or not it's worth my time. In the past 60-100 years there have been MANY natural disasters and tragedies throughout the world. Who is ALWAYS the first country to show up with help? Who shows up with aircraft carriers full of people to help and offer aid? Earthquakes, tsunamis, flooding... Who gives $$ aid to those countries, probably 50x more than the 2nd leading country to offer financial aid?

America could EASILY close our national debt 5x over right now if we had the money back we donated to stricken countries. But we don't complain about helping anyone in the world when their people are suffering from national disasters.

Let me ask you, WHO comes to the USA and assists when WE are hit with disasters? Australia? LOL that's a laugh! NO ONE DOES. And you know what? We STILL send help and $$ every time another country is in need and needs food and $$ after such disasters.

But people like you want to whine and complain about America, about how we "play the hero". FROM MY VANTAGE POINT I WOULD SAY WE ARE!! But not a peep from foreigners about the tremendous efforts we continue to make, year after year, only bitching about things you don't like. We STILL give $$ away like its water to third world countries. How much does Australia give to all of these countries? Don't bother looking, it's a VERY SMALL fraction of what the US does year after year after year. So yeah, if you don't want us being the worlds heroes, maybe pull up a bootstrap and try assisting your fellow man yourself before being so quick to judge.

You are correct but personally I think its time we stop. Too much shit that needs to get taken care of at home and of course we have no money to hand out anymore anyway.

Don't look for backpats from other countries because they haven't and will not come.

[jimnyc]

i don't care at all about the subject or the videos, but that particular comment made me want to say:

does someone have to suffer from war so that he can be upset when he see other people suffer from it ? :rolleyes:

No he doesn't live in Afghanistan, he doesn't live anywhere outside US too, so why doesn't he support war on the whole world !!!!, He is so weird indeed ;)


This is irrelevant to my point, isn't it ? :D

Not exactly. You were inferring that since Nell didn't live outside of the US that others couldn't understand why she was against the war. She doesn't live in the US, so your point was off base. Someone can be for or against a war without being there. Just like I can know that Muslim abuse of women is rampant throughout so many Muslim countries, even though I've never been there. The women speaking up about the abuses and the men admitting to them is good enough for me.

[jimnyc]

You are correct but personally I think its time we stop. Too much shit that needs to get taken care of at home and of course we have no money to hand out anymore anyway.

Don't look for backpats from other countries because they haven't and will not come.

That's what I'm saying, it's not like Australia is going to come here and help us when something like hurricane Katrina hits. Nor are they going to help our citizens after a national disaster. But they'll surely sit back and condemn us for helping others, whether via standing up for them in war or simply helping after tragedies.

[OCA]

That's what I'm saying, it's not like Australia is going to come here and help us when something like hurricane Katrina hits. Nor are they going to help our citizens after a national disaster. But they'll surely sit back and condemn us for helping others, whether via standing up for them in war or simply helping after tragedies.

Its always been that way, this is not a new phenomenon.

Personally I don't give a fuck about what a non-citizen has to say about American internal affairs, has zero bearing, their opinion is worthless same as my opinion is worthless on Australian affairs.

[jimnyc]

Its always been that way, this is not a new phenomenon.

Personally I don't give a fuck about what a non-citizen has to say about American internal affairs, has zero bearing, their opinion is worthless same as my opinion is worthless on Australian affairs.

True, True. But admittedly, it DOES bother me when someone comes here and condemns American and so easily forgets about the trillions and trillions we have spend on helping other countries. And while they condemn us for our war actions, the overwhelming majority of them seem to be very naive as to why we are in these wars.

We SHOULD sit back and take care of solely our backyards and use the money to help ONLY our own people. And when disaster after disaster happens abroad, WHO will they be looking for? And it won't be long before they'll condemn us for no longer helping.

[logroller]

I realise that civilians are killed in all wars, but in dropping the bombs, civilians were killed on purpose...that purpose was to end the war.

The targets in both cities held military value. Massive destruction was the purpose, or mechanism, if you will, but not civilians' deaths. The Japanese plan was to inflict casualties on such a scale that the Americans would seek a conditional surrender. The Japanese people were training to defend their homeland, and would have willingly given their lives to that effect. I respect that, as did US planners at the time. So if inflicting civilian casualties was the mechanism, it was I'll served by using atomic weapons; as we could have inflicted more had we invaded.

[Gaffer]

Yes, he was a horrible bastard, but it is NOT the job of America to play hero and rescue everyone. I don't know why you don't get that. Sure, he killed many people - but what about people in African countries who are starving to death? What about the women and children in Sudan who are being raped daily? I do not see America marching in to save them all. Like I said, I believe that the US will only ever act against a country if there is something in it for them. If it makes America look good, then they'll do whatever they have to do.

The bold is what every country does. As for the problems in Africa, I don't see anyone else rushing in there to help. Where are the Aussies? The US is not playing the hero. We take action in our self interest. Taking out a dictator before he becomes too powerful and a threat to the region is good for us. If it helps others that's a bonus. Looking good has nothing to do with it.

As for the US 'saving' us from the Japanese, don't make me laugh. Your idea of 'saving' us was to drop a nuclear bomb because you were too lazy to fight a war the proper way. Too many Americans were dying, and it was much better than a bunch of Japs get blasted to kingdom come than America lose any more of its precious soldiers.

You really have no clue about history. You don't know about the actual invasion plans that the Japanese had drawn up for Australia? Do you actually believe the atomic bomb was built overnight and dropped out of laziness. That alone is insulting and shows how naive you are. Again, read history and check out the Manhattan project.

I did not agree with my countries decision (actually, the Liberal Party were in power then,and our PM, John Howard, was kissing Bush's arse) to invade Iraq. I was opposed to the war. I watched it on TV, those bombs raining down, innocent people died that day and they still die today.

The war in iraq is over, so anyone dying there now are not because of Americans. I don't know what day you are referring too here. The US was in iraq for six years. Pick one. TV only presents what they want you to know so you won't get a clear picture from them.

You can say that you didn't 'invade' Afghanistan, instead using the words 'take back their country' to make it somehow okay. Being the hero is a lot better than admitting you blew the crap out of a country to try and boost your popularity. Is Afghanistan a better country? Maybe - do they want Americans to bugger off? Probably.

Afghan was as much revenge as anything. Al quaeda and the taliban were responsible for 9/11. It had nothing to do with popularity or being a hero. Afghan is still a shit hole, always will be. But it is a front line in the war with islam.

Instead of starting a war, and demanding other countries come in and help out, fight your own battles. You start something, you finish it. If America is the most powerful country on earth, why do you need our help?

No one has started a war and demanded anyone else do anything. Treaties and agreements are what bring our allies in to help. No one twists their arms. And the US has always taken the lead in everything, both in troops and with aid or support.

We don't need your help. In fact you personally would be the last person I would call on for anything. Fortunately there are many more Aussies that I would call on and I would know they had my back.

I have objection to helping out as long as the majority of Australians agree to it. Likewise, America can help us out if the majority of Americans wish to help us, as war affects them too, not just the soldiers.

The above was probably a little insulting, some of you may think, but I am rather passionate in my beliefs, so forgive me for any insult I may have caused.

Yes I take insult to most of what you said. Your problem is a lack of historical knowledge and naiveté. That and your liberal arrogance.

[fj1200]

Oh so now nukin' em was ethical? I've heard some stretches of justification before but that 1 goes straight to the top.

Ethics in war, interesting question. What was ethical was ending the war as quickly as possible unless you think firebombing earns a higher level of ethics.

[logroller]

Yes I take insult to most of what you said. Your problem is a lack of historical knowledge and naiveté. That and your liberal arrogance.

Nice post Gaffer; though I'd modify 'our war with Islam' to include 'extremism'; as they're millions of Muslims who aren't opposed to freedom and democracy; sadly many of whom have perished to bring to reality. Admittedly many are stuck in the ways of the past, but its not fair to say their religion is cause of this, but rather their political system's perversion of religion to support violence oppression.

[OCA]

Ethics in war, interesting question. What was ethical was ending the war as quickly as possible unless you think firebombing earns a higher level of ethics.

Nope, but it sure as hell wasn't a nuke. You can never justify that, ever.

Can I make a request of you? Just simple correct grammar please?

Let me help you:

"What was ethical"(insert question mark here)............"Was ending the war as quickly as possible( insert word "ethical" and question mark here).

Your gibberish is elementary but I still want to read it.

[OCA]

Nice post Gaffer; though I'd modify 'our war with Islam' to include 'extremism'; as they're millions of Muslims who aren't opposed to freedom and democracy; sadly many of whom have perished to bring to reality. Admittedly many are stuck in the ways of the past, but its not fair to say their religion is cause of this, but rather their political system's perversion of religion to support violence oppression.

Correct, there is no war with Islam as a whole.

[fj1200]

Nope, but it sure as hell wasn't a nuke. You can never justify that, ever.

Can I make a request of you? Just simple correct grammar please?

Let me help you:

"What was ethical"(insert question mark here)............"Was ending the war as quickly as possible( insert word "ethical" and question mark here).

Your gibberish is elementary but I still want to read it.

I find it hard to post down to your level but next time I'm actually asking a question I'll be sure and include a "?".

Note for those who couldn't understand the preceding sentence; I was making a statement not asking a question.

Your opinion on the usage of nuclear arms is noted. Also noted is that you would have been perfectly OK with a protracted war which would have left far more dead (and not just Japanese and Americans).

[OCA]

I find it hard to post down to your level but next time I'm actually asking a question I'll be sure and include a "?".

Note for those who couldn't understand the preceding sentence; I was making a statement not asking a question.

Your opinion on the usage of nuclear arms is noted. Also noted is that you would have been perfectly OK with a protracted war which would have left far more dead (and not just Japanese and Americans).

So those were the only 2 solutions on the table? How about an economic blockade.....we are the blockade kings.

[logroller]

Ethics in war, interesting question. What was ethical was ending the war as quickly as possible unless you think firebombing earns a higher level of ethics.

"What makes an action ethical?" is the prerequisite question. Most would say an ethical decision is one that can be universally applied and be for the better.(of course, that invites the question, What is better?) Your comparison highlights this tenet of ethics. Perhaps rephrased as, is it more ethical to end a war with lesser casualties, but more heinous an act-- or-- greater loss of life, but more palatable acts?

Peaceniks answer the question: Neither is ethical! :laugh:

Which is ironic, because another tenet of any moral/ethical rule is that it must be applicable. If it fails to resolve an ethical dilemma, thus failing its purposed intent, i.e. guiding one towards an ethical action, and therefore the rule itself is unethical.

[fj1200]

"What makes an action ethical?" is the prerequisite question.

True, I'm certainly open to alternate word usage.

[fj1200]

So those were the only 2 solutions on the table? How about an economic blockade.....we are the blockade kings.

When you're in a war against an aggressor, yes. But now I know that you're open to sacrificing thousands of Allied POWs and millions? of Chinese and other Asians.


Supporters also point to an order given by the Japanese War Ministry on 1 August 1944, ordering the execution of Allied prisoners of war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war), POW...
...
Supporters of the bombing argue that to have waited for the Japanese to surrender would also have cost lives. "For China alone, depending upon what number one chooses for overall Chinese casualties, in each of the ninety-seven months between July 1937 and August 1945, somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 persons perished, the vast majority of them noncombatants. For the other Asian states alone, the average probably ranged in the tens of thousands per month, but the actual numbers were almost certainly greater in 1945...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_N agasaki

[jimnyc]

I wonder why some people disappear from threads when certain facts are presented and difficult questions are posed? :dunno:

[logroller]

True, I'm certainly open to alternate word usage.

I Think too often people premise something as unethical relying solely on their own prudence, with absolutely no prescribed methodology. The question, as I rephrased it, illicits a response which such people shy from for exactly this reason. The proverbial, put up or shut up. :slap:

[OCA]

I wonder why some people disappear from threads when certain facts are presented and difficult questions are posed? :dunno:

Who disappeared?

[OCA]

When you're in a war against an aggressor, yes. But now I know that you're open to sacrificing thousands of Allied POWs and millions? of Chinese and other Asians.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_N agasaki

We simply used it because we were the only kid on the block with it, today we aren't the only kid which is precisely why we don't. If the Soviets had had a functioning Nuke in 45' we wouldn't have dared do that, even if they were our uneasy allies at that time.

Yes, it was that simple.

[jimnyc]

Who disappeared?

Read the thread. Someone was touting the expertise of a one "Steven Jones", who apparently went from being a 'cold fusion' expert to an expert in all things 9/11. Jones is a professor at BYU. When I produced an article showing that he was even scoffed at by his peers at BYU on his 9/11 work, the conversation abruptly ended. Or maybe it was when I pointed out that the guy from Norway died by hitting a tree and wasn't some sort of conspiracy. Or ultimately, maybe it was because I pointed out over and over, without reply, that not a single shred of physical evidence has been found to support the wackjob theories. Either way, it's a familiar tune, both here and elsewhere, that when you ask difficult questions and post actual facts, some people tend to disappear.

Some think the 9/11 commission work and thousands and thousands of hours of investigation should be tossed out the window. Why? Because someone thought they heard a bomb, or someone saw a video and thinks the building fell other than what we were told.

I think some even think the CIA flew drones into the Trade Center towers - and did so in a manner where the debris would fall just perfectly enough to hit WTC 7, this way they could pull the wool over our eyes and drop the building. What if the debris didn't take out a 1/4 of the building? Uh oh, then the black copters would have had to invisibly come in and shoot it down!

[OCA]

Read the thread. Someone was touting the expertise of a one "Steven Jones", who apparently went from being a 'cold fusion' expert to an expert in all things 9/11. Jones is a professor at BYU. When I produced an article showing that he was even scoffed at by his peers at BYU on his 9/11 work, the conversation abruptly ended. Or maybe it was when I pointed out that the guy from Norway died by hitting a tree and wasn't some sort of conspiracy. Or ultimately, maybe it was because I pointed out over and over, without reply, that not a single shred of physical evidence has been found to support the wackjob theories. Either way, it's a familiar tune, both here and elsewhere, that when you ask difficult questions and post actual facts, some people tend to disappear.

Some think the 9/11 commission work and thousands and thousands of hours of investigation should be tossed out the window. Why? Because someone thought they heard a bomb, or someone saw a video and thinks the building fell other than what we were told.

I think some even think the CIA flew drones into the Trade Center towers - and did so in a manner where the debris would fall just perfectly enough to hit WTC 7, this way they could pull the wool over our eyes and drop the building. What if the debris didn't take out a 1/4 of the building? Uh oh, then the black copters would have had to invisibly come in and shoot it down!

Yeah yeah, I saw that at the beginning but once people start up on the 9/11 conspiracy thingy I immediately think of Rosie O'Donnell, throw up and quit reading.

[OCA]

Read the thread. Someone was touting the expertise of a one "Steven Jones", who apparently went from being a 'cold fusion' expert to an expert in all things 9/11. Jones is a professor at BYU. When I produced an article showing that he was even scoffed at by his peers at BYU on his 9/11 work, the conversation abruptly ended. Or maybe it was when I pointed out that the guy from Norway died by hitting a tree and wasn't some sort of conspiracy. Or ultimately, maybe it was because I pointed out over and over, without reply, that not a single shred of physical evidence has been found to support the wackjob theories. Either way, it's a familiar tune, both here and elsewhere, that when you ask difficult questions and post actual facts, some people tend to disappear.

Some think the 9/11 commission work and thousands and thousands of hours of investigation should be tossed out the window. Why? Because someone thought they heard a bomb, or someone saw a video and thinks the building fell other than what we were told.

I think some even think the CIA flew drones into the Trade Center towers - and did so in a manner where the debris would fall just perfectly enough to hit WTC 7, this way they could pull the wool over our eyes and drop the building. What if the debris didn't take out a 1/4 of the building? Uh oh, then the black copters would have had to invisibly come in and shoot it down!

Did you know that there are people who believe the video shot showing the airliner just skirting an overpass towards the Pentagon is photoshopped?

Are you shitting me?

[fj1200]

We simply used it because we were the only kid on the block with it, today we aren't the only kid which is precisely why we don't. If the Soviets had had a functioning Nuke in 45' we wouldn't have dared do that, even if they were our uneasy allies at that time.

Yes, it was that simple.

Irrelevant and conjecture. It may have been ugly to use it but the question that you're not answering remains:


...is it more ethical to end a war with lesser casualties, but more heinous an act-- or-- greater loss of life, but more palatable acts?

You'd also have to go with firebombing being less heinous overall.

[jimnyc]

Yeah yeah, I saw that at the beginning but once people start up on the 9/11 conspiracy thingy I immediately think of Rosie O'Donnell, throw up and quit reading.

But think about what I wrote for a minute. Let's assume for a moment that SOMEONE did want to get rid of WTC7 that day. What would have happened had the debris from the larger towers never struck that building? Are we to believe that this perfectly placed debris falling from the skies was part of some sort of master plan to bring down WTC7? And WHY would someone want that building down? Cuckoos will point to important paperwork, gold, secret information and all kinds of crap. But I submit - if these people are good enough to commit a crime taking down the huge towers, 4 planes, the pentagon and all the coverup in the world - they couldn't just take whatever it is they wanted out of WTC7? LOL

[jimnyc]

Did you know that there are people who believe the video shot showing the airliner just skirting an overpass towards the Pentagon is photoshopped?

Are you shitting me?

Yep, and you have many that believe it was a remote controlled drone (read my debate with Sertes in the debate section) and that the passengers were just killed elsewhere. Same for the plane is Pennsy, it was a missile and the people were killed elsewhere. And the phone calls to loved ones? All fake! Bodies found scattered all over at the Pentagon? Planted!

It takes a certain kind of mind to believe some of the bullshit I have read over the years!

[OCA]

Irrelevant and conjecture. It may have been ugly to use it but the question that you're not answering remains:



You'd also have to go with firebombing being less heinous overall.

More ethical=conventional warfare................the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki still suffer the effects of the nuke generations after, firebombing would have had a much shorter effect as evidenced by the firebombing of German cities by the allies which were rebuilt quickly thereafter and without the lasting effects of radiation.

[OCA]

Yep, and you have many that believe it was a remote controlled drone (read my debate with Sertes in the debate section) and that the passengers were just killed elsewhere. Same for the plane is Pennsy, it was a missile and the people were killed elsewhere. And the phone calls to loved ones? All fake! Bodies found scattered all over at the Pentagon? Planted!

It takes a certain kind of mind to believe some of the bullshit I have read over the years!

I mean I admit I don't believe the Kennedy assassination, Lee Harvey and all that shit and I still believe that we either have OBL's dead body on ice somewhere or he is alive and locked up but....... 9/11? That shit was played out before our very eyes.

[fj1200]

More ethical=conventional warfare................the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki still suffer the effects of the nuke generations after, firebombing would have had a much shorter effect as evidenced by the firebombing of German cities by the allies which were rebuilt quickly thereafter and without the lasting effects of radiation.

That's a fine opinion. How about the lives saved by ending the war early? Separately, were the Japanese people deserving of restraint by their actions during the war?

[OCA]

That's a fine opinion. How about the lives saved by ending the war early? Separately, were the Japanese people deserving of restraint by their actions during the war?

What in your mind is deserving of a nuke attack? Should we just said fuck it and dropped some tactical nukes on those mountains along the Afgh./Paki. border in 2001/2002? Could have saved some American lives.

Or how about Fallujah 2003/04? Hanoi? North Korea?

[logroller]

I mean I admit I don't believe the Kennedy assassination, Lee Harvey and all that shit and I still believe that we either have OBL's dead body on ice somewhere or he is alive and locked up but....... 9/11? That shit was played out before our very eyes.
Yeah but, nano particles dude; can't see them on tv. :laugh2:

[logroller]

What in your mind is deserving of a nuke attack? Should we just said fuck it and dropped some tactical nukes on those mountains along the Afgh./Paki. border in 2001/2002? Could have saved some American lives.

Or how about Fallujah 2003/04? Hanoi? North Korea?
If we'd of lost a hundred thousand men in days, just to get within striking distance, who knows what we'd of done. Hell, we lost a few thousand over years of war and we question our resolve. We've become so entranced by fire and forget weapons that we've completely forgot the reality of war is kill or be killed; winning requires the opponant to choose life over fighting to the death.

[OCA]

Yeah but, nano particles dude; can't see them on tv. :laugh2:

Right! I've been to a few cocktail parties where somebody has started spouting off on all that and man I love drinkin' but its time to leave.......these people will here no other opinion than the one they possess.

[fj1200]

What in your mind is deserving of a nuke attack? Should we just said fuck it and dropped some tactical nukes on those mountains along the Afgh./Paki. border in 2001/2002? Could have saved some American lives.

Or how about Fallujah 2003/04? Hanoi? North Korea?

No, using the bomb on Japan saved lives on every side, using the bomb in your scenario would only cost. Are you going to answer my question?

[OCA]

No, using the bomb on Japan saved lives on every side, using the bomb in your scenario would only cost. Are you going to answer my question?

Go back and read, obviously you missed it

No lives saved in Japan.

[logroller]

Right! I've been to a few cocktail parties where somebody has started spouting off on all that and man I love drinkin' but its time to leave.......these people will here no other opinion than the one they possess.
I just egg them on. It's funny. Eventually they realize I'm making fun of them and get really pissed off-- that's extra funny. And if they don't realize it; well that's hilarious! A typical response to them, 'Well that's intriguing; you know what a lot of people don't realize? I focus on things that might actually make a differnce in the world.' That really gets 'em boiling.:laugh:

[fj1200]

Go back and read, obviously you missed it

No lives saved in Japan.

I missed nothing.

You ignore evidence. And I didn't limit it to Japan either.

[OCA]

I missed nothing.

You ignore evidence. And I didn't limit it to Japan either.

No, you missed something.

[jimnyc]

Go back and read, obviously you missed it

No lives saved in Japan.

Sure were. A necessary evil was committed, and it was foul and disgusting, many innocents died and all that other crap. But based purely as numbers as if gathering stats, no doubt that more lives would have been lost considering the alternatives. Even great historians agree on that matter. All that's left to wonder is how many innocents would have died by the alternative and how many US soldiers lives.

[OCA]

Sure were. A necessary evil was committed, and it was foul and disgusting, many innocents died and all that other crap. But based purely as numbers as if gathering stats, no doubt that more lives would have been lost considering the alternatives. Even great historians agree on that matter. All that's left to wonder is how many innocents would have died by the alternative and how many US soldiers lives.

I guess we'll never know.

[jimnyc]

I guess we'll never know.

I wish you lived in Hiroshima back in the day! :lol:

[OCA]

I wish you lived in Hiroshima back in the day! :lol:

Don't really like sushi much.

[logroller]

Don't really like sushi much.
happy day then, we cooked 'em.:lol:

[fj1200]

No, you missed something.

Not so much.

[gabosaurus]

Go back and read, obviously you missed it

No lives saved in Japan.

You are totally WRONG. Dropping the atomic bombs on Japan saved the lives of a million Allied soldiers projected to have been lost in an invasion of the Japanese islands in 1946. Obviously your knowledge of WWII history is lacking.

There are many more questions about the Sept. 11 attacks then there are answers. Beginning with the government's refusal to investigate the biggest crime scene in American history.

[Nell's Room]

I can make an EXTREMELY long list right now, but I'm unsure if whether or not it's worth my time. In the past 60-100 years there have been MANY natural disasters and tragedies throughout the world. Who is ALWAYS the first country to show up with help? Who shows up with aircraft carriers full of people to help and offer aid? Earthquakes, tsunamis, flooding... Who gives $$ aid to those countries, probably 50x more than the 2nd leading country to offer financial aid?

America could EASILY close our national debt 5x over right now if we had the money back we donated to stricken countries. But we don't complain about helping anyone in the world when their people are suffering from national disasters.

Let me ask you, WHO comes to the USA and assists when WE are hit with disasters? Australia? LOL that's a laugh! NO ONE DOES. And you know what? We STILL send help and $$ every time another country is in need and needs food and $$ after such disasters.

But people like you want to whine and complain about America, about how we "play the hero". FROM MY VANTAGE POINT I WOULD SAY WE ARE!! But not a peep from foreigners about the tremendous efforts we continue to make, year after year, only bitching about things you don't like. We STILL give $$ away like its water to third world countries. How much does Australia give to all of these countries? Don't bother looking, it's a VERY SMALL fraction of what the US does year after year after year. So yeah, if you don't want us being the worlds heroes, maybe pull up a bootstrap and try assisting your fellow man yourself before being so quick to judge.

Yeah yeah, America the hero, America always showing up when you need them...just because our government asks for help, doesn't mean the rest of Australia wants it. The government doesn't give a flying fuck what the people of Australia want, which is to fight our own battles and not ask for help, but our government always has to have their 'allies' fighting with them.

We come to the aid of countries who need us -just because America can afford to donate more money doesn't mean your help is 'better' or more 'generous'. We give what we can and we do what we can. You need to realise that America is not perfect and it never has been. Neither is my country. We all have our faults, do we not?

[Nell's Room]

You are totally WRONG. Dropping the atomic bombs on Japan saved the lives of a million Allied soldiers projected to have been lost in an invasion of the Japanese islands in 1946. Obviously your knowledge of WWII history is lacking.

There are many more questions about the Sept. 11 attacks then there are answers. Beginning with the government's refusal to investigate the biggest crime scene in American history.

Because the government was behind it. Can't investigate something you were responsible for - you might get found out.

[fj1200]

:facepalm99:

[OCA]

You are totally WRONG. Dropping the atomic bombs on Japan saved the lives of a million Allied soldiers projected to have been lost in an invasion of the Japanese islands in 1946. Obviously your knowledge of WWII history is lacking.

There are many more questions about the Sept. 11 attacks then there are answers. Beginning with the government's refusal to investigate the biggest crime scene in American history.

Wow Gabs! Who knew you were a nuke em' type of gal!

[jimnyc]

You are totally WRONG. Dropping the atomic bombs on Japan saved the lives of a million Allied soldiers projected to have been lost in an invasion of the Japanese islands in 1946. Obviously your knowledge of WWII history is lacking.

There are many more questions about the Sept. 11 attacks then there are answers. Beginning with the government's refusal to investigate the biggest crime scene in American history.


Because the government was behind it. Can't investigate something you were responsible for - you might get found out.

First off, just because you guys don't like the governments YEARS long reports, doesn't mean there was no investigation. Parts went on for years. Secondly, Nell, are you insane? I'll give you the benefit - for a moment - for starters though, how about you give JUST ONE piece of physical evidence to prove your conspiracy theory? Can you give ANYTHING other than theories and beliefs? I'll even answer ahead of time for you - no you can't. So why do you yap stuff rubbish? Because you're an anti-American idiot?

[jimnyc]

Yeah yeah, America the hero, America always showing up when you need them...just because our government asks for help, doesn't mean the rest of Australia wants it. The government doesn't give a flying fuck what the people of Australia want, which is to fight our own battles and not ask for help, but our government always has to have their 'allies' fighting with them.

We come to the aid of countries who need us -just because America can afford to donate more money doesn't mean your help is 'better' or more 'generous'. We give what we can and we do what we can. You need to realise that America is not perfect and it never has been. Neither is my country. We all have our faults, do we not?

Yes, the ungrateful idiots around the world, generally the first ones to step forward and condemn those that help. That's ok though, we don't need permission of nutters to fight for justice and we don't need the OK from dolts to come to the rescue of nations that have just faced tragedies.

Jack Nicholson said it best for idiots like you. Think of him as the USA and he is talking to you:

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to.

[gabosaurus]

Wow Gabs! Who knew you were a nuke em' type of gal!

Never said I was. But anyone who has studied WWII history knows why the U.S. bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have gone into a lot of detail in the past and will not repeat myself here. There is a book out that details all the previously classified U.S. plans for invading the Japanese home islands. There are also papers that reveal the intended Japanese defense plans.
The death and damage toll of both bombings is still far below that of the Allied bombing of Dresden. Which was carried out for a far less strategic purpose.

Not being an American, Nell's Room is obviously taking a very idealistic stand on foreign affairs. Otherwise, he would know that there is zero chance of the Bush administration planning and executing an "inside attack" in the eight months they were in office before Sept. 11.
The FBI studied the Oklahoma City bombing site for months before issuing a report. The WTC site was merely cleared and the remains sold for scrap. No plausible explanation was ever given why WTC Building 7 collapsed without being hit. Or why an announcement of the building's demise was made five minutes before it went down.
There are way too many questions that have never been answered.

[jimnyc]

The FBI studied the Oklahoma City bombing site for months before issuing a report. The WTC site was merely cleared and the remains sold for scrap. No plausible explanation was ever given why WTC Building 7 collapsed without being hit. Or why an announcement of the building's demise was made five minutes before it went down.
There are way too many questions that have never been answered.

LOL - you're nuts!

The researched the falling of WTC7 for like 6 years before releasing a final report as to why it fell. The plausible reason was known on 9/11 - wide spread fires throughout the building and a 1/4 of the building smashed out on one corner from debris of WTC1 & 2. Try reading the NIST reports.

As for prior to it falling, read the reports from the firemen and their bosses, there was an order to "pull" prior to it falling. Pull, as in pull everyone out. They had machinery gauging the building and it was literally moving prior to it falling. Firemen reported widespread fires and explosions, then the moving, so the fire batallion leaders determined it best to pull their men out.

READ Gabs rather than looking foolish.

[jimnyc]

Btw - the stuff I wrote above was available a few days after the fall, but the investigation and research went on for years before the NIST gave a final report. So you should have known better nearly 10 years ago, but who would expect you to understand the facts?

[gabosaurus]

LOL - you're nuts!

The researched the falling of WTC7 for like 6 years before releasing a final report as to why it fell. The plausible reason was known on 9/11 - wide spread fires throughout the building and a 1/4 of the building smashed out on one corner from debris of WTC1 & 2. Try reading the NIST reports.

As for prior to it falling, read the reports from the firemen and their bosses, there was an order to "pull" prior to it falling. Pull, as in pull everyone out. They had machinery gauging the building and it was literally moving prior to it falling. Firemen reported widespread fires and explosions, then the moving, so the fire batallion leaders determined it best to pull their men out.

READ Gabs rather than looking foolish.

I have read the NIST reports. And the 9-11 Commission report. They are deeply flawed and fail to answer numerous questions.
I don't believe that there was any hoax involved. But I think there is a lot of information that has yet to be revealed.
Always question authority. Things are not always as they seem.

[jimnyc]

I have read the NIST reports. And the 9-11 Commission report. They are deeply flawed and fail to answer numerous questions.
I don't believe that there was any hoax involved. But I think there is a lot of information that has yet to be revealed.
Always question authority. Things are not always as they seem.

I don't think you have. But humor me - WHAT is flawed in it? What answers would you like that leaving a mountain for rubble in place for 10 years would have otherwise answered?

Which NIST reports have you read? What date were they released? What were their conclusions? What did they say was the final reason that WTC7 fell? What did they say about the metal in the building, and other compounds? What did they say about the fires? And "explosions"? And 1/4 of building damaged prior to falling? What was in there about these things?