 |
| |
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Grrr
But in my opinion there is still not enough evidence that OBL or Al Quida conducted the attacks of 11/9. |
That is because you reject what evidence there is out of hand. What evidence have you that Adolf Hitler ever did anything nasty? How much original, authenticated evidence thereof has been personally delivered to you for your inspection?  I'm not sure if I understand why the conspiracy types have such a sense of entitlement about seeing evidence directly.
quote:
I still don't believe that burning jet fuel (which was gone in a matter of seconds) was responsible for the demolision like precise destruction of the WTC. |
This is something that can be verified experimentally, if you had the inclination to bother. First, go buy a thousand liters of petrol, set it up in a reasonably confined space (say a portable shed with some windows missing), store some of it in easily meltable containers, splash some of it around, and cook it off. See how long it lasts - a hell of a lot more than "a matter of seconds" The 767-300 has a fuel capacity of 63,216 liters, these were transcontinental flights (with minimum 90 minutes reserve required in addition to the planned fuel use), so a hell of a lot more than your 1000 liter experiment. The jet fuel wasn't the sole issue, it was a high temperature accelerant for everything else combustible from desks, computers, upholstered furniture, papers, and body fat. The WTC wasn't designed to work as the world's largest fireplace.
If you wanted to take things further, access to a machine shop, a welding shop and a materials test lab would let you put together some structural steel pieces, strength test them before, take some identical pieces, barbecue them, and strength test them after. Now that you've figured out how much your 1000 liter experiment compromised their strength, you could study basic structural design, and work it out from there.
Just because you can't or choose not to understand technical evidence, and you choose to remain ignornant of the technical issues (engineering, physics, chemistry) doesn't mean "there's no evidence" "I don't believe" is also subtly different from "I don't want to believe, so I'll look for someone to spoonfeed me an explanation that fits with my chosen technical ignorance."
quote:
I also fail to believe that a domestic airliner crashed into the Pentagon; but the remnants thereof are nowhere to be seen. |
Of course not. The remants are just in a little different condition, since that plane flew into the equivalent of a rock.
quote:
I wonder why almost all of the steel of the WTC has been recycled as scrap; so that it can no longer be used as evidence in any inquiries. |
Hmmm, let's see. Each building was 110 stories. The fires from the crash primarily effected 5-10 stories. There were hundreds, if not thousands of eyewitnesses, especially to the second collision, and to the collapses (which weren't near as clean as demolition, despite what you said earlier). What exactly would be proven by all that other steel?
quote:
I wonder why the world has not been shown the evidence that was shown to political leaders in the days following 11/9. |
By your definitions, the world has never been shown evidence that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, that the Holocaust was real, that Stalin or Mao ever hurt a fly.
quote:
I honestly want to know what happened; as I don't wish to take the sugar coated version of events which has been repeated ad nausem on the TV. |
It's only "sugar coated" because you want to see evidence for what you already believe, but unfortunately, the evidence that is there to be seen doesn't support your views.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
alofatti
|
|
I donīt know why you say he is a stupid. I think it is quite undeniable that in a political sense, the actual administration has gained a lot of power thanks to 9/11.
I am not saying that they did it though...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:22
|
|
Dino - it's a hobby. At least I have fun doing it here. When I get paid to do it, I have to be a tad more polite. 
JCG - the US will be no more or less open. I'm not in favor of attacking Iraq, I think the threat (to the extent it exists) is far more regional and less immediate than the Bush administration line. Replacing Saddam would be nice, but the ideal way to do that is with regional support and some form of evolutionary transition. If he really gets out of line before he croaks off, we might have to do something, but I don't see an immediate need to act. Once daddy dies, the two Junion Saddams will be maneuvering to secure loyalties, trying to avoid each other's assassins, and otherwise leaving a wonderful domestic opportunity to exploit. They have the added vigor and brutality of youth, but not much of their daddy's brains. And no, I'm talking about the Hussein family, not the Bush one, although one could draw some parallels.
alofatti - the administration has gained some power in the short term, but in a very fragile way. The economy is a major concern, and whether and how al Qaeda strikes back or how Bush manages his "war" can have a highly unpredictable effect on a fickle electorate.
Grrr - we exist. Therefore, according to their doctrine, they have reason to attack us. Appeasing the terrorist works a bit less well than appeasing the dictator. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:22
|
|
Coming a bit late to this. I can't accept the conspiracy theory, either. However, yesterday Salon ran an interesting article about things people think about 9/11, but don't dare say. In that spirit, here's mine:
Sept. 11 is the very best thing ever to happen to George W. Bush.
Before 9/11, remember, Bush was not even considered the legitimate president of the US by a large plurality of Americans. He was pursuing policies (abrogating Kyoto, cutting taxes for the wealthy) that were by no means universally popular. With the defection of Jim Jeffords, his party had lost control of Congress and were looking at the kind of Executive-Legislative deadlock that sank the Ford, Carter, and first Bush administrations.
After 9/11, Bush is actually considered a leader. Moreover, he's been able to use the crisis to institute policies that are GOP dogma, but would have been wildly unpopular at any other time: building up the military at the expense of a balanced budget, and rolling back civil liberties with impunity. His "you're with us or against us" blather has effectively stifled dissent. Politically, 9/11 was Christmas for the Bushies, and they got everything they wanted. No wonder people are tempted to see conspiracy here. But it's not conspiracy; it's just (forgive the phrase) dumb luck.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
The problem with calming down is that you display your weakness and are subject to defections. The real threat of the Al Qaeda is that it can become a major political movement. Hate alone will not drive anyone into suicide bombings, but hate combined with the hope of success will encourage a lot more people. If the Al Qaeda keeps quiet for a couple of years, then it may well lose its momentum and be abandoned by its followers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
I would disagree. I would say that hate alone is enough and that the chance of success is not what is attracting followers.
If you tighten the rein on a group of people it reduces their chance of success, yes, but if it increases resentment in the community at large then it will cause more people to have terrorist sympathies.
Whether or not they join a particular terrorist group is irrelevant - they have less to lose and more to gain, so more are willing to fight for the cause |
The 'cause' is the keyword here. A losing cause will not attract the masses. A movement of few hardcores is hardly threatening, but mass movements are.
Have you ever heard of "carrot and stick" approach? That's what the US is doing right now or at least trying to do. Look at Afghanistan, we first bombed the hardcore US haters out of power, and next we try to buy off the skeptical majority with candies. Remember, we also used the same approach on Germany and Japan.
I think the Chinese Boxer Rebellion of a century ago provided an interesting parallel to the current Islamic fundamentalism:
- China suffered humiliations at hands of Western powers.
- The tradition Chinese culture reacted to the Western cultural influences.
- Religion provided motivation and fanaticism.
- Hardcore Boxers were suicidal warriors.
In the end, the Boxers were ruthlessly crushed by the foreign powers. Hundred thousands of Chinese were murdered by foreigners, and China suffered even more indignity. By your logic, the hate among Chinese would swell even higher and far more Boxers would arise to attack foreigners. Well, the reality couldn't be more different. The Boxer movement vanished without a trace(except in some folklores), the intelletuals were chastizing the very traditions the Boxers were trying to protect, the government insituted social and political reforms unthinkable before the rebellion, and ordinary Chinese recognized the need to reform their own society.
It's about time that Islamic nations follow a similar footsteps: get out of the middle age and embrace the modern age.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
red_jon
|
 |
Uni of Wales Swansea
Oct 2000
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Hey. 
Jon lives nowhere near London and so you spite people like me, who do. Please replace London with Eastbourne. 
 |
You evil little whore! 
quote:
Before 9/11, remember, Bush was not even considered the legitimate president of the US by a large plurality of Americans. He was pursuing policies (abrogating Kyoto, cutting taxes for the wealthy) that were by no means universally popular. With the defection of Jim Jeffords, his party had lost control of Congress and were looking at the kind of Executive-Legislative deadlock that sank the Ford, Carter, and first Bush administrations.
After 9/11, Bush is actually considered a leader. Moreover, he's been able to use the crisis to institute policies that are GOP dogma, but would have been wildly unpopular at any other time: building up the military at the expense of a balanced budget, and rolling back civil liberties with impunity. His "you're with us or against us" blather has effectively stifled dissent. Politically, 9/11 was Christmas for the Bushies, and they got everything they wanted. No wonder people are tempted to see conspiracy here. But it's not conspiracy; it's just (forgive the phrase) dumb luck.
|
And you have a motive. This coupled with claims that the administration is motivated by the oil gives a far greater motive than the terrorists.
I don't know, I'm just trying to analyse the atrocities logically, which, due to the highly tragic nature of the disaster, many seem to find hard to do. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Merciless
The 'cause' is the keyword here. A losing cause will not attract the masses. A movement of few hardcores is hardly threatening, but mass movements are.
Have you ever heard of "carrot and stick" approach? That's what the US is doing right now or at least trying to do. Look at Afghanistan, we first bombed the hardcore US haters out of power, and next we try to buy off the skeptical majority with candies. Remember, we also used the same approach on Germany and Japan.
I think the Chinese Boxer Rebellion of a century ago provided an interesting parallel to the current Islamic fundamentalism:
- China suffered humiliations at hands of Western powers.
- The tradition Chinese culture reacted to the Western cultural influences.
- Religion provided motivation and fanaticism.
- Hardcore Boxers were suicidal warriors.
In the end, the Boxers were ruthlessly crushed by the foreign powers. Hundred thousands of Chinese were murdered by foreigners, and China suffered even more indignity. By your logic, the hate among Chinese would swell even higher and far more Boxers would arise to attack foreigners. Well, the reality couldn't be more different. The Boxer movement vanished without a trace(except in some folklores), the intelletuals were chastizing the very traditions the Boxers were trying to protect, the government insituted social and political reforms unthinkable before the rebellion, and ordinary Chinese recognized the need to reform their own society.
It's about time that Islamic nations follow a similar footsteps: get out of the middle age and embrace the modern age. |
Then why has Israel's heavy handedness caused more Palestinians to become terrorist, and the violence to escalate?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Then why has Israel's heavy handedness caused more Palestinians to become terrorist, and the violence to escalate? |
Then how do you explain the fact that suicide bombings have almost stopped since the Israel gave Arafat and Hamas some sound thrashings?
The whole Israel suicide bombing event is another prime example of why we should NEVER appease to anyone who INITIATED the violence. If the Israelis actually yielded because of the suicide bombings, Palestinian politicians(yes, the politicians) and other zealots will regard the suicide bombings as means to further their political goals in the future. That's a rather frightening future, isn't it?
Fortunately, Sharon stopped those cold-blooded politicians cold. Now these guys, led by Arafat, realize they are in a worse situation before the bombing sprees and will hopefully think of some less violent alternatives.
Finally, my take on Israel and Palestinian issue is that the Palestinians do have the right to resist, but their means of resisting are wrong. Their political leadership should bear the responsibility for misleading their own people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
I don't know if the conditions of the Chinese improved or got worse after the supression of the rebellion, but I would guess that the average man must have been better off.
If they were worse off, and more supressed, then I cannot understand why more people would not be willing to fight for freedom. |
Chinese economic and political situations got far worse after the Boxer Rebellion. They had to pay an indemnity 10 times their national incomes, cede territories, and yield many sovereign rights to the Imperialist powers. Signs, such as "Chinese and Dogs not allowed in", are errected in throughout in China where foreigners are present. Have the Muslims ever suffered humiliations like this in their own countries?
But the painful lesson also taught Chinese people that they could not gain respect and past glories by resorting to fanaticism and primitive violence. The Chinese people realized that in order to compete, they must embrace the Western culture and follow its footsteps. Beginning in 1901, China went on a modernization streak that has not even been finished as of today.
You see, the hate and humiliations are not the ultimate motivation for violent political movements, but the probability of success is.
Hopefully, we can give Al-Qaeda and like-minded a thorough thrashing that Muslims will drop them just as fast as the Chinese dropped the Boxers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:22
|
|
Stefu brought up a good point in the conspiracy theories- even if Bush were evil enough to sacrifice 3,000 lives and the American economy, how could it possibly be worth the risk? It wouldn't be hard to be caught- all it would take would be one ethical person to find out about it and rat, and given the magnitude of the atrocity it seems very likely one person would do it. More over, if he got caught, he would be disgraces as the worst president in US history and go to prison for the rest of his life. It just doesn't make sense that Bush would do it. Also, you might not like Bush, but I see little evidence he is evil enough to actively endorse so many getting killed. Throw in the Saudis on the planes that were captured, the cell phones complaining about the captured, the captured diaries of the men instructing about the terrorist acts, the in-court confession of Moussaoui, that Moslem terrorists had already tried to blow up the WTC before- claims that there was administration involvement in the killing are just absurd.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kcsaff
|
|
of Catan
Jul 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
Also throw in the videos of Osama bin Laden actually watching the attacks, knowing the number that were to occur, expressing hope that the towers would partially collapse after the strikes. These conspiracy ideas are ridiculous. You have to believe that the US government was actively working with al qaeda and the taliban. So what was the motive for them to work with the government, knowing that the feds plan was to come after them? I suppose you don't believe in Palestinian suicide bombers either.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
red_jon
|
|
Uni of Wales Swansea
Oct 2000
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Stefu brought up a good point in the conspiracy theories- even if Bush were evil enough to sacrifice 3,000 lives and the American economy, how could it possibly be worth the risk? It wouldn't be hard to be caught- all it would take would be one ethical person to find out about it and rat, and given the magnitude of the atrocity it seems very likely one person would do it. More over, if he got caught, he would be disgraces as the worst president in US history and go to prison for the rest of his life. It just doesn't make sense that Bush would do it. Also, you might not like Bush, but I see little evidence he is evil enough to actively endorse so many getting killed. Throw in the Saudis on the planes that were captured, the cell phones complaining about the captured, the captured diaries of the men instructing about the terrorist acts, the in-court confession of Moussaoui, that Moslem terrorists had already tried to blow up the WTC before- claims that there was administration involvement in the killing are just absurd. |
Bush wouldn't have organised it - the administration would have. A large number of them have alreadyt worked for the President (Bush's father) and so would be in the best possible position to pull something like this off.
And the risk isn't too great- the act could be as sloppy as they like - the tragedy is so highly emotive people can't question it on a large scale.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-09-2002 05:42
Lets attack them. That way their scientists will have more urgency; and they will have a reason to attack us.
|