9/11 info and sources

24567

Comments

  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Nevermind wrote:
    There was no terrorists in Iraq before we went there. Saddam didnt allow that kind of shit. Does it matter if Iraq defeated Iran with weapons we gave them? And your reason for wanting to go to Iraq has nothing to do with the terrorist tactics that lead us into Iraq. Bush made us afraid of Iraq by telling us hes a huge threat and has WMD's. And is your sarcasm a way to avoid the fact that we went to war with a country for no reason?

    I'm not defending the 'official' reason for being there, I am just glad we did. I think my reason is closer to the real reason our government went in.

    Iraq had, and we are still finding, WMD's. He used them to kill his own people for fuck's sake.
  • Nevermind
    Nevermind Posts: 1,006
    69charger wrote:
    I'm not defending the 'official' reason for being there, I am just glad we did. I think my reason is closer to the real reason our government went in.

    Iraq had, and we are still finding, WMD's. He used them to kill his own people for fuck's sake.
    We havent and wont find any WMD's. The governments real reason for going to Iraq was for oil. He killed those people a long fucking time ago. If the people thought it was bad they should have done something. We had to fight a civil war to make the country right. I think them having a civil war is better than World War 3. Fidel Castro has killed but we havent done shit with him. Its not our place to police the world.
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Nevermind wrote:
    We havent and wont find any WMD's.

    We have and we'll find more. I will bet you a tall cool Budweiser on that.
    The governments real reason for going to Iraq was for oil.

    Directly? As in 'stealing thier oil'? No.

    To stabilize an unstable region important to every country on the face of the Earth because of it's oil? Yes.
    Its not our place to police the world.

    Who's place is it then? The last time I've checked, I don't see France running into Darfur! They could be doing that right now! We are fighting a global war on terror for them, the least they could do is stop the mess in Africa.

    Why aren't you all up in thier asses about that?
  • Nevermind
    Nevermind Posts: 1,006
    69charger wrote:
    We have and we'll find more. I will bet you a tall cool Budweiser on that.



    Directly? As in 'stealing thier oil'? No.

    To stabilize an unstable region important to every country on the face of the Earth because of it's oil? Yes.



    Who's place is it then? The last time I've checked, I don't see France running into Darfur! They could be doing that right now! We are fighting a global war on terror for them, the least they could do is stop the mess in Africa.

    Why aren't you all up in thier asses about that?
    If weve found them how come your the only one that knows? Going to remove Saddam was not the reason. If were not stealing there oil how come the oil companies are raking in much more than before the war started? Its the UN's place not ours.
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Nevermind wrote:
    If weve found them how come your the only one that knows?

    We have found, and continue to find, WMD's in Iraq. Do you not watch the news? Oh, that's right, the ones we found so far weren't "the ones that we went to war over".
    Its the UN's place not ours.

    The UN is a fucking joke and relies on the US to do everthing.

    France is a member of the UN, is it not? Why aren't they helping anywhere?

    http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Darfur+France&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t403&x=wrt

    Check out the link above and see what they aren't doing to help.
  • Nevermind
    Nevermind Posts: 1,006
    69charger wrote:
    We have found, and continue to find, WMD's in Iraq. Do you not watch the news? Oh, that's right, the ones we found so far weren't "the ones that we went to war over".



    The UN is a fucking joke and relies on the US to do everthing.

    France is a member of the UN, is it not? Why aren't they helping anywhere?

    http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Darfur+France&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t403&x=wrt

    Check out the link above and see what they aren't doing to help.
    I watch the news and they havenet said shit. Any proof? The UN didnt do anything about Iraq because there was no need.
  • rightondude
    rightondude Posts: 745
    Iraq is a lot worse off now than it was before, and we haven't even left yet. Just wait and see how really screwed up it gets then.

    All we accomplished at this point was to create a few million new US loathing terrorists with fresh anger, and polarize (i.e. tear apart and terrorize) all the muslim people worldwide in the process. Such a brilliant, and well thought out plan that was.

    Ah, the good ol US "peace loving war machine". Break it first then go in and "fix it", scoop up all the cash in the process. The way it's always been, why should it change anytime soon? :rolleyes:

    Almost forgot...actively manufacture and distribute weapons worldwide...that's always a good thing for all.

    What a stellar example of how to behave...
  • Nevermind
    Nevermind Posts: 1,006
    Nevermind wrote:
    In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

    The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?

    Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?

    Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700°F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800°F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000°F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

    Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

    Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

    Dont think Ive seen these answered.
    These still havent been answered.
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Nevermind wrote:
    I watch the news and they havenet said shit. Any proof? The UN didnt do anything about Iraq because there was no need.

    http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060629_5547.html

    The UN didn't do anything because they are in-fucking-capable of doing anything right.
  • Nevermind
    Nevermind Posts: 1,006
    69charger wrote:
    http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006/20060629_5547.html

    The UN didn't do anything because they are in-fucking-capable of doing anything right.
    And how credible is that? No one else mentions it. Even Bush said we havent found any.
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Nevermind wrote:
    And how credible is that? No one else mentions it. Even Bush said we havent found any.

    Several other media outlets have picked this story up as well as several US Senators. You obviously don't watch the news. You also seem incapable of using google or yahoo or any other search engine for that matter. You could easily verify this story if you wanted to.
  • Nevermind
    Nevermind Posts: 1,006
    It could just be a story made up. Is there visual proof? And are the insults necessary?
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Nevermind wrote:
    And are the insults necessary?

    They aren't insults so much as they are observations.
  • Nevermind
    Nevermind Posts: 1,006
    69charger wrote:
    They aren't insults so much as they are observations.
    Now your just being a smartass.
  • rightondude
    rightondude Posts: 745
    They found some outdated biological warhead shells or mini missles about a month ago (that the US manufactured and sold to them in the first place), however they were really old, useless, and non functional.

    I think by WMD's we can agree that we are talking about long range nuclear weapons that could be launched (and arrive) on US soil and elsewhere at great distances. Any of those popping up?
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    rightondude wrote:
    They found some outdated biological warhead shells or mini missles about a month ago (that the US manufactured and sold to them in the first place), however they were really old, useless, and non functional.

    From the link I provided earlier...

    The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

    While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

    This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic.

    "Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."

    Now, are we really gonna sit and split hairs here?
  • rightondude
    rightondude Posts: 745
    69charger wrote:
    From the link I provided earlier...

    The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

    While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

    This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic.

    "Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."

    Now, are we really gonna sit and split hairs here?


    Yeah... looks like the article I read. exposed to it long enough I suppose, maybe do a few lines of em like coke or somehitng it'll blow your doors off :D. I not sure how much mass of destruction are left in those though. A current threat?

    Wasn't it set out originally like they were making recent ones and planning to use them so we had to go in and stop them? That and the terrorist thing as a piggyback reason, like Iraq was harboring them as well
  • Nevermind
    Nevermind Posts: 1,006
    69charger wrote:
    From the link I provided earlier...

    The munitions addressed in the report were produced in the 1980s, Maples said. Badly corroded, they could not currently be used as originally intended, Chu added.

    While that's reassuring, the agent remaining in the weapons would be very valuable to terrorists and insurgents, Maples said. "We're talking chemical agents here that could be packaged in a different format and have a great effect," he said, referencing the sarin-gas attack on a Japanese subway in the mid-1990s.

    This is true even considering any degradation of the chemical agents that may have occurred, Chu said. It's not known exactly how sarin breaks down, but no matter how degraded the agent is, it's still toxic.

    "Regardless of (how much material in the weapon is actually chemical agent), any remaining agent is toxic," he said. "Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal."

    Now, are we really gonna sit and split hairs here?
    Is cooking meth a WMD? No one has still answered my questions.
  • 69charger
    69charger Posts: 1,045
    Nevermind wrote:
    No one has still answered my questions.

    Did I stutter? I'm not arguing with you nuts regarding conspiracy theories.

    Since you still haven't learned how to use the search function, here's a thread from almost a year ago.

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=134736
  • Nevermind
    Nevermind Posts: 1,006
    69charger wrote:
    Did I stutter? I'm not arguing with you nuts regarding conspiracy theories.

    Since you still haven't learned how to use the search function, here's a thread from almost a year ago.

    http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=134736
    Or is it because you cant explain that the wtc was the first 3 steel buildings to collapse due to fire? Maybe you should go on Roxdogs radio show and there wouldnt be all these threads.

Categories