<!--QuoteBegin--BathroomMonkey+Sep 28 2003, 11:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Sep 28 2003, 11:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I could go on about how Clinton without even advising his security advisers launched missiles at Sudan blowing up a factory that produced Medicines for an African country (and the only company that produced for that country) and nothing else. <b>There must be a conspirarcy there to, right? Oh wait, no, it was just a ploy to get peoples eyes of his sex scandals.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i>Please</i> tell me that that last part is intentional irony. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I was being quite sarcastic about the conspiracy part.
And don't even say that Bush used 9/11 to get anybodys mind of anything. Bush didn't ask for 9/11.
<!--QuoteBegin--Jammer+Sep 28 2003, 06:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jammer @ Sep 28 2003, 06:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This topic is pointless. The Tinfoil Hat Club will never accept that some Islamic Fundies murdered 3000 Americans. Drop it.
Also, the one Orc had Amor of Fire, which negated fire damage by 4d12
EDIT Also, I <b>HATE</b> that quote. Lefties pull it out as if it proves their wackjob conspiracy theories correct. Wow, someone said something cynical and that makes you right. Is it impossible to believe that some wars are in fact justified? The Bush Administration did not need to 'convince' the people they were attacked to drag the country on a war for 'oil'. I think the smoking piles of rubble did that for them. Also, before you say "irak is teh oil war!!112" consider this: the enemy is fundamentalist Islam. Iraq was a known sponsor of terror, especially against Israel. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Let me ask you this: do you think our invasion of Iraq is going to do anything to stop terrorism? Do you think we should bomb the Palestinians next? They obviously have taken the lead role in the terrorist acts against Israel, so by your rationale we should invade them next, correct?
Do you think people who would be willing to fly a plane into a building leading to their own death are at all concerned about the repercussions of such an act? Do you think people who are willing to strap a bomb to their chest and walk into a coffee shop and explode themselves are at all concerned with how the U.S. is going to react?
The hate towards America and Americans has many origins. Most Muslims take offense to our military bases in their holy land, Saudi Arabia. Usama Bin Laden did not start planning attacks against U.S. interests until Gulf War I, when we used Saudi Arabia as the launching pad for the first war for oil. Most Muslims despise the fact that the U.S. supports Israel in its occupation of what is rightfully Palestine. When you look at those two causes, it seems really easy to me what the fix is. Pull out completely from the Middle East. Stop supporting Israel. Acknowledge a Palestinian state.
But you see, that will never happen in the current U.S. administration. Why? Simple. <b>Far</b> too much Jewish money is invested in high-level American politics. That, and the Bush administration has its own agendas in the Middle East. Oil. Gotta love that sweet, sweet, oil. This is all a perfect plan for them. 3000 innocent Americans are nothing to them. Hundreds of soldiers that have died in Iraq this year are nothing to them.
<span style='color:white'>Personal attacks have no place on this or any other NS forum.</span>
This actually is supposed to be a thread about 9/11 conspiracy theories isn't it? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Removing Iraq, which was very close to having sanctions lifted without any inspections at all, from the pool of financial backers for international terrorism is bad how? Fundamentalists still require money, lots of money because many of them hold the occupation of "sit around, brood, and be crazy". They need to pay countries to house them because of the risk. They need to pay military suppliers for equipment. They need to pay for fake ids, intel, rentals, language lessons, living expenses abroad, bribes, the list goes on and on. Sometimes salary can cover it, but let's face it.... the employment opportunities for someone with no thought to blowing themselves up are not all that broad. Even the terrorists acknowledge there is an inverse relationship between education and tenacity.
With the amount of money needing to be exchanged, the desire to grow or at least maintain that money, and the desire to cover it up while at the same time easing its availability some sort of banking structure is required. The further you can spread that sort of information out, the better. And the more willing your moneychanger is to keep **** poor records, the better. Places like this do not grow on trees, and most western nations where money like this is often shifted around could not stand the embarassment of being connected to an organization like this. Using a friendly country as an intermediary is almost a necessity.
The current Palestinian authority does not want a Palestinian state that includes the existence of Israel. Period. They have been offered very sweet deals, and Israel gave up some rather nice territory from which attacks are now being staged as a peace offering to get the offer on the table. They have all been rejected outright without even a suggestion of compromise.
Look at the symbol for the Palestinian political interest. See Israel in that map? Oh right, it's in the ocean right next to the bloody knife stabbed in the earth. That was the emblem Arafat wore to every peace and concession negotiation he participated in, and it's what the guys sitting next to Abbas wore.
The minute the Palestinians have a border.....*any* border established and officially recognized they are no longer a "people trying to live and being oppressed by the tyrrany of the evil Jews". They are a state with a solid line drawn around them that is set in stone. No last minute deals to get an extra hundred square kilometers. If the government finances attacks, pays for attacks, or equips the attackers that can then be declared an act of war. Right now they are in the position to claim innocence and lack of control, but as an independent nation that changes. They will be *expected* to have control.
It opens up another bag of worms. The countries financing the Palestinian state would be in a terrible bind politically if they support what is now a country with funds that are then being used directly in bombing civilian targets. What is Palestine's GDP anyways? Could they even survive without large amounts of aid?
<!--QuoteBegin--Eviscerator+Sep 29 2003, 04:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Eviscerator @ Sep 29 2003, 04:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Usama Bin Laden did not start planning attacks against U.S. interests until Gulf War I, when we used Saudi Arabia as the launching pad for the first war for oil. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You must like your tin hat, eh?
Do you really believe that the Gulf War was for oil and only oil? Are you going to start calling both of the wars in Iraq the "Oil Wars" now? Maybe you've forgotten, maybe you act like you've forgotten, or maybe you just didn't know in the first place but the first war in Iraq wasn't the "War for Oil". Iraq INVADED Kuwait, and while Kuwait may not have been a U.S. Ally, we stilll had an obligation to go in there and push Iraq back. You notice how we didn't stay in Iraq? How we didn't TAKE their oil fields? Well I don't blame you if you didn't, most conspiracy theorist like to ignore facts that disprove their theories.
I'd also like to point out something about the entire Pentagon theory. Maybe the plane didn't hit straight on, maybe it was tilted on its side, or maybe the wings folded up and over the body of the plane. Ever think about that? Of course the people that wrote the crap on that site didn't. They are such hippocrates if you think about it, they tell us to open our minds, to think "out of the box for a change!" but if you find anything to dissprove their theory they'll just throw it out, calling it "government propaganda" or maybe just calling you full of BS. Of course, all of that after they blindly support their opinion with false info. You can try but it's very hard to get through to these guys.
Your impression of what a terrorist does as an occupation is very stereotypical. Osama is from an incredibly wealthy family. Made their money (of course) from oil. It is estimated he's worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Do you think a group of 20 people, armed with nothing more than box cutters and a few flying lessons, cost anywhere near a hundred million dollars to finance? This isn't the CIA. They are not as sophisticated as you make them out to be. Ted Kazcynski was making home-made bombs from a shack in Montana. You think he needed billions of dollars from oil-rich countries to keep going?
Most of the terrorists who supposedly hijacked the planes were from Saudi Arabia. Many Saudis are upset at the U.S. for not pulling out of Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War, which the U.S. had promised to do immediately at the conclusion of the war. These same Saudis are sponsoring terrorist acts, and they are funded through oil. We're not going in after Saudi Arabia.
This "circular" reasoning for attacking any country that has even the slightest relationship to our select definition of "terrorism" is scary. France, Russia, and even the U.S. sold weapons to Iraq during the 80s, when Saddam invaded Iran. Millions of lives were lost in that war, and Saddam was experimenting with chemical weapons on the Kurds. We sold him those weapons, and all was right with the world because Iran was our sworn enemy. I suppose through this circular relationship, we are at fault for allowing Saddam to win his war against Iran, which allowed him to invade Kuwait, which allowed him now, today, to continue to sponsor terrorism. Thusly, we should attack ourselves. Right? We sponsor Israel, we gave them nuclear weapons, and here they are, attacking Palestinians on a daily basis. Israel is a terrorist nation. You cannot possibly say that what Israel is doing is justified. You see why the Muslim world finds us to be incredibly hypocritical?
I'm not sure how we can say that our invasion of a country that had done nothing... ever... to the U.S. would be justifiable. It is the U.N.-imposed Iraqi sanctions during the 90s, our continued efforts to suppress and kill the Iraqi people, and our efforts to completely destory their infrastructure and economy that is the real terrorism going on here. That country is a complete wasteland today compared to what it was 25 years ago. The U.S. is wholly responsible for that destruction. If it was only about taking out Saddam Hussein and his party, don't you think the CIA would be capable of removing him without completely destroying the country and its people in the process? We did it in Iran, we did it in Chile, and we did it in Panama. Well, no... see... we aren't only concerned about removing Saddam and installing a new ruler. We need to have military control over the entire country so we can extract the only thing worthwhile... oil.
What kind of ties are there (directly) between Saddam Hussein, his Ba'ath party, and terrorism? Who were the terrorists? What were their names? What acts of terrorism did they partake in directly against the U.S.?
If you follow the mantra of "strike them before they strike us" then you might as well just nuke the entire Arab world, China, and North Korea to boot before any of them even think about doing something. The only reason we're able to go into places like Iraq and Afghanistan is because we no longer have an opposition capable of putting us in our place. Once the U.S.S.R. fell apart, it was a free-for-all. Welcome to 1990 and Gulf War I. Do you think that our bombings of Afghanistan and Iraq could have happened in 1985? Not a chance in the world.
If anything, our actions during the last two years since 9/11 are only going to spur on even more hatred from terrorist groups. Removing Saddam will have no effect on the big picture whatsoever. Solve the problem by pulling out of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other country we don't belong. Stop sponsoring Israel. That problem has no easy solution, other than to tell the Jews to just move somewhere else.
<!--QuoteBegin--DarkDude+Sep 29 2003, 04:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkDude @ Sep 29 2003, 04:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You must like your tin hat, eh?
Do you really believe that the Gulf War was for oil and only oil? Are you going to start calling both of the wars in Iraq the "Oil Wars" now? Maybe you've forgotten, maybe you act like you've forgotten, or maybe you just didn't know in the first place but the first war in Iraq wasn't the "War for Oil". Iraq INVADED Kuwait, and while Kuwait may not have been a U.S. Ally, we stilll had an obligation to go in there and push Iraq back. You notice how we didn't stay in Iraq? How we didn't TAKE their oil fields? Well I don't blame you if you didn't, most conspiracy theorist like to ignore facts that disprove their theories.
I'd also like to point out something about the entire Pentagon theory. Maybe the plane didn't hit straight on, maybe it was tilted on its side, or maybe the wings folded up and over the body of the plane. Ever think about that? Of course the people that wrote the crap on that site didn't. They are such hippocrates if you think about it, they tell us to open our minds, to think "out of the box for a change!" but if you find anything to dissprove their theory they'll just throw it out, calling it "government propaganda" or maybe just calling you full of BS. Of course, all of that after they blindly support their opinion with false info. You can try but it's very hard to get through to these guys. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes both wars were about oil. Why do you think Iraq invaded Kuwait? It wasn't for the tiny little slice of desert and sand. If Saddam wanted more desert land, he would have gone after Saudi Arabia. It was about controlling the tremendous oil reserve under Kuwait. Think about it for a second, would you please? Kuwait has the 3rd largest oil reserve <b>in the world.</b> That would have put Saddam in control of the largest percentage of oil, when combined with Iraq. Not something the U.S. was willing to concede, especially since Kuwait was the oil cartel's biggest friend, next to Saudi Arabia.
George HW Bush, the first Gulf War leader, was not going to allow Saddam to be in control of that much oil. Doing so would have meant Saddam could influence oil prices by restricting exports, especially to the oil-hungry U.S. This would have put a serious strain on our ability to get cheap oil, and Bush knew that if Saddam were to control that much oil he was just going to become much too powerful.
If you think it wasn't about oil, please tell me why Iraqi soldiers set all of the Kuwaiti oil fields ablaze on their way out. It certainly wasn't to light up the night sky. It was a clear message. Saddam knew what he was doing, and what the prize really was... oil. If he couldn't have it, he would do his damned best to make sure we couldn't have it, either.
Now, why didn't we take their oil fields then? Because the reason for going to war was to push Saddam back. You cannot just go in and steal their oil if the objective for going to war was completed. There are a set of rules, known as the Geneva Convention, that even Bush knew he had to abide by. Now, however, the reason for going to war is completely made-up. Now we're invading with the intention of occupying and installing our own form of government. Note that this is not in response to ANYTHING that Iraq or Saddam has actually done to the U.S. This is all pre-emptive.
So, who is going to win out of all this? Why companies like Halliburton, who were awarded closed, no-bid contracts to rebuild Iraq and pump its oil. Companies like Unocal, who can now build that pipeline across Afghanistan without having to worry about the Taliban getting in their way. Convenient.
If you think the U.S. has an obligation to push back any country that invades another, please tell me why we did nothing when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980. A million people were killed during that 8-year war. What did we do? Please, tell me. Oh, don't know? Well, I'll tell you. We gave them weapons. We trained Saddam how to use chemical weapons. Donald Rumsfeld had his picture taken shaking hands with Saddam. Sound surprising? Didn't know that? Well, you probably won't have a chapter on that in your mainstream history class.
People outside the U.S. cannot believe how apathetic and misinformed the American public is. This is part of the Arab's world hatred towards us. People who have no idea what these wars were truly about. People who blindly accept what the corporations who own the media channels want you to believe.
I can provide links to establish all of this, but I have to leave now.
Yes, but Osama is not the one slamming planes into buildings and he is not the one blowing himself up. There are individuals within the organization who are not expendable resources, and there are individuals who are. The latter are the people they need in huge supply because of attrition. And of course they will be those who are worth the least as an asset.
There was a terrorist camp (Salman Pak) being run in Iraq. A camp in which members of Al Qaeda trained as early as 8mos prior to the first bomb dropping. It consisted of three living areas, various training ranges, and the fuselage of a commercial jet. This information comes from accounts by Syrians who also trained there and were later questioned by the Syrian authority. The intel was released as a good faith measure to the US.
Several Czech reports had an upper tier planner in the 9/11 hijackings meeting with an Iraqi intelligence ministry official. Those reports were later edited to say that they did not know the topic of the meeting and then were edited again to say that they did not know the two met. It is still of course just a coincidence that the individual and the intelligence official were in the same city at the same dates on not one but three separate occasions.
And sanctions were imposed and held for so long because of failure and at times outright refusal to cooperate with post-war requirements set on Iraq by the UN. The food for oil program was supposed to mean food for oil. When you show me a person that can eat $5 billion worth of military hardware, or high grade aluminum rocket tubes then I will begin to agree that they did not receive enough aid. The problem was not money to buy food or medicine. The problem was an unwillingness to spend the money on food and medicine for any but the most favored citizens. Maybe they suck at budgeting. /shrug
<b>This entire 'topic' is both flamebait and constantly off-topic in the extreme. It is about to get closed unless you all bring order to it. Only warning.</b>
All these flames have MonsE <i>hot</i> under the collar, perhaps we should stop using this can of worms as <i>bait</i> before he decides to shut the lid <i>lock</i>tight on this subject.
What offtopic? It´s about 9/11 and the reason why the US would do something like this (if they did it). Guess that US bashing is too much for monsieur evil
I've seen far too much flame for little actual discussion and thinking.
As for US bashing - that's what makes democracy great, kitty. However, MonsE bashing is what makes kitty lose posting privileges if he does not get himself under control immediately.
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> - I admit, I missed it entirely. Well done, my old Pop would be proud (he's a punster too).
Let's get this thing roughly on topic or it goes away, folks. I am ready to tighten up my FAQ rules enforcement. re-read them now if you haven't in a while, things are getting pretty slack here right now in some threads...
Point taken. Threads like this can easily get up to 10+ pages of diverging topics. A combination of the chewbacca defense and smokescreening usually spins them off towards oblivion.
That being said I noticed something up in the stratosphere that suggested the cutting charge theory again. The video "substantiating" it is a clip of two floors collapsing in concert. To me, it looks like the weight of the top half of the building shifting and crushing the floors below that are now forced to hold it entirely. To set cutting charges correctly a few things have to happen:
1) They have to be set up with proper timing to bring a building down, and this is usually a combination of bottom-up and top-down charges. To work as an implosion several of these bursts have to happen across the vertical length of the building. Must be more than two, and must be closer together.
2) You have to rip the heck out of the building's insides. The structural members are usually hidden by layers of pipe, wiring, dry wall, and metal fixtures for the frames. Then they are usually layered in concrete towards the bottom. That all has to be removed to get at the steel beams and get a good cut. Concrete will cause the explosion to spread out because it is much weaker than steel with respect to explosions. To get around that you must either strip it, or use a much much larger charge.
3) Large cutting charges make noise. A lot of noise. They also tend to break a lot of glass around them and send out large gouts of flame. This is not evident in the videos I've seen, and is not evident in the audio.
4) A set up like this takes days. Months if you have to do it in such a way as not to alert the people working there. However I don't think it's even possible.
5) Setting up an implosion on a building that is not stripped is almost a mathematical impossibility.
So several things would have to happen....
1) No one notices that workers are chopping out sections of wall and planting large charges there. 2) No one notices the huge jumble of wires to the timing boxes that make the whole thing work. 3) No one on the ground notices huge booms in a sequence. 4) No one sees the charges burst up the length of the building. 5) No one responsible for set up, planning, and initiation blabs to the press. 6) No evidence of explosive residue is found in the rubble or the area around it. 7) The firefighters using sniffers do not detect fumes from detonated explosives. 8) Bomb dogs do not detect fumes from detonated explosives. 9) No evidence of beams being cut by shaped charges is found. 10) None of the planning in any of the above goes the least bit wrong.
Now, others have suggested a kinetic energy weapon was used. That is just ridiculous. People would definately have noticed that.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Sep 29 2003, 06:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Sep 29 2003, 06:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>This entire 'topic' is both flamebait and constantly off-topic in the extreme. It is about to get closed unless you all bring order to it. Only warning.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> Sorry, my post was a little bit on the flamey side. Just get so frustrated with all of the conspiracy theorists. It's nice to have SOME in the world but when there are soooo many it gets really annoying.
Eviscerator, your point is valid in some ways. Iraq not only invaded Kuwait for the oil they have, but also for the riches in the country. Most people don't realise it but Kuwait is one of the most wealthy countires in the world. In fact, I think, per capita, its citizens are the most wealthy in the world, though I could be wrong. Lots of gold and jewels in that country and alot is from oil. Also Iraq has a VERY small coastline on the Persian Gulf, one of the most important water ways in the world. Top on the list of reasons for invading Kuwait was to seize it's ports and to gain control over that part of the Gulf. You could stretch this even further and say that he wanted to use to send oil out in massive amounts which would also be true.
The reason I don't think it's an "Oil War" is because, unlike opperation Iraq Freedom, oil wasn't one of the top concerns for the U.S. to invade Iraq, and free Kuwait from Iraqi rule. Not to say that it didn't play a role in getting the cololition (sp?) to come in but it wasn't THE top reason for it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->4) A set up like this takes days. Months if you have to do it in such a way as not to alert the people working there. However I don't think it's even possible<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, conveniently, the WTC complex had a new 99-year lease signed just 7 weeks prior to 9/11. Is 7 weeks enough time to install your own security, plant the explosives required, and rig the wiring?
"Ironically, never before 9/11/01 in history has a steel building even partially collapsed from a fire. Neither has any since." - <a href='http://globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU308A.html' target='_blank'>WTC-7: The Improbable Collapse</a>
I don't know how (or really, if) explosives were planted, so my replies below are purely speculation. I'm not an insider and I have no knowledge of what really occurred.
<b>1) No one notices that workers are chopping out sections of wall and planting large charges there.</b>
It could have been done at night.
<b>2) No one notices the huge jumble of wires to the timing boxes that make the whole thing work.</b>
Who, other than the maintenance staff, knows what is happening with the internals of a building? Since the twin towers just recently changed hands prior to 9/11, is it feasible the maintenance staff was aware of what was going on?
<b>3) No one on the ground notices huge booms in a sequence.</b>
People on the ground DID notice explosions in a sequence. <a href='http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/veliz-bombs.htm' target='_blank'>9/11 Survivor Describes Multiple Explosions</a>.
"...people reported hearing multiple EXPLOSIONS before the WTC collapsed. I have video of people who were interviewed after the collapses and they said they heard a series of explosions (not floors collapsing) and then the buildings came down." <a href='http://www.stormtronic.co.uk/9-11/unanswered.htm' target='_blank'>WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK - UNANSWERED QUESTIONS</a>
<b>4) No one sees the charges burst up the length of the building.</b>
See above, and the video sequences from the link in the very first post of this topic.
<b>5) No one responsible for set up, planning, and initiation blabs to the press.</b>
Even if they had, the press is most likely under the watchful eye of those involved. CNN was pressured during this latest Iraq war to only show images favorable to the U.S. The Carlyle Group, owners of many media corporations, has tremendous influence over what gets aired... and what does not.
<b>6) No evidence of explosive residue is found in the rubble or the area around it.</b>
All of the wreckage was very quickly removed to foreign scrap companies. No real investigation into what had happened was ever allowed, since the official explanation was all that the public cared for. We probably will never know for sure. No evidence was found because no one was looking for it...
<b>7) The firefighters using sniffers do not detect fumes from detonated explosives.</b>
Like 6, they were not at all concerned with explosives.
<b>8) Bomb dogs do not detect fumes from detonated explosives.
[b]9) No evidence of beams being cut by shaped charges is found.</b>
See #6
<b>10) None of the planning in any of the above goes the least bit wrong.</b>
The South Tower fell before the North Tower. That was a mistake. The North Tower was struck first, and had a much more intense and longer-lasting fire, since more of the jet fuel was burning in the North Tower as compared to the South. Since I don't know what their real plan was, perhaps they intended to strike the South Tower first.
Here's an excerpt from the link in #3 I gave above:
"I discussed this with a structural engineer who investigated a HOTEL in Los Angeles that he said was 30 stories and it burned from the ground floor up. It burned for nearly a week. The fire totally destroyed everything on all 30 floors. The estimated temperatures were 2200 degrees because of the natural gas and other fuel that was the catalyst for the fire.
"The concrete and infrastructure did not budge. It cost more than a million dollars to TEAR IT DOWN. The 30 floors above the first floor did NOT cave in on the first floor when the support structure go hot. And he reviewed the architecture on the WTC and said the type of steel and the type of construction for the WTC was double the strength of the LA hotel."
The best line was the following: "My take? Americans are not very bright. Americans don't think. They accept what they are told. They don't TEST what they are told."
Eviscator, I believe Osama made his money in real esate? Or was it oil? Sorry, I'm just curious./ <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I read at some point it was oil, but after some further investigation tonight apparently it is from construction contracts with the Saudi royal family.
<a href='http://www.theworldjournal.com/2002/osamabusiness.htm' target='_blank'>Bin Laden Group Takes Care of Business</a>
Osama himself has a Civil Engineering background. How much of the money he actively controls and how much he has acquired since being disowned from the family is pure speculation.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Sep 29 2003, 11:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Sep 29 2003, 11:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <b>This entire 'topic' is both flamebait and constantly off-topic in the extreme. It is about to get closed unless you all bring order to it. Only warning.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This man knows what he is talking about.
OK, folks, I'm getting a little aggrevated, so here's the deal: The next person making snide comments about another persons opinion (I'm looking at the 'tinfoil cap' - fraction here) can kiss these forums goodbye. Believe it or not, but you can actually <i>not</i> post in every god damn thread, so if the topic has no significance to you, just keep your piehole shut.
Comments
<i>Please</i> tell me that that last part is intentional irony. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was being quite sarcastic about the conspiracy part.
And don't even say that Bush used 9/11 to get anybodys mind of anything. Bush didn't ask for 9/11.
Also, the one Orc had Amor of Fire, which negated fire damage by 4d12
EDIT
Also, I <b>HATE</b> that quote. Lefties pull it out as if it proves their wackjob conspiracy theories correct. Wow, someone said something cynical and that makes you right. Is it impossible to believe that some wars are in fact justified? The Bush Administration did not need to 'convince' the people they were attacked to drag the country on a war for 'oil'. I think the smoking piles of rubble did that for them. Also, before you say "irak is teh oil war!!112" consider this: the enemy is fundamentalist Islam. Iraq was a known sponsor of terror, especially against Israel.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me ask you this: do you think our invasion of Iraq is going to do anything to stop terrorism? Do you think we should bomb the Palestinians next? They obviously have taken the lead role in the terrorist acts against Israel, so by your rationale we should invade them next, correct?
Do you think people who would be willing to fly a plane into a building leading to their own death are at all concerned about the repercussions of such an act? Do you think people who are willing to strap a bomb to their chest and walk into a coffee shop and explode themselves are at all concerned with how the U.S. is going to react?
The hate towards America and Americans has many origins. Most Muslims take offense to our military bases in their holy land, Saudi Arabia. Usama Bin Laden did not start planning attacks against U.S. interests until Gulf War I, when we used Saudi Arabia as the launching pad for the first war for oil. Most Muslims despise the fact that the U.S. supports Israel in its occupation of what is rightfully Palestine. When you look at those two causes, it seems really easy to me what the fix is. Pull out completely from the Middle East. Stop supporting Israel. Acknowledge a Palestinian state.
But you see, that will never happen in the current U.S. administration. Why? Simple. <b>Far</b> too much Jewish money is invested in high-level American politics. That, and the Bush administration has its own agendas in the Middle East. Oil. Gotta love that sweet, sweet, oil. This is all a perfect plan for them. 3000 innocent Americans are nothing to them. Hundreds of soldiers that have died in Iraq this year are nothing to them.
<span style='color:white'>Personal attacks have no place on this or any other NS forum.</span>
Removing Iraq, which was very close to having sanctions lifted without any inspections at all, from the pool of financial backers for international terrorism is bad how? Fundamentalists still require money, lots of money because many of them hold the occupation of "sit around, brood, and be crazy". They need to pay countries to house them because of the risk. They need to pay military suppliers for equipment. They need to pay for fake ids, intel, rentals, language lessons, living expenses abroad, bribes, the list goes on and on. Sometimes salary can cover it, but let's face it.... the employment opportunities for someone with no thought to blowing themselves up are not all that broad. Even the terrorists acknowledge there is an inverse relationship between education and tenacity.
With the amount of money needing to be exchanged, the desire to grow or at least maintain that money, and the desire to cover it up while at the same time easing its availability some sort of banking structure is required. The further you can spread that sort of information out, the better. And the more willing your moneychanger is to keep **** poor records, the better. Places like this do not grow on trees, and most western nations where money like this is often shifted around could not stand the embarassment of being connected to an organization like this. Using a friendly country as an intermediary is almost a necessity.
The current Palestinian authority does not want a Palestinian state that includes the existence of Israel. Period. They have been offered very sweet deals, and Israel gave up some rather nice territory from which attacks are now being staged as a peace offering to get the offer on the table. They have all been rejected outright without even a suggestion of compromise.
Look at the symbol for the Palestinian political interest. See Israel in that map? Oh right, it's in the ocean right next to the bloody knife stabbed in the earth. That was the emblem Arafat wore to every peace and concession negotiation he participated in, and it's what the guys sitting next to Abbas wore.
The minute the Palestinians have a border.....*any* border established and officially recognized they are no longer a "people trying to live and being oppressed by the tyrrany of the evil Jews". They are a state with a solid line drawn around them that is set in stone. No last minute deals to get an extra hundred square kilometers. If the government finances attacks, pays for attacks, or equips the attackers that can then be declared an act of war. Right now they are in the position to claim innocence and lack of control, but as an independent nation that changes. They will be *expected* to have control.
It opens up another bag of worms. The countries financing the Palestinian state would be in a terrible bind politically if they support what is now a country with funds that are then being used directly in bombing civilian targets. What is Palestine's GDP anyways? Could they even survive without large amounts of aid?
You must like your tin hat, eh?
Do you really believe that the Gulf War was for oil and only oil? Are you going to start calling both of the wars in Iraq the "Oil Wars" now? Maybe you've forgotten, maybe you act like you've forgotten, or maybe you just didn't know in the first place but the first war in Iraq wasn't the "War for Oil". Iraq INVADED Kuwait, and while Kuwait may not have been a U.S. Ally, we stilll had an obligation to go in there and push Iraq back. You notice how we didn't stay in Iraq? How we didn't TAKE their oil fields? Well I don't blame you if you didn't, most conspiracy theorist like to ignore facts that disprove their theories.
I'd also like to point out something about the entire Pentagon theory. Maybe the plane didn't hit straight on, maybe it was tilted on its side, or maybe the wings folded up and over the body of the plane. Ever think about that? Of course the people that wrote the crap on that site didn't. They are such hippocrates if you think about it, they tell us to open our minds, to think "out of the box for a change!" but if you find anything to dissprove their theory they'll just throw it out, calling it "government propaganda" or maybe just calling you full of BS. Of course, all of that after they blindly support their opinion with false info. You can try but it's very hard to get through to these guys.
Most of the terrorists who supposedly hijacked the planes were from Saudi Arabia. Many Saudis are upset at the U.S. for not pulling out of Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War, which the U.S. had promised to do immediately at the conclusion of the war. These same Saudis are sponsoring terrorist acts, and they are funded through oil. We're not going in after Saudi Arabia.
This "circular" reasoning for attacking any country that has even the slightest relationship to our select definition of "terrorism" is scary. France, Russia, and even the U.S. sold weapons to Iraq during the 80s, when Saddam invaded Iran. Millions of lives were lost in that war, and Saddam was experimenting with chemical weapons on the Kurds. We sold him those weapons, and all was right with the world because Iran was our sworn enemy. I suppose through this circular relationship, we are at fault for allowing Saddam to win his war against Iran, which allowed him to invade Kuwait, which allowed him now, today, to continue to sponsor terrorism. Thusly, we should attack ourselves. Right? We sponsor Israel, we gave them nuclear weapons, and here they are, attacking Palestinians on a daily basis. Israel is a terrorist nation. You cannot possibly say that what Israel is doing is justified. You see why the Muslim world finds us to be incredibly hypocritical?
I'm not sure how we can say that our invasion of a country that had done nothing... ever... to the U.S. would be justifiable. It is the U.N.-imposed Iraqi sanctions during the 90s, our continued efforts to suppress and kill the Iraqi people, and our efforts to completely destory their infrastructure and economy that is the real terrorism going on here. That country is a complete wasteland today compared to what it was 25 years ago. The U.S. is wholly responsible for that destruction. If it was only about taking out Saddam Hussein and his party, don't you think the CIA would be capable of removing him without completely destroying the country and its people in the process? We did it in Iran, we did it in Chile, and we did it in Panama. Well, no... see... we aren't only concerned about removing Saddam and installing a new ruler. We need to have military control over the entire country so we can extract the only thing worthwhile... oil.
What kind of ties are there (directly) between Saddam Hussein, his Ba'ath party, and terrorism? Who were the terrorists? What were their names? What acts of terrorism did they partake in directly against the U.S.?
If you follow the mantra of "strike them before they strike us" then you might as well just nuke the entire Arab world, China, and North Korea to boot before any of them even think about doing something. The only reason we're able to go into places like Iraq and Afghanistan is because we no longer have an opposition capable of putting us in our place. Once the U.S.S.R. fell apart, it was a free-for-all. Welcome to 1990 and Gulf War I. Do you think that our bombings of Afghanistan and Iraq could have happened in 1985? Not a chance in the world.
If anything, our actions during the last two years since 9/11 are only going to spur on even more hatred from terrorist groups. Removing Saddam will have no effect on the big picture whatsoever. Solve the problem by pulling out of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other country we don't belong. Stop sponsoring Israel. That problem has no easy solution, other than to tell the Jews to just move somewhere else.
Do you really believe that the Gulf War was for oil and only oil? Are you going to start calling both of the wars in Iraq the "Oil Wars" now? Maybe you've forgotten, maybe you act like you've forgotten, or maybe you just didn't know in the first place but the first war in Iraq wasn't the "War for Oil". Iraq INVADED Kuwait, and while Kuwait may not have been a U.S. Ally, we stilll had an obligation to go in there and push Iraq back. You notice how we didn't stay in Iraq? How we didn't TAKE their oil fields? Well I don't blame you if you didn't, most conspiracy theorist like to ignore facts that disprove their theories.
I'd also like to point out something about the entire Pentagon theory. Maybe the plane didn't hit straight on, maybe it was tilted on its side, or maybe the wings folded up and over the body of the plane. Ever think about that? Of course the people that wrote the crap on that site didn't. They are such hippocrates if you think about it, they tell us to open our minds, to think "out of the box for a change!" but if you find anything to dissprove their theory they'll just throw it out, calling it "government propaganda" or maybe just calling you full of BS. Of course, all of that after they blindly support their opinion with false info. You can try but it's very hard to get through to these guys. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes both wars were about oil. Why do you think Iraq invaded Kuwait? It wasn't for the tiny little slice of desert and sand. If Saddam wanted more desert land, he would have gone after Saudi Arabia. It was about controlling the tremendous oil reserve under Kuwait. Think about it for a second, would you please? Kuwait has the 3rd largest oil reserve <b>in the world.</b> That would have put Saddam in control of the largest percentage of oil, when combined with Iraq. Not something the U.S. was willing to concede, especially since Kuwait was the oil cartel's biggest friend, next to Saudi Arabia.
George HW Bush, the first Gulf War leader, was not going to allow Saddam to be in control of that much oil. Doing so would have meant Saddam could influence oil prices by restricting exports, especially to the oil-hungry U.S. This would have put a serious strain on our ability to get cheap oil, and Bush knew that if Saddam were to control that much oil he was just going to become much too powerful.
If you think it wasn't about oil, please tell me why Iraqi soldiers set all of the Kuwaiti oil fields ablaze on their way out. It certainly wasn't to light up the night sky. It was a clear message. Saddam knew what he was doing, and what the prize really was... oil. If he couldn't have it, he would do his damned best to make sure we couldn't have it, either.
Now, why didn't we take their oil fields then? Because the reason for going to war was to push Saddam back. You cannot just go in and steal their oil if the objective for going to war was completed. There are a set of rules, known as the Geneva Convention, that even Bush knew he had to abide by. Now, however, the reason for going to war is completely made-up. Now we're invading with the intention of occupying and installing our own form of government. Note that this is not in response to ANYTHING that Iraq or Saddam has actually done to the U.S. This is all pre-emptive.
So, who is going to win out of all this? Why companies like Halliburton, who were awarded closed, no-bid contracts to rebuild Iraq and pump its oil. Companies like Unocal, who can now build that pipeline across Afghanistan without having to worry about the Taliban getting in their way. Convenient.
If you think the U.S. has an obligation to push back any country that invades another, please tell me why we did nothing when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980. A million people were killed during that 8-year war. What did we do? Please, tell me. Oh, don't know? Well, I'll tell you. We gave them weapons. We trained Saddam how to use chemical weapons. Donald Rumsfeld had his picture taken shaking hands with Saddam. Sound surprising? Didn't know that? Well, you probably won't have a chapter on that in your mainstream history class.
People outside the U.S. cannot believe how apathetic and misinformed the American public is. This is part of the Arab's world hatred towards us. People who have no idea what these wars were truly about. People who blindly accept what the corporations who own the media channels want you to believe.
I can provide links to establish all of this, but I have to leave now.
There was a terrorist camp (Salman Pak) being run in Iraq. A camp in which members of Al Qaeda trained as early as 8mos prior to the first bomb dropping. It consisted of three living areas, various training ranges, and the fuselage of a commercial jet. This information comes from accounts by Syrians who also trained there and were later questioned by the Syrian authority. The intel was released as a good faith measure to the US.
Several Czech reports had an upper tier planner in the 9/11 hijackings meeting with an Iraqi intelligence ministry official. Those reports were later edited to say that they did not know the topic of the meeting and then were edited again to say that they did not know the two met. It is still of course just a coincidence that the individual and the intelligence official were in the same city at the same dates on not one but three separate occasions.
And sanctions were imposed and held for so long because of failure and at times outright refusal to cooperate with post-war requirements set on Iraq by the UN. The food for oil program was supposed to mean food for oil. When you show me a person that can eat $5 billion worth of military hardware, or high grade aluminum rocket tubes then I will begin to agree that they did not receive enough aid. The problem was not money to buy food or medicine. The problem was an unwillingness to spend the money on food and medicine for any but the most favored citizens. Maybe they suck at budgeting. /shrug
As for US bashing - that's what makes democracy great, kitty. However, MonsE bashing is what makes kitty lose posting privileges if he does not get himself under control immediately.
Let's get this thing roughly on topic or it goes away, folks. I am ready to tighten up my FAQ rules enforcement. re-read them now if you haven't in a while, things are getting pretty slack here right now in some threads...
That being said I noticed something up in the stratosphere that suggested the cutting charge theory again. The video "substantiating" it is a clip of two floors collapsing in concert. To me, it looks like the weight of the top half of the building shifting and crushing the floors below that are now forced to hold it entirely. To set cutting charges correctly a few things have to happen:
1) They have to be set up with proper timing to bring a building down, and this is usually a combination of bottom-up and top-down charges. To work as an implosion several of these bursts have to happen across the vertical length of the building. Must be more than two, and must be closer together.
2) You have to rip the heck out of the building's insides. The structural members are usually hidden by layers of pipe, wiring, dry wall, and metal fixtures for the frames. Then they are usually layered in concrete towards the bottom. That all has to be removed to get at the steel beams and get a good cut. Concrete will cause the explosion to spread out because it is much weaker than steel with respect to explosions. To get around that you must either strip it, or use a much much larger charge.
3) Large cutting charges make noise. A lot of noise. They also tend to break a lot of glass around them and send out large gouts of flame. This is not evident in the videos I've seen, and is not evident in the audio.
4) A set up like this takes days. Months if you have to do it in such a way as not to alert the people working there. However I don't think it's even possible.
5) Setting up an implosion on a building that is not stripped is almost a mathematical impossibility.
So several things would have to happen....
1) No one notices that workers are chopping out sections of wall and planting large charges there.
2) No one notices the huge jumble of wires to the timing boxes that make the whole thing work.
3) No one on the ground notices huge booms in a sequence.
4) No one sees the charges burst up the length of the building.
5) No one responsible for set up, planning, and initiation blabs to the press.
6) No evidence of explosive residue is found in the rubble or the area around it.
7) The firefighters using sniffers do not detect fumes from detonated explosives.
8) Bomb dogs do not detect fumes from detonated explosives.
9) No evidence of beams being cut by shaped charges is found.
10) None of the planning in any of the above goes the least bit wrong.
Now, others have suggested a kinetic energy weapon was used. That is just ridiculous. People would definately have noticed that.
<!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> Sorry, my post was a little bit on the flamey side. Just get so frustrated with all of the conspiracy theorists. It's nice to have SOME in the world but when there are soooo many it gets really annoying.
Eviscerator, your point is valid in some ways. Iraq not only invaded Kuwait for the oil they have, but also for the riches in the country. Most people don't realise it but Kuwait is one of the most wealthy countires in the world. In fact, I think, per capita, its citizens are the most wealthy in the world, though I could be wrong. Lots of gold and jewels in that country and alot is from oil. Also Iraq has a VERY small coastline on the Persian Gulf, one of the most important water ways in the world. Top on the list of reasons for invading Kuwait was to seize it's ports and to gain control over that part of the Gulf. You could stretch this even further and say that he wanted to use to send oil out in massive amounts which would also be true.
The reason I don't think it's an "Oil War" is because, unlike opperation Iraq Freedom, oil wasn't one of the top concerns for the U.S. to invade Iraq, and free Kuwait from Iraqi rule. Not to say that it didn't play a role in getting the cololition (sp?) to come in but it wasn't THE top reason for it.
Eviscator, I believe Osama made his money in real esate? Or was it oil? Sorry, I'm just curious./
Well, conveniently, the WTC complex had a new 99-year lease signed just 7 weeks prior to 9/11. Is 7 weeks enough time to install your own security, plant the explosives required, and rig the wiring?
"Ironically, never before 9/11/01 in history has a steel building even partially collapsed from a fire. Neither has any since." - <a href='http://globalresearch.ca/articles/LOU308A.html' target='_blank'>WTC-7: The Improbable Collapse</a>
I don't know how (or really, if) explosives were planted, so my replies below are purely speculation. I'm not an insider and I have no knowledge of what really occurred.
<b>1) No one notices that workers are chopping out sections of wall and planting large charges there.</b>
It could have been done at night.
<b>2) No one notices the huge jumble of wires to the timing boxes that make the whole thing work.</b>
Who, other than the maintenance staff, knows what is happening with the internals of a building? Since the twin towers just recently changed hands prior to 9/11, is it feasible the maintenance staff was aware of what was going on?
<b>3) No one on the ground notices huge booms in a sequence.</b>
People on the ground DID notice explosions in a sequence. <a href='http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/veliz-bombs.htm' target='_blank'>9/11 Survivor Describes Multiple Explosions</a>.
"...people reported hearing multiple EXPLOSIONS before the WTC collapsed. I have video of people who were interviewed after the collapses and they said they heard a series of explosions (not floors collapsing) and then the buildings came down." <a href='http://www.stormtronic.co.uk/9-11/unanswered.htm' target='_blank'>WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK - UNANSWERED QUESTIONS</a>
<b>4) No one sees the charges burst up the length of the building.</b>
See above, and the video sequences from the link in the very first post of this topic.
<b>5) No one responsible for set up, planning, and initiation blabs to the press.</b>
Even if they had, the press is most likely under the watchful eye of those involved. CNN was pressured during this latest Iraq war to only show images favorable to the U.S. The Carlyle Group, owners of many media corporations, has tremendous influence over what gets aired... and what does not.
<b>6) No evidence of explosive residue is found in the rubble or the area around it.</b>
All of the wreckage was very quickly removed to foreign scrap companies. No real investigation into what had happened was ever allowed, since the official explanation was all that the public cared for. We probably will never know for sure. No evidence was found because no one was looking for it...
<b>7) The firefighters using sniffers do not detect fumes from detonated explosives.</b>
Like 6, they were not at all concerned with explosives.
<b>8) Bomb dogs do not detect fumes from detonated explosives.
[b]9) No evidence of beams being cut by shaped charges is found.</b>
See #6
<b>10) None of the planning in any of the above goes the least bit wrong.</b>
The South Tower fell before the North Tower. That was a mistake. The North Tower was struck first, and had a much more intense and longer-lasting fire, since more of the jet fuel was burning in the North Tower as compared to the South. Since I don't know what their real plan was, perhaps they intended to strike the South Tower first.
Here's an excerpt from the link in #3 I gave above:
"I discussed this with a structural engineer who investigated a HOTEL in Los Angeles that he said was 30 stories and it burned from the ground floor up. It burned for nearly a week. The fire totally destroyed everything on all 30 floors. The estimated temperatures were 2200 degrees because of the natural gas and other fuel that was the catalyst for the fire.
"The concrete and infrastructure did not budge. It cost more than a million dollars to TEAR IT DOWN. The 30 floors above the first floor did NOT cave in on the first floor when the support structure go hot. And he reviewed the architecture on the WTC and said the type of steel and the type of construction for the WTC was double the strength of the LA hotel."
The best line was the following: "My take? Americans are not very bright. Americans don't think. They accept what they are told. They don't TEST what they are told."
Eviscator, I believe Osama made his money in real esate? Or was it oil? Sorry, I'm just curious./ <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I read at some point it was oil, but after some further investigation tonight apparently it is from construction contracts with the Saudi royal family.
<a href='http://www.theworldjournal.com/2002/osamabusiness.htm' target='_blank'>Bin Laden Group Takes Care of Business</a>
Osama himself has a Civil Engineering background. How much of the money he actively controls and how much he has acquired since being disowned from the family is pure speculation.
This man knows what he is talking about.
OK, folks, I'm getting a little aggrevated, so here's the deal: The next person making snide comments about another persons opinion (I'm looking at the 'tinfoil cap' - fraction here) can kiss these forums goodbye. Believe it or not, but you can actually <i>not</i> post in every god damn thread, so if the topic has no significance to you, just keep your piehole shut.
<span style='color:red'>***Locked.***</span>