|
Post by who won on Mar 15, 2003 20:43:31 GMT -5
as for the pipeline through Afganistan, I am no expert in this field but decided to look up a few counter arguments to some of the nonsense I have seen written here. read this article, www.prospect.org/print/V13/14/silverstein-k.html, its rather long, but basically, proves how ridiculous the idea is that the US would engineer this huge destruction of its own country in order to build an uneccasry pipleine through Afganistan when in fact the US state gave little backing to Unacols original plans and actually preferred BP's plan for a different pileline route. As for who would benefit? not the US, the pipeline would serve eastern Europe. As for it all being about oil, the pileine would carry gas, not oil, the Iraq tie in weakens somewhat. For those who are interested, its there, not that it proves anything, but an interesting overall argument that some in this site could do well to read.
|
|
|
Post by JWK on Mar 17, 2003 3:42:58 GMT -5
First of all, this thread seems to be getting a little scrappy. Maybe things have gotten a little off-track, and gotten a little more personal then was initially intended in this thread. Personally i believe the conspiracy theory just a little too spurious to be entirely credible, although there have been some interesting angles and viewpoints explored. I have seen some photos of plane crashes before, and in some the debris was spread all over, in others there seemed to be little else but a bareley recognisable lumps of scrap at the end of a small trail of scuffed ground. All i say is speculatory, as i cannot give solid evidence either way but often impacts are not so typical as they should be. Maybe it was that the plane was banking late and indeed came in at an angle and impacted at the base, hence the small amount of structural damage, or maybe it was a missile.. I don't know, as none of us can claim to beyond reasonable doubt but i would say that it would seem foolish to use a missile against the third target after allready going to the extent of crashing two legitimate planes into the WTC. If it indeed was a conspiracy of such gigantic proportions as is being suggested then why stop short of going the whole hog? The theory does not seem to make logical sence, and yet the physical evidence does not seem to indicate that a plane was involved. The impact area being largely intact after the initial explosion? Maybe we should give credit to the buildings architects and engineers? I think i will sit on the fence for this one, as it all just seems a little too speculatory(which dosent mean a dont believe that it was a missle, just that the likelyhood is dubious)... I dunno, go figure Anyhow, on a monday night after a great weekend: Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Mar 17, 2003 4:10:18 GMT -5
Who Won; As any good lawyer knows, if you pay them enough, you can get an "Expert" to say whatever you want. About the Photos, these must come as something of a shock to the FBI, who, according to Rumsfeld, had taken over the pentagon site and "secured the area" within hours of the explosion on 9-11. Strange also, that with all these picture/documents going around, the US government still refuses to release even the slightest piece of information about either the WTC or the pentagon?
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Mar 17, 2003 4:21:04 GMT -5
Wise words JWK....
I don't want to add any more fuel to the fire either, but just add that I think it can be healthy to indeed question things that seem a bit unusual. I don't like to necessarily accept what government sources tells as being the whole truth and nothing but the truth. On far to many occasions we have been lied to, been deceived and otherwise fooled by our "leaders". Whatever their reasons may be, I like to form my own opinion.
I guess my current position has changed a bit from that awful day back in September 2001. At the time, standing in front of the TV and seeing the mayhem develope on live television, I was emotionally shook up enough to take anything at facevalue. Now with hind sight, and more time to actually analyze what really did happen that day, look at the evidence produced etc., it seems to me that it was perhaps not as crytal clear as I first thought.
Again, as I mentioned in an earlier post, certainly the Philly crash was a bit strange, but I would be willing to accept it being taken out by the airforce in order to avoid considerably more destruction and death. That the authorities do not wish to make this public knowledge I can also understand, and Pabs I thank you for more or less confirming what I thought.
All in all, it has been a very interesting exercise to look at all the various evidence provided through the various links, but at the end of the day, I'm not really any wiser than I was before.
CFF, you say shame on us for doubting the "truth" presented by the media and the authorities. I do not agree with you on this as my questioning the events is in no way a disrespect for the people that were involved.
P.S. One last little note before I close this post. On one of the "evidence" sites there was an eye-witness account that I think perfectly shows how one can really question the validity of such eye-witnesses. It was said basically that the person saw the plane travelling at a high speed towards the Pentagon, but that it was travelling so fast that he was unable to read the name of the airline on the fuselage. However, a bit later in the account, the witnessed said that there were not many people in the plane, probably twelve passengers only! So, he can't read the name of the airline, but he can see that there were twelve passengers in the plane! Need I say more?
|
|
|
Post by JWK on Mar 17, 2003 4:33:38 GMT -5
Good point henrik- eyewitness accounts cannot be taken as legitimate evidence, as stories will change after realisation of events set in and perceptions of witnessed events will warp under the influence of overwhelming emotion.
|
|
|
Post by Topcontender on Mar 17, 2003 11:35:11 GMT -5
wanna lock the thread?
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Mar 17, 2003 11:59:42 GMT -5
TC,
I'm considering locking the thread, but seeing how war is starting tonight, I think focus will swithc to other threads by itself.
It's time to worry about terrorist actions in the capitals across the world.....
Pity......
|
|
|
Post by pabs on Mar 17, 2003 12:07:10 GMT -5
I think it's healthy to question events. Hell that's the whole premise behind scientific work: that's the only way you can get to the truth...and for that reason I don't think this thread should be locked.
|
|
|
Post by daSilva on Mar 17, 2003 12:12:11 GMT -5
I'm with pabs, I don't think this thread has gotten nasty or out of hand. I would like to ask some of our guests to join our forum and sign up.
|
|
|
Post by CFF on Mar 17, 2003 21:14:21 GMT -5
Yeah ... don't lock the thread .... . I think it's fair to debate things too. [sarcasm on]For instance ... I'm really looking forward to the upcoming "War", since it really is going to be fought (shot) from a film studio in Hollywood someplace. That will make me laff when I see depictions of human remains .... . Cuz as MOST of you know ... you can't believe what the news tells you ... or your eyes tell you, or even what eye-witnesses may tell you. It's all a conspiracy. When they (the aforementioned) tell you their friends / loved ones have been killed - laugh at them ... and assure them it's all a conspiracy. When they tell you your loved ones / friends have been killed, find comfort in the fact ... it's all just a conspiracy [/sarcasm off] CFF
|
|
|
Post by daSilva on Mar 17, 2003 22:06:24 GMT -5
LOL@CFF, Yeah but if we don't let the paranoid schizo's talk, then we won't know who the really whacked out members are! ;D The men in white coats are waiting.
|
|
|
Post by Henrik on Mar 18, 2003 2:27:03 GMT -5
Even with sarcasm on, I don't find that amusing in the least. You say with sarcasm "I think it's fair to debate things too", and so I assume you are really implying that one should not be able to debate things. No?
But hey, it's everybodies choice to believe what they want.
I don't believe for one second that Bush and his buddies are some nice saintly do-gooders what will be cleaning the planet just for the good of the people.
Oh, and CFF, no offense, but seeing that you believe whole-heartedly everything that the US media publishes, are you still convinced that the anthrax envelopes where also sent by bin Laden?
|
|
|
Post by Danny Boy on Mar 18, 2003 3:34:04 GMT -5
Henrik; You are wrong, since taking CFF's advice I have got all my news from the Washington Post and Fox News. They are right, bring it on, god is on our side, Sharon is a man of peace, George Bush should get the Nobel Peace Prize, Sadam is even now loading his 28,000 long range missiles with 2,000 tons of biological chemicals he will then launch them against israel and the american troops on the Kuwait border. Hallelujah, I have seen the light. Death and destruction to all the enemies of "FREEDOM'
|
|
|
Post by CFF on Mar 18, 2003 9:23:03 GMT -5
C'mon guys .... . We're having a debate ... and I'm calling a spade a spade. Consider ... (and I'm not going to go and check the time line ... this is all off the top of my head) that the plane that hit the Pentagon did so within an hour of the WTC event. There was radar tracking of the flight from the time it departed it's original destination to the time it crashed. *shrug* It happened. To suggest that somehow it never did is just plain silly (IMO). Do I believe EVERYTHING that's published in the media (US or otherwise)? Well ... I don't live in the US ... and so I'm not inundated with just American propoganda (as it would appear you're suggesting Henrik). I try to balance my opinions, based on everything I can learn, from whatever sources I can. For instance - I don't believe that TWA Flight 800 crashed off NYC because of an exploding fuel tank. There are certain events in the world that I have lived thru, and do have an opinion on. One of those was Sept 11/01. It struck me as absurd that any sane and rational person would go so far as to suggest that an AA 757 didn't strike the Pentagon (killing all aboard and many on the ground), and I also find it insulting to men & women of flight 93 to suggest that they were shot down as opposed to overcoming the hijackers, resulting in the loss of the plane in Stoney Creek Penn (not Philidelphia). Just my opinion though. If you want to take the opinion that things happened some other way, just because some web-page suggested it, by all means. To each his own. And I apologize for the tone I took yesterday ..... I think I got the point across: we see things very differently. quoting Henrik ....Oh, and CFF, no offense, but seeing that you believe whole-heartedly everything that the US media publishes, are you still convinced that the anthrax envelopes where also sent by bin Laden?Thats rich Henrik !!! To tell you the truth .... I've NEVER been under the impression that anyone suggested bin Laden sent anthrax laced envelopes. And while I have access to US media .... it was never "suggested" that happened. *Grin* -- you've brought up a good point .... if that's the impression YOU were under, perhaps the US based media YOU'RE reading isn't the same as the US based media I'm reading?? So ..... Cheers CFF
|
|
|
Post by daSilva on Mar 18, 2003 9:56:00 GMT -5
I'll admit I'm wrong if proven wrong. The problem with paranoid schizophrenics is that they will just find another excuse for the truth since they don't want to believe the truth because that would legitimise everything they hate or fear. Will you admit you're wrong?
|
|