View Full Version : blair
what do you say
Didn't he do well. Answered all the questions well. Did a good job with mass murderer Saddam and we can all sleep safer in out beds.
northener
29-Jan-10, 17:52
what do you say
I say he's answered the questions, Sharona.
Any chance of you doing the same regarding your parking thread?;):Razz:Razz
tonkatojo
29-Jan-10, 17:58
Didn't he do well. Answered all the questions well. Did a good job with mass murderer Saddam and we can all sleep safer in out beds.
Got to agree he answered OK and at this time of posting still is.
He should be tried for murder. He took is into a 'war on terror' on the back of no evidence of the existence WMD's, fed us lies and illegally removed Saddam from power, (regardless of how much a tyrant he was), and is complicit in the death of Dr. David Kelly. All this was done while sucking up to Bush jr., who's real goal was access to the oil in Iraq and Afghanistan.
tonkatojo
29-Jan-10, 18:04
He should be tried for murder. He took is into a 'war on terror' on the back of no evidence of the existence WMD's, fed us lies and illegally removed Saddam from power, (regardless of how much a tyrant he was), and is complicit in the death of Dr. David Kelly. All this was done while sucking up to Bush jr., who's real goal was access to the oil in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This isn't what I have been/am listening to. :( I don't think there is oil in Afghanistan either.
fed us lies
He's a politician, what else did you expect.
And what do we really expect from this enquiry?
The guy is a good orator, this is a walk in the park for him.
This isn't what I have been/am listening to. :( I don't think there is oil in Afghanistan either.
He's answering questions in the Chilcott Inquiry qhich is looking at Britain's involvement in the invasion of Iraq.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. Bush wanted to lay a pipeline from the Caspian Sea across Afghanistan and could only do that with a pro-America government installed, hence the reason for invading Afghanistan.
He's a politician, what else did you expect.
And what do we really expect from this enquiry?
The guy is a good orator, this is a walk in the park for him.
I don't expect anything from this enquiry, just like every other inquiry that's involved Blair, he'll never admit he was wrong.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. Bush wanted to lay a pipeline from the Caspian Sea across Afghanistan and could only do that with a pro-America government installed, hence the reason for invading Afghanistan.
There was another reason, joxville; the international trade in opium/heroin was almost completely destroyed by the government of Afghanistan. Those that fund the US and UK "governments" make a very large amount of money out of Afghan opium poppies. Now, lo and behold, the production is "back to normal."
I think he answered the questions fairly well. The impression I got of the whole thing is that he genuinely believes that the decision he made was the correct one, and for this he has my respect - it would have been easy for him to come out and just be hyper-apologetic. And I'm sorry Jox, but I find the "tried for murder" comment to be ridiculous. The same goes for the Hague comment.
roadbowler
29-Jan-10, 20:01
Sorry, I should have been more specific. Bush wanted to lay a pipeline from the Caspian Sea across Afghanistan and could only do that with a pro-America government installed, hence the reason for invading Afghanistan.
jox, I completely agree with your first post. You forgot to mention that Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's chosen one used to be a consultant for an oil company. Unocal. Strange that.:roll:
there was nothin out there,, just like the rest of them to take money from the tax payers they r not intersted in this contry
I think he conducted himself well.
The impression I got of the whole thing is that he genuinely believes that the decision he made was the correct one
"Once you've convinced yourself......."
C'mon Alan, wake up!
A Lawyer & Politician, of course he's going to give you the impression he's genuine.
He had is arm shoved up his back by the US and he's not going to admit that now is he.
I think he answered the questions fairly well. The impression I got of the whole thing is that he genuinely believes that the decision he made was the correct one, and for this he has my respect - it would have been easy for him to come out and just be hyper-apologetic. And I'm sorry Jox, but I find the "tried for murder" comment to be ridiculous. The same goes for the Hague comment.
He's a sociopath, what do you expect? He has no compassion for those who have suffered as a result of his warmongering, he made that clear today.
There are only three legal reasons to go to war, in self defence if someone attacks you, for humanitarian reasons to protect part of the population of a country or if you have a UN resolution specifically authorising the war.
From what I gathered from Blair's testimony today none of these reasons applied, therefore we broke the law and if we are a civilised country then we should put Blair on trial for the offence.
He had is arm shoved up his back by the US and he's not going to admit that now is he.
"Birds of a feather flock together!"
I don't expect anything from this enquiry, just like every other inquiry that's involved Blair, he'll never admit he was wrong.
Sir John Chilcot, he was a member of the Butler Inquiry which whitewashed the evidence of Iraqi WMDs. He's not going to be too keen to contradict those findings.
Sir Roderick Lyne, he was our Ambassador in Russia in 2003, it was his job to sell the lies to the Russians, he'd be finding himself guilty.
Sir Lawrence Freedman, here's what he said to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution on 18 January 2006:
"Iraq was a very unusual situation where it was not an ongoing conflict. If we had waited things would not have been that much different in two or three months' time and so, instead of responding either to aggression by somebody else, as with the Falklands, or to developing humanitarian distress, as in the Balkans, we decided that security considerations for the future demanded immediate action."
He's already decided it's permissible to break international law if it suits you and based on what you say might happen in the future.
Martin Gilbert, he sees Blair as another Churchill
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comme...379819,00.html
Out of five panel members three were pro war and none spoke against the war.
They'll find a scapegoat to heap the blame on.
From what I gathered from Blair's testimony today none of these reasons applied, therefore we broke the law and if we are a civilised country then we should put Blair on trial for the offence.
I think that this country is obliged to do so, under international conventions that we are signed up to.
From one of the BBC video clips, Blair seems to need an awful lot of bodyguards. Still, with all that blood money flowing about, their salaries should not be a problem.
jox, I completely agree with your first post. You forgot to mention that Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's chosen one used to be a consultant for an oil company. Unocal. Strange that.:roll:
If I recall correctly, there was also a Chief in one of the American Military Services who was a former Unocal chairman, I'll need to look that up. Also, I'm sure there was a programme on BBC revealing there was meeting in the late 90's between the Taliban, Bush, when he was Governor of Texas and Unocal to discuss building the pipeline. Enron carried out a feasibilty study and Haliburton would lay the pipeline. Enron was a major contributor to the Bush campaign when he ran for Governor and again for the Presidency. The Chairman of Haliburton at the time of the meeting was Dick Cheney, who became Bush's Vice-President.
Rampant Rabbit
29-Jan-10, 21:20
May be shes been clamped by the mods northerer
Boozeburglar
29-Jan-10, 21:27
I think he answered the questions fairly well. The impression I got of the whole thing is that he genuinely believes that the decision he made was the correct one, and for this he has my respect - it would have been easy for him to come out and just be hyper-apologetic. And I'm sorry Jox, but I find the "tried for murder" comment to be ridiculous. The same goes for the Hague comment.
Just about sums up my thoughts, thanks!
:)
He should be tried for murder.
The decision to invade Iraq was debated in UK Parliament and a majority approved. Now, however much I disagree with the decision, and leaving aside its legality in international law, that represents a reasonably democratic process that legitimises the decision in a UK context.
The real question is whether the information presented to Parliament, and upon which MPs made their judgement, was knowingly misleading or flawed at the time. If the inquiry detects dishonesty or manipulation in the presentation of that information, the individual or individuals responsible should be punished.
The subsequent strategy adopted by the UK and its consequences can be debated till the cows come home. But the culpability question is rooted in the collective responsibility of Cabinet and the evidence they presented to obtain a mandate from Parliament.
Weapons of mass destruction was as much of lie then as it is now - although some numpites here believed it.
He is a politician and a lawyer, not being questioned by lawyers. We will keep up with his twisted lies and the world will go on except for those soldiers he sent to their deaths over oil.
Boozeburglar
29-Jan-10, 23:00
To be fair, there was an atmosphere of horror and trepidation after 9/11 and those ideas about WMD played on that.
He did not have to do much magic to conjure up those scenarios.
Then are we as a nation not complicit in allowing ourselves to be so easily led?
Yes, I mean the UK as a nation!
:)
To be fair, there was an atmosphere of horror and trepidation after 9/11 and those ideas about WMD played on that.
He did not have to do much magic to conjure up those scenarios.
Then are we as a nation not complicit in allowing ourselves to be so easily led?
Yes, I mean the UK as a nation!
:)
I agree it was easy for politicians to manipulate things. My recollection was there were a lot of people at the time saying no but the politicians went ahead anyway.
But the culpability question is rooted in the collective responsibility of Cabinet and the evidence they presented to obtain a mandate from Parliament.
This, in my view, is key. I do not accept that the absolute and balanced facts were presented.
We will keep up with his twisted lies and the world will go on except for those soldiers he sent to their deaths over oil.
Here is the appalling consequence for the UK.This man is a devout Christian and I'm sure in his mind he's telling himself it is Gods will and their sacrifice is for the greater good etc. And this will allow him his edge of genuineness.
Then are we as a nation not complicit in allowing ourselves to be so easily led?
I seem to remember it being close to 50/50 in opinion polls, I may be wrong, but that is not what I would accept as being an easily led nation.
The decision to invade Iraq was debated in UK Parliament and a majority approved. Now, however much I disagree with the decision, and leaving aside its legality in international law, that represents a reasonably democratic process that legitimises the decision in a UK context.
The real question is whether the information presented to Parliament, and upon which MPs made their judgement, was knowingly misleading or flawed at the time. If the inquiry detects dishonesty or manipulation in the presentation of that information, the individual or individuals responsible should be punished.
The subsequent strategy adopted by the UK and its consequences can be debated till the cows come home. But the culpability question is rooted in the collective responsibility of Cabinet and the evidence they presented to obtain a mandate from Parliament.
I don't think we can leave aside the legality in international law, Parliament was lead to believe that the war would be legal, they were not told that the Foreign Office legal experts had said that the war would not be legal.
Blair lied again today when he said "You would be hard pressed to find anyone who in September 2002 doubted that Saddam had WMD", according to Craig Murray (http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/), who was Britain's ambassador to Uzbekistan at the time, there were no shortage of people in the Foreign Office and security services doubting it. Yet it was presented to Parliament as fact, Blair even itemised and gave the amounts of the chemicals and nerve agents we knew for a fact he had.
Had Parliament been told there was doubt both to the existence of WMD and to the legality, which there is no doubt there was, I think the vote would have gone differently.
what do you say
I don't think there were any surprises in Blair's testimony (unless that he pretty much denied what he said in the Fern interview).
What will be interesting is Browns pitch. Will he stick with his decisions to back Blair or will he try and wriggle out?
Its obvious after 9/11 that GW had to go to war with someone and that in his circumstances it was legal. What is still in question is: was Britain dragged in to add legitimacy or was there a separate, legal need for the UK, for instance, as a matter of self-defence?
I don't know :(
Green_not_greed
30-Jan-10, 00:33
What is still in question is: was Britain dragged in to add legitimacy or was there a separate, legal need for the UK, for instance, as a matter of self-defence? :(
Self defence from Iraq? For the UK? I don't remember Iqaqui forces threatening to invade us or even the country being a hotbed for UK-destined terrorists.
I fully believe that (a) Blair dragged in the UK to help the US look legitimate in their invasion, and (b) Blair dragged in the UK to up his own profile amongst world leaders. It was IMO more for Blair's ego and image - and his cronies - than for the UK.
I feel with this situation like some miscarriages of justice, the right thing was done the wrong way.
Saddam had to go and mainly on humanitarian grounds, he did some sabre rattling but I do not think he was ever a serious threat to world security or stability. As for Middle Eastern stability that is never going to be reconciled as long as Israel exists as it does now.
If the UK was genuinely concerned for humanity why are we still saying "strong words" about Mugabe?
On a somewhat contradictory note I believe we should have just given some special forces mercenaries a brown envelope full of McGarretts and had Saddam potted and then let them sort themselves out whilst doing a bit of funding in the background. Job done, saved UK soldiers lives and £billions.
Self defence from Iraq? For the UK? I don't remember Iqaqui forces threatening to invade us or even the country being a hotbed for UK-destined terrorists.
I fully believe that (a) Blair dragged in the UK to help the US look legitimate in their invasion, and (b) Blair dragged in the UK to up his own profile amongst world leaders. It was IMO more for Blair's ego and image - and his cronies - than for the UK.
That's why I said "what is still in question" Chilcot is supposed provide the answers!
Green_not_greed
30-Jan-10, 00:40
If the UK was genuinely concerned for humanity why are we still saying "strong words" about Mugabe?
Quite! I completely agree.
And if was only Saddam Hussein why didn't the CIA take him out like they have so many others?
I agree it was easy for politicians to manipulate things. My recollection was there were a lot of people at the time saying no but the politicians went ahead anyway.
Blair made numerous false claims in the run-up to the illegal invasion of Iraq. He admitted that he would have invaded Iraq without evidence of weapons of mass destruction. His LIES resulted in large numbers of innocent people being killed under false pretences. This is abhorrent and EVIL.
Boozeburglar
30-Jan-10, 00:56
Mmmmhhhh.
Parliament went with him.
Had they not, maybe we could be looking at pinning it on him.
Mmmmhhhh.
Parliament went with him.
Had they not, maybe we could be looking at pinning it on him.
Unless it can be shown that Parliament was misled!
They were probably too busy filling out their expenses forms to take any bloody notice!
Quite! I completely agree.
And if was only Saddam Hussein why didn't the CIA take him out like they have so many others?
And if the big concern is the legality of war, why are you advocating assassination of a head of state? You can't have it both ways.
Boozeburglar
30-Jan-10, 01:07
Because it would have been the best way to deal with the situation? That is the opinion of many I know, including a member of my family who was part of the regime!
roadbowler
30-Jan-10, 01:50
fred, i too would like to think that the vote might have gone differently, however, i do wonder about such events as operation swift sword II happening just before 9/11. Something stinks. Ducati, how did america have grounds for war on iraq after 9\11? Iraq had nothing to do with 9\11, did they? Did afghanistan? Boozeburgler, yes, i agree, complicit, if you voted and have blind faith in the government to pursue your ambitions and aspirations on your behalf because we live in a 'democracy' and continue to do so. I read the commentary of blairs charade today, grinding his well developed organ of gregariousness, smiling when he should be frowning and frowning when he should be smiling. Inquiry will be a whitewash. We will be none the wiser when it's through. Tho, if anything does come out of it that the public see as horrifyingly unjust what will we do about it?
I watched the Blair questions today and was shocked by his appearance when he first arrived he was obviously very worried.He then proceeded to answer questions with questions and avoid the issue as he always did when in office.
His assurances that he searched his soul does not wear with me, he is a self deluded egotist.
His lack of apology for the mess that followed and the lives that were lost rankles deaply.
He split the nation down the middle and no enquiry will ever exonerate him and his misguided beliefs.
Rant over.
roadbowler
30-Jan-10, 03:10
lizz, well articulated rant at that! ;-)
cullbucket
30-Jan-10, 08:59
This still annoys the hell out of me years later.
I still find it hard to believe that such a brazen attempt was made to pull the wool over the public's eyes to justify the war using WMD, 40 mins etc, when it was patently obvious that this was just spin and maneuvering to justify a course of action that had already been decided long ago. Never mind the legality or morality, because international law does not apply to the US and if we are with them, it will not apply to us either.
The politicians must think the general public is really dumb....
I am also sure that Blair fully believes what he is saying, he has brainwashed himself to believe that he is and was right, even though the revelations over time have shown this to be untrue.
The other thing that amazes me is the focusing on the western casualty numbers (UK deaths in Iraq are 179 to date) whereas Hundreds of Thousands of Iraquis have died, but somehow their deaths are less valid or important, because they're foreign....
Lets face it saddam didnt do himself any favours in trying to stop the war the only gripe i have about it is they should have invaded iraq in the early 90s when iraqi attacked kuwait and all the troops was there.
Imagine if sadam did get hold of a nuclear bomb he would press the button.
Imagine what it must be like to be a prime minister and to make that decision to go to war and knowingly no that there would be a high risk of casualtys and soldiers getting killed or severly disabled for life for making that decision which you as a prime minister believes is the right thing to do at the that point in time we can all look back now and judge things but its whole lot different if we was put in that position back then to make that call
Lets face it saddam didnt do himself any favours in trying to stop the war the only gripe i have about it is they should have invaded iraq in the early 90s when iraqi attacked kuwait and all the troops was there.
Imagine if sadam did get hold of a nuclear bomb he would press the button.
No he wouldn't.
America has enough nuclear weapons to blow up the entire world if they want to, Israel has more nuclear weapons than Britain. Any country using a nuclear weapon without their permission would be committing suicide on a huge scale.
A nuclear weapon is only of any use in defence unless you have enough to wipe out the nuclear capabilities of other nuclear countries before they get chance to use them. They are a deterrent, nothing more, a last resort.
No he wouldn't.
America has enough nuclear weapons to blow up the entire world if they want to, Israel has more nuclear weapons than Britain. Any country using a nuclear weapon without their permission would be committing suicide on a huge scale.
A nuclear weapon is only of any use in defence unless you have enough to wipe out the nuclear capabilities of other nuclear countries before they get chance to use them. They are a deterrent, nothing more, a last resort.
If saddam ordered chemical ally to kill thousands of there own people by chemical warfare what else is he capable off.
Nuclear weapons is more of a deffence tactic for countrys that are sensible.U give a nuclear weapon to some of these people in the middle east that are quite happy to use themselves as bombs there will be nuclear war.
Now all this was back then now look at 2010 now its iran thats taunting the world with its ambition for nuclear weapons and power stations and breaking all the international laws i reckon iran is the next country to get attacked if they dont mend there ways
Tom Cornwall
30-Jan-10, 12:10
the UK has had a few enquiries about the Iraq war, but I don't see anybody asking the question...if it was illegal, why has no country been indicted, ....also has there been one enquiry in the US about George W's role in invading Iraq? I doubt it...the war has happened, time can't be turned back...
No he wouldn't.
America has enough nuclear weapons to blow up the entire world if they want to, Israel has more nuclear weapons than Britain. Any country using a nuclear weapon without their permission would be committing suicide on a huge scale.
A nuclear weapon is only of any use in defence unless you have enough to wipe out the nuclear capabilities of other nuclear countries before they get chance to use them. They are a deterrent, nothing more, a last resort.
The world has changed, we see people committing suicide (sometimes on a large scale) every day for the cause.
There are umpteen states and groups actively pursuing nuclear weapons with the expressed intention of using them, immediately, on us primarily.
It's only a matter of time folks
Weapons of mass destruction was as much of lie then as it is now - although some numpites here believed it.
Now now Tristan. Do try to be a bit more respectful towards those of us who may have a different opinion than you. :~(
It would be a waste of time trying to defend the actions of Western leaders on this thread because there is no argument against the phantasies of so many respected orgers.
Good to see you back Fred. Still as abstract as ever too. Theres plenty of it on the org. Welcome back. You belong here. ;)
I wondered, if nuclear weapons are purely defensive do you think it would be an idea if some of those extremist religious types our troops are fighting in Afghanastan and Iraq were allowed to develop them too. Then they could just wiggle their ears at each other and the religious types could go home and beat their wives or go to a stoning in the town square or kick a poof to death or even censor the internet and anyone who calls their leaders bad names could be hung by the necks until they were dead.
There were surely be a few hangings on the org if that was the case. :eek:
I believe in the war on terror and although Iraq was a different kettle of fish, as Tony Blair said we are now in 2010 and whether Iraq had been invaded or not the problem of extremist religious groups was not going to go away. September 11 changed all that.
These people hate us and our way of life. Its just sad to see that our own people are hating us too although they may change their minds very quickly if the oil they accuse the Americans of chasing was suddenly denied them when they did their weekly shopping in Tescos or if your luucky Asda. Mind you it wouldnt take long for that weekly shopping to be under threat too if those extermist types were allowed to wander the globe willy nilly.
Now now Tristan. Do try to be a bit more respectful towards those of us who may have a different opinion than you. :~(
It would be a waste of time trying to defend the actions of Western leaders on this thread because there is no argument against the phantasies of so many respected orgers.
Good to see you back Fred. Still as abstract as ever too. Theres plenty of it on the org. Welcome back. You belong here. ;)
I wondered, if nuclear weapons are purely defensive do you think it would be an idea if some of those extremist religious types our troops are fighting in Afghanastan and Iraq were allowed to develop them too. Then they could just wiggle their ears at each other and the religious types could go home and beat their wives or go to a stoning in the town square or kick a poof to death or even censor the internet and anyone who calls their leaders bad names could be hung by the necks until they were dead.
There were surely be a few hangings on the org if that was the case. :eek:
I believe in the war on terror and although Iraq was a different kettle of fish, as Tony Blair said we are now in 2010 and whether Iraq had been invaded or not the problem of extremist religious groups was not going to go away. September 11 changed all that.
These people hate us and our way of life. Its just sad to see that our own people are hating us too although they may change their minds very quickly if the oil they accuse the Americans of chasing was suddenly denied them when they did their weekly shopping in Tescos or if your luucky Asda. Mind you it wouldnt take long for that weekly shopping to be under threat too if those extermist types were allowed to wander the globe willy nilly.
Fair comment, but do you not think the reason they may hate us is because the infidel are currently on their territory, killing their people and trying to impose our western ways on them whilst raping them for their oil.
I think I'd be a tad upset too.
And the US want that oil to do us a favour in the UK? I think not.
Ok, they may be wifebeating, queerbashing, capital punishment supporting types but taking them by force in a possibly illegal move isn't really the moral high ground is it.
the UK has had a few enquiries about the Iraq war, but I don't see anybody asking the question...if it was illegal, why has no country been indicted, ....also has there been one enquiry in the US about George W's role in invading Iraq? I doubt it...the war has happened, time can't be turned back...
Are you suggesting Tom that this enquiry serves no purpose because you can't turn back the clock? If leaders aren't answerable to the nation for their actions then they are no better than the dictators they strive to eliminate.
Fair comment, but do you not think the reason they may hate us is because the infidel are currently on their territory, killing their people and trying to impose our western ways on them whilst raping them for their oil.
I think I'd be a tad upset too.
And the US want that oil to do us a favour in the UK? I think not.
Ok, they may be wifebeating, queerbashing, capital punishment supporting types but taking them by force in a possibly illegal move isn't really the moral high ground is it.
Like someone said. Its much more complex than the picture you paint. Apparently there are some, and I dont know the figures, Iraqis and Afghanis who see the way forward as democracy. That being the case surely we should support them rather than down the foreign policy of our freedom loving freinds over the ocean?
Oh and by the way how many modern day conflicts could it be argued were legal? Kosova? Seirra Leone? I'm sure there are others but there are deeper more complex matters involved in human relations. Some day perhaps, but at the moment those of us with opinions must be aware that we don't have to make decisions like the leaders we vote for and if we did I would be rather worried going by the content of some of the threads on the org.
If saddam ordered chemical ally to kill thousands of there own people by chemical warfare what else is he capable off.
Nuclear weapons is more of a deffence tactic for countrys that are sensible.U give a nuclear weapon to some of these people in the middle east that are quite happy to use themselves as bombs there will be nuclear war.
Now all this was back then now look at 2010 now its iran thats taunting the world with its ambition for nuclear weapons and power stations and breaking all the international laws i reckon iran is the next country to get attacked if they dont mend there ways
He didn't exactly see them as his own people, he saw them as Kurds who had decided to side with Iran in the Iran Iraq war, he saw them as the enemy not as his own people.
Iran is breaking no laws, they are one of the few countries which aren't. They have signed the NPT and have the legal right to develop nuclear technology. There is no evidence they have a nuclear weapons program and even if they had who could blame them? Look what we did to their neighbours who didn't have nuclear capability. It's not like Iran is an aggressive country, they haven't started any wars, they haven't invaded anyone like we did. America on the other hand is still developing and building new nuclear weapons despite it being illegal under the terms of the NPT which they signed. They have invaded two countries illegally in the last 10 years and intervened in several others. They are the only country in the world ever to have used nuclear weapons. Israel has the fourth largest nuclear arsenal in the world, has not signed the NPT and has a bad record for starting wars of aggression.
The world has changed, we see people committing suicide (sometimes on a large scale) every day for the cause.
There are umpteen states and groups actively pursuing nuclear weapons with the expressed intention of using them, immediately, on us primarily.
It's only a matter of time folks
No, you are wrong.
America has a large nuclear arsenal and the ability to deliver it anywhere in the world. Britain has nuclear submarines which would take out any country which used nuclear weapons against us.
No country would use nuclear weapons against us first because they know it would mean the destruction of their own country, the only reason to have nuclear weapons is to prevent others using them on you, a deterrent.
Are you learning nothing from the Chilcot Inquiry? Everyone was so scared of Saddam Hussein back in 2003, they made everyone scared so they could invade Iraq. Now it turns out there was nothing to be scared of, Saddam couldn't hurt us or anyone else, there were no WMD, there was no weapons program, there was no yellowcake from Niger, there were no links to Al Qaeda.
Iran would like nothing more than to live in peace with the West, the only obstacle to that is our greed. Look at their history, what did they ever do to us? What did we do to them? What are we still doing to them?
When will they ever learn.
Like someone said. Its much more complex than the picture you paint. Apparently there are some, and I dont know the figures, Iraqis and Afghanis who see the way forward as democracy.
It is very easy for us to sit here in our armchairs and debate / dictate world policy.
But forcing a democracy is a very difficult game to play.
but at the moment those of us with opinions must be aware that we don't have to make decisions like the leaders we vote for and if we did I would be rather worried going by the content of some of the threads on the org.
Aye, back to the thread. The decisions (decision, in this case) is the question, well the evidence used on which that decision was based.
It is very easy for us to sit here in our armchairs and debate / dictate world policy.
But forcing a democracy is a very difficult game to play.
Yes its difficult but history will be the judge.
If all the hidden prejudices that caused the first world war had been repressed perhaps there would have been no Hitler and if there had been no Hitler the world would be a different place today but all those hidden prejudices would still be real. A lot of them still are real but the past teaches us lessons.
Churchill was aware of the danger of National Socialism long before anyone else in his position and the same thing applys today to the dangers of religious extremism. I dont think people are taking it as serious as it deserves to be taken.
Let history be the judge, but lets not stop debating it.
cullbucket
30-Jan-10, 15:16
Ok, they may be wifebeating, queerbashing, capital punishment supporting types
Quite a good description of republican Americans.....
Quite a good description of republican Americans.....
I was thinking that, the good ole rethuglicans !! I was thinking of drawing the similarities but then we are into thread drift.
Now now Tristan. Do try to be a bit more respectful towards those of us who may have a different opinion than you. :~(
Have or had? Are you saying you still think the politicians told the truth about WMD?
Perhaps the word is a bit strong. The WMD was an obvious lie then and it is clear now they never existed.
Boozeburglar
30-Jan-10, 19:29
The world has changed, we see people committing suicide (sometimes on a large scale) every day for the cause.
There are umpteen states and groups actively pursuing nuclear weapons with the expressed intention of using them, immediately, on us primarily.
It's only a matter of time folks
That cheered me up, thanks.
cullbucket
30-Jan-10, 19:39
I think this is what I was trying to say earlier.... says it much better than I could...
With the wisdom of hindsight it is easy for his critics to attack the former prime minister for being an over-believer. In the weeks before the conflict Blair immersed himself in the just war theology of Thomas Aquinas, convinced himself that it applied to Iraq, and became a moralistic, almost messianic, advocate of invasion. The problem was not a shortage of sincerity but an excess of zeal in which self-belief overrode objective judgment.
from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/jan/30/chilcot-truth-judge-forgive
Boozeburglar
30-Jan-10, 19:52
Ironic to find such an understanding quote from someone like Aitken, writing in the Guardian! I wonder what Archer has to say about it all? ;)
The other thing that amazes me is the focusing on the western casualty numbers (UK deaths in Iraq are 179 to date) whereas Hundreds of Thousands of Iraquis have died, but somehow their deaths are less valid or important, because they're foreign....
Thank God that someone has voiced this. Britain and America do not allow detailed reporting of deaths and maimings in Iraq, but sources on the ground put these at well over 1.25 million deaths alone.
Where is the proof that even ONE of these human beings had ANYTHING WHATEVER to do with the Twin Towers?
Which little Iraqi child, blown to pieces, or hideously deformed in this premeditated slaughter, had ANYTHING WHATEVER to do with the controlled demolition of WTC7?
Why is Iraq now covered in depleted uranium, while the oil companies (and their directors, like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush Senior, Bush Junior, etc.), pump blood and oil into their swag bags?
And why will this "inquiry" (joke) not touch the legality issue, when showing that the cowardly slaughter of innocents in an oil-rich state that didn't bother about the oil but only wanted fresh drinking water, a conclusion of 'illegal' would enable Blair and some of those sitting on this "inquiry" (joke) to be arrested and brought to trial for their obvious crimes?
There were no WMDs. Blair was and is a liar.
NickInTheNorth
30-Jan-10, 19:57
Blair did the right thing. Should have been done propery in gulf war 1 not needed another one to finish the job.
Legality of the war - depends on where you are looking at it from.
UK Law - 100% legal. The power to make war is part pf the Royal Prerogative. Those powers are all now in the hands of the Prime Minister. PM decides to make war it's 100% legal in UK everytime.
As to whether it was legal in international law - well that is a matter of diplomacy so the answer will also be probably not, but then again there is still debate over Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1, Suez ...
No, you are wrong.
America has a large nuclear arsenal and the ability to deliver it anywhere in the world. Britain has nuclear submarines which would take out any country which used nuclear weapons against us.
No country would use nuclear weapons against us first because they know it would mean the destruction of their own country, the only reason to have nuclear weapons is to prevent others using them on you, a deterrent.
Are you learning nothing from the Chilcot Inquiry? Everyone was so scared of Saddam Hussein back in 2003, they made everyone scared so they could invade Iraq. Now it turns out there was nothing to be scared of, Saddam couldn't hurt us or anyone else, there were no WMD, there was no weapons program, there was no yellowcake from Niger, there were no links to Al Qaeda.
Iran would like nothing more than to live in peace with the West, the only obstacle to that is our greed. Look at their history, what did they ever do to us? What did we do to them? What are we still doing to them?
When will they ever learn.
And where pray tell will they aim this formidable arsenal when some patriot sneaks a nuke into.. a town near you?
andrew.bowles30
30-Jan-10, 20:39
this enquiry is just costing us money we do not have and nothing is going to change which priminister is in power they are all scraching there own backs taking bid pay reards we know it was wrong to go war but it is going on and any money we are spending on this stupid farse could be spent on our fallen heros that ned our help :confused
northener
30-Jan-10, 21:38
fred, i too would like to think that the vote might have gone differently, however, i do wonder about such events as operation swift sword II happening just before 9/11. Something stinks. Ducati, how did america have grounds for war on iraq after 9\11? Iraq had nothing to do with 9\11, did they? Did afghanistan? Boozeburgler, yes, i agree, complicit, if you voted and have blind faith in the government to pursue your ambitions and aspirations on your behalf because we live in a 'democracy' and continue to do so. I read the commentary of blairs charade today, grinding his well developed organ of gregariousness, smiling when he should be frowning and frowning when he should be smiling. Inquiry will be a whitewash. We will be none the wiser when it's through. Tho, if anything does come out of it that the public see as horrifyingly unjust what will we do about it?
Just because you may disagree with the outcome of an enquiry, it doesn't necessarily make it a 'whitewash'.
On a broader front, it's a pity we have ended up in this mire. Up to Gulf War 2, Blair was a very well-respected international politician (regardless of what the home crowd thought). It was Blair who near as dammit single-handedly forced NATO into intervening in the Balkans and coerced a huge amount of support from the US et al to achieve his aims in bringing some form of stability to the region.
Frankly, I couldn't care less about the outcome of this enquiry. The real judgement will not be made by trial-by-media or some enquiry taking place under public scrutiny. The real judgement will be made in about 20 years time when the real long-term results of the invasion and its aftermath are more aparrent.
As you were.......
Frankly, I couldn't care less about the outcome of this enquiry. The real judgement will not be made by trial-by-media or some enquiry taking place under public scrutiny. The real judgement will be made in about 20 years time when the real long-term results of the invasion and its aftermath are more aparrent.
The real judgement, in my opinion, will occur at the time of Blair's death.
Just because you may disagree with the outcome of an enquiry, it doesn't necessarily make it a 'whitewash'.
If it wasn't meant to be a whitewash they would have lawyers involved in the questioning.
The real judgement will be made in about 20 years time when the real long-term results of the invasion and its aftermath are more aparrent.
I think longer than that, maybe double. I believe we screwed up in GW1. I understand it was a card on the table but never played, it should have been.
one of the things we did acheive in Iraq was to replace saddam hussian with more of the same ilk. There is now more than forty different warlords dispensing their own kind of terror amongst the people of iraq. For the people of Iraq we replaced one kind of terror for another. Call that bringing democracy. Blair and Bush knew that there was no W.M.D. in iraq and that the attack on the Twin Towers was orchestrated in Saudi Arabia, Saddam had nothing to do with it. They had their excuse for regime change and nothing was going to stop it. The people of Iraq have been paying for it in blood ever since. Yes Saddam had to go, but it was up to the Iraqi People to get rid of him not us. Dont forget also we where one of his biggest arms suppliers, when it suited the west to have him in power. A lot of these weapons were used against our troops during our invasion of Iraq. Also still suffering from this invasion are our troops who served there and witnessed sights beleive me that you never want to imagine in your wildest dreams.
"A parliamentary motion calling for Blair to be prosecuted has been laid down at Holyrood and has been signed by eight MSPs. It cites the verdict of a Dutch commission of judges earlier this month, which concluded that the United Nations resolution used to go to war in 2003 was insufficient to justify military action.
"The Nationalists claim that, as Scots law complies with international law, Scottish prosecutors have the power to investigate the findings. They say that if the Crown Office then finds that evidence compelling, they should prosecute Blair.
"The call is being led by MSP Bill Wilson, but an SNP spokeswoman confirmed last night that it "reflects the views many still hold" about the decision to take military action.
"In his letter to the Lord Advocate, Wilson declares: 'It would seem you have the power to investigate the conclusions of the Dutch commission and, should you find the evidence against them compelling, prosecute the former UK prime minister. I urge you to do so.' "
(Source - http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/news/Call-for-Blair-to-face.6029526.jp )
"A parliamentary motion calling for Blair to be prosecuted has been laid down at Holyrood and has been signed by eight MSPs. It cites the verdict of a Dutch commission of judges earlier this month, which concluded that the United Nations resolution used to go to war in 2003 was insufficient to justify military action.
"The Nationalists claim that, as Scots law complies with international law, Scottish prosecutors have the power to investigate the findings. They say that if the Crown Office then finds that evidence compelling, they should prosecute Blair.
"The call is being led by MSP Bill Wilson, but an SNP spokeswoman confirmed last night that it "reflects the views many still hold" about the decision to take military action.
"In his letter to the Lord Advocate, Wilson declares: 'It would seem you have the power to investigate the conclusions of the Dutch commission and, should you find the evidence against them compelling, prosecute the former UK prime minister. I urge you to do so.' "
(Source - http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/news/Call-for-Blair-to-face.6029526.jp )
Interestingly Lord Goldsmith said in his testimony to the Chilcot Inquiry that he had travelled to Washington to consult with American lawyers on the legality of going to war with Iraq. He did not travel to Edinburgh to consult with the Lord Advocate.
Scotland has a separate legal system to England based on Roman not Saxon law. Goldsmith is Attorney General of England and Wales not Scotland. International Law is Scottish law yet Goldsmith consults with America not Scotland before sending Scottish regiments into battle.
northener
01-Feb-10, 13:21
"A parliamentary motion calling for Blair to be prosecuted has been laid down at Holyrood and has been signed by eight MSPs. It cites the verdict of a Dutch commission of judges earlier this month, which concluded that the United Nations resolution used to go to war in 2003 was insufficient to justify military action.
"The Nationalists claim that, as Scots law complies with international law, Scottish prosecutors have the power to investigate the findings. They say that if the Crown Office then finds that evidence compelling, they should prosecute Blair.
"The call is being led by MSP Bill Wilson, but an SNP spokeswoman confirmed last night that it "reflects the views many still hold" about the decision to take military action.
"In his letter to the Lord Advocate, Wilson declares: 'It would seem you have the power to investigate the conclusions of the Dutch commission and, should you find the evidence against them compelling, prosecute the former UK prime minister. I urge you to do so.' "
(Source - http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/news/Call-for-Blair-to-face.6029526.jp )
They haven't got a snowballs.
northener
01-Feb-10, 13:25
Interestingly Lord Goldsmith said in his testimony to the Chilcot Inquiry that he had travelled to Washington to consult with American lawyers on the legality of going to war with Iraq. He did not travel to Edinburgh to consult with the Lord Advocate.
Scotland has a separate legal system to England based on Roman not Saxon law. Goldsmith is Attorney General of England and Wales not Scotland. International Law is Scottish law yet Goldsmith consults with America not Scotland before sending Scottish regiments into battle.
Because Goldsmith doesn't need to 'consult Scotland'.
The fact that it ruffles a few nationalist feathers to think that they are not 'consulted' before sending certain British Arny regiments into action is neither here nor there. There is no seperate 'Scottish' Army...apart from Atholls'......;)
Because Goldsmith doesn't need to 'consult Scotland'.
The fact that it ruffles a few nationalist feathers to think that they are not 'consulted' before sending certain British Arny regiments into action is neither here nor there. There is no seperate 'Scottish' Army...apart from Atholls'......;)
But it does mean that the Scottish government has no reason not to go after those responsible. Unlike the opposition, who weren't doing their job and opposing.
northener
01-Feb-10, 15:49
But it does mean that the Scottish government has no reason not to go after those responsible. Unlike the opposition, who weren't doing their job and opposing.
Fair comment, Fred. But I think they're on a hiding to nothing, mind.
roadbowler
01-Feb-10, 16:27
northerner, c'mon, how much more apparent could it possibly be? 20 years nabody will give a rats because by then we'll be embroiled in another slaughter elsewhere "bringing peace and democracy" to another country. :roll:
Re. Tony Blair and his current ordeal:
I'm with Gleeber on this one. The smug pieties of the "unco guid" left get right up my nose.
There is nothing so neat as a conspiracy theory.
I am compiling a list of pub bores. Somewhere near the top is the guy who explains that it is "all about oil." So if you are sitting on oil in some benighted part of the urals or wherever and you want to sell the stuff you can't do it. Because it is not politically correct.
So I have a couple of questions - is it OK to sell your oil in the first place? And if it is, then to whom should you sell your oil?
And as an addendum there is now a considerable body of evidence to suggest that the world is not running out of oil after all. Some experts say we are OK for the next hundred years. That should give us enought time to do something about tidying up the environment without the paranoid anxiety to which so many ORGERS succumb.
So relax. Go and have a beer. But dont get talking to the guy next to you who is doing the Guardian crossword. Believe me, stay away! Big bore alert!!!!
I should give you my source for the amount of oil we might have avaialble
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/758270--olive-is-the-world-awash-in-oil
northener
01-Feb-10, 17:36
northerner, c'mon, how much more apparent could it possibly be? 20 years nabody will give a rats because by then we'll be embroiled in another slaughter elsewhere "bringing peace and democracy" to another country. :roll:
Not very apparrent at all, actually.
We do not yet know how Iraq will evolve in the next ten years. It could become a very stable and wealthy state, it could be run by another dictator with more Islamic fundamentalist views, or a democratic Government, it could become antagonistic towards Iran after finding stability within it's own borders - or fragment into seperatist states in the North.....
We do not know how Iran will view it's neighbour in 15 years time, or whether the Iranian government will choose to try and influence proceedings within a possibly resurgent and wealthy neighbour. We have no idea whether the US and Europe will excersise the same amount of political and military influence inside Iraqs' borders.
Only a complete idiot would attempt to write a definitive history of the Gulf Wars and their aftermath without the benefit of hindsight. We can comment on, and have opinions of, what has taken place so far...but the story is only halfway through.
That's why I say that time and history will judge whether Iraq was worthwhile or not. There is no clear, precise future for Iraq and it's people at the moment, but political bluster, point-scoring and attempts to find 'someone to blame' are all meaningless waffle.
I'll reserve judgement on whether it was worth it or not until we see what comes out of the oven.....
roadbowler
01-Feb-10, 18:03
aye, and a few million iraqis will never live to see if their country becomes more "stable and wealthy" as you put it. Many millions will live to watch their children and childrens children grow up with deformities and illness and short lives due to depleted uranium. The living generations will live with the psychological and physical terrorism we have inflicted on them and for what? Our own ex-prime minister cannot even answer the question properly. What about that is not very apparent to anyone paying even a little bit of attention?? What GOOD can possibly come of an invasion, slaughter of millions of innocent people and takeover of a country?
There is nothing so neat as a conspiracy theory.
So you really do believe that 19 Arabs with 4.5 flying hours in a Cessna between them brought down WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 in New York and made a hole in the Pentagon, all controlled by a bloke in a cave in Afghanistan? And that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld just happened to be directors of companies given contracts to "rebuild" Iraq?
Wow. I don't know what you drink in the pub, but it must be strong stuff indeed to fuddle your mind so much. :)
aye, and a few million iraqis will never live to see if their country becomes more "stable and wealthy" as you put it. Many millions will live to watch their children and childrens children grow up with deformities and illness and short lives due to depleted uranium. The living generations will live with the psychological and physical terrorism we have inflicted on them and for what? Our own ex-prime minister cannot even answer the question properly. What about that is not very apparent to anyone paying even a little bit of attention?? What GOOD can possibly come of an invasion, slaughter of millions of innocent people and takeover of a country?
Clicked on the positive rep icon for this comment, but the program would not allow me to give you the rep, so I'll say it publicly: Your comments on this thread go right to the heart of the matter, in my opinion, and I thank you for the encouragement I feel from the compassion that you show to our fellow human beings in Iraq.
This was never a "war," but a cowardly slaughter of people who never did the British any harm, nor posed any threat.
This cowardly slaughter was not done in my name, nor in my family's name. Perhaps Blair will one day inform us of what name it was conceived in.
I hope that the Scots have the guts to stand up and arrest this criminal and time his release to coincide with the release of the post mortem results on Dr Kelly.
Re. Tony Blair and his current ordeal:
I'm with Gleeber on this one. The smug pieties of the "unco guid" left get right up my nose.
There is nothing so neat as a conspiracy theory.
I am compiling a list of pub bores. Somewhere near the top is the guy who explains that it is "all about oil." So if you are sitting on oil in some benighted part of the urals or wherever and you want to sell the stuff you can't do it. Because it is not politically correct.
So I have a couple of questions - is it OK to sell your oil in the first place? And if it is, then to whom should you sell your oil?
And as an addendum there is now a considerable body of evidence to suggest that the world is not running out of oil after all. Some experts say we are OK for the next hundred years. That should give us enought time to do something about tidying up the environment without the paranoid anxiety to which so many ORGERS succumb.
So relax. Go and have a beer. But dont get talking to the guy next to you who is doing the Guardian crossword. Believe me, stay away! Big bore alert!!!!
Thanks to documents not declassified and shown to the Chilcot inquiry but leaked to the Independent and published this morning it looks a lot like it was about oil.
Whitehall officials drafted the "contract with the Iraqi people" as a way of signalling to dissenters in Iraq that an overthrow of Saddam would be supported by Britain. It promised aid, oil contracts, debt cancellations and trade deals once the dictator had been removed. Tony Blair's team saw it as a way of creating regime change in Iraq even before the 9/11 attack on New York.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/plan-to-oust-saddam-drawn-up-two-years-before-the-invasion-1885155.html
It also contradicts Blair's testimony that plans to depose Saddam Hussein began after 9/11.
aye, and a few million iraqis will never live to see if their country becomes more "stable and wealthy" as you put it. Many millions will live to watch their children and childrens children grow up with deformities and illness and short lives due to depleted uranium. The living generations will live with the psychological and physical terrorism we have inflicted on them and for what? Our own ex-prime minister cannot even answer the question properly. What about that is not very apparent to anyone paying even a little bit of attention?? What GOOD can possibly come of an invasion, slaughter of millions of innocent people and takeover of a country?
Just reading on presstv this morning, the Iraqi government is taking the British and American governments to court for compensation.
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=117557§ionid=351020201
So you really do believe that 19 Arabs with 4.5 flying hours in a Cessna between them brought down WTC1, WTC2,
A few hours on flight sim to get the procedures right, a bit of live flying to get the feel and yeah, pretty feasible.
They weren't doing precision approaches and pillow soft landings, it is actually quite easy to crash a plane.
Oil is a vital part of the Iraq economy. It makes perfect sense for the USA and the UK to attempt to persuade the Iraqui people that any invasion plans would lead to economic opportunities for citizens. That is called wishful thinking, or propaganda. It has its place!
But that is very different from saying the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are being fought over oil, or even that oil is necessarily a vital motivation behind these wars.
I have a friend who has a friend (how's that for sourcing!) who spent 20 years in Jordan as a diplomatic adviser. My friend's friend said that in the Middle East one should always "look to the oil."
I include that piece of wisdom to show that I am quite aware of the arguments on the other side.
But I am not convinced.
Historians of the 19th century in general and 19th century Britain in particular long ago coined the term "Queen Victoria's little wars" as a means of making sense of all the wars in the British Empire from the 1850s to the Boer War.
Rarely are the causes of these wars what common sense might tell you. The arguments based on looting and pillaging (as in India) falter when you realise that by the time the British got there the looting and pillaging was over.
A much better argument might be that the technologically advanced European countries used the establishment of colonies to annoy the neighbours. SOunds incredible. Check out Bismark's foreign policy re the British and the rush for Africa.
Then there is the "we're here because we're here" school of imperialism. And we shall not be moved! Ireland springs to mind. And possibly India.
Then there are those imperialists who insisted on introducing modern medicine and education, public libraries the whole magilla. "We'll get out when the job's done chaps"
What I think about the wars in Iraq, Kurdisran and Afghanistan is that these are the 21st century equivalents of the kind of war practiced by the British on the frontiers of the Empire in the 19th century.
Plus ca change!
One might argue that this time the British are going in as junior partners to the USA. And that is new.
But the Imperal Lion is a rather bedraggled creature when it comes to cutting a dash militarily speaking. We had the French on our side in the Crimean War.In the First and Second world wars the United States saved our bacon.
And let's look at the British Warlords. Haig in 1914-18 was Scottish, Welsh Lloyd George provided the political acumen. In WW2 Montgomery was from Ulster - I hope you get my point. Making war has a class component in the UK, just as everything else does.
The thing about Blair is he is typical. Sadly typical? Successfuly typical? Your verdict!
The real judgement, in my opinion, will occur at the time of Blair's death.
What, when God sends him to hell? Give me a break, Blair will rot in the ground just like you, just like me.
So you really do believe that 19 Arabs with 4.5 flying hours in a Cessna between them brought down WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 in New York and made a hole in the Pentagon, all controlled by a bloke in a cave in Afghanistan?
Well they were not exactly looking for a perfect landing were they?
And you think it was what? Bush and his cronies who arranged the death of two thousand nine hundred and seventy three of their own countrymen and women? Two thousand nine hundred and seventy three - you think they were that evil? Two thousand nine hundred and seventy three. Remember that number before you type such rubbish again.
I hope that the Scots have the guts to stand up and arrest this criminal and time his release to coincide with the release of the post mortem results on Dr Kelly.
If they do it will not be done in my name. Yet I imagine that doesn't matter to you.
May I end these long posts with a cautionary note on Scottish Tony Blair?
J.M.Barry said it best:
"There are few more impressive sights in the world than a Scotsman on the make."
Thanks!
Boozeburglar
01-Feb-10, 21:43
For all the folks who think someone in the US elite planned the 9/11 attacks . . . .
You really need to get out more.
On this occasion I actually mean out! Anywhere away from roads, strangers and sharp things. Most importantly, away from the internet. It is too easy for paranoid loners to gain group consensus online.
Even if an evil, corrupt elite might ever plan something like 9/11; it is totally insane to think that the hundreds or thousands of people who would need to be involved would go along with it, and keep it secret!
It is not like an assassination.
Oil is a vital part of the Iraq economy. It makes perfect sense for the USA and the UK to attempt to persuade the Iraqui people that any invasion plans would lead to economic opportunities for citizens. That is called wishful thinking, or propaganda. It has its place!
But that is very different from saying the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are being fought over oil, or even that oil is necessarily a vital motivation behind these wars.
I have a friend who has a friend (how's that for sourcing!) who spent 20 years in Jordan as a diplomatic adviser. My friend's friend said that in the Middle East one should always "look to the oil."
I include that piece of wisdom to show that I am quite aware of the arguments on the other side.
But I am not convinced.
Historians of the 19th century in general and 19th century Britain in particular long ago coined the term "Queen Victoria's little wars" as a means of making sense of all the wars in the British Empire from the 1850s to the Boer War.
Rarely are the causes of these wars what common sense might tell you. The arguments based on looting and pillaging (as in India) falter when you realise that by the time the British got there the looting and pillaging was over.
A much better argument might be that the technologically advanced European countries used the establishment of colonies to annoy the neighbours. SOunds incredible. Check out Bismark's foreign policy re the British and the rush for Africa.
Then there is the "we're here because we're here" school of imperialism. And we shall not be moved! Ireland springs to mind. And possibly India.
Then there are those imperialists who insisted on introducing modern medicine and education, public libraries the whole magilla. "We'll get out when the job's done chaps"
The Empire wasn't built by British soldiers, the Empire was built by mercenaries, most of them foreign. The East India Company had an army of mercenaries larger than any European country. The British army didn't go into India till the mutiny, the East India Company and their private army had been ruling India for almost a century then.
The building of the Empire was a commercial enterprise not political, just like our invasion of Iraq.
And you think it was what? Bush and his cronies who arranged the death of two thousand nine hundred and seventy three of their own countrymen and women? Two thousand nine hundred and seventy three - you think they were that evil? Two thousand nine hundred and seventy three. Remember that number before you type such rubbish again.
America is a nation with weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological and have used all three. They gave arms to both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
They sponsored terrorism in Nicaragua and El Salvador, overthrew the democratically elected Salvador Allende in Chile and replaced him with Pinochet. They overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala for the benefit of the United Fruit Company of Boston. They gave training in terrorism in Honduras and at the School of Americas, they gave training in chemical warfare at Fort McClennan. They supported the Khmer Rouge, they dropped half a million tons of bombs on Cambodia and two million on Laos when it wasn't at war with either. They supported Papa Doc and Baby Doc in Haiti and Marcos in the Philipines. They support Israel a land born out of terrorism and maintained with state terrorism.
They have refused to sign a global treaty banning landmines because it would infringe on freedom of trade, they refused to sign the UN protocol on torture because they said it infringed on their state rights. They have refused to accept the International Court of Justice.
Do I think they would do such a thing...you're damned right I do.
America is a nation with weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological and have used all three. They gave arms to both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
They sponsored terrorism in Nicaragua and El Salvador, overthrew the democratically elected Salvador Allende in Chile and replaced him with Pinochet. They overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala for the benefit of the United Fruit Company of Boston. They gave training in terrorism in Honduras and at the School of Americas, they gave training in chemical warfare at Fort McClennan. They supported the Khmer Rouge, they dropped half a million tons of bombs on Cambodia and two million on Laos when it wasn't at war with either. They supported Papa Doc and Baby Doc in Haiti and Marcos in the Philipines. They support Israel a land born out of terrorism and maintained with state terrorism.
They have refused to sign a global treaty banning landmines because it would infringe on freedom of trade, they refused to sign the UN protocol on torture because they said it infringed on their state rights. They have refused to accept the International Court of Justice.
Do I think they would do such a thing...you're damned right I do.
Oh Fred! Not again..
Do you honestly believe this or is it a wind up? I would be the first to agree the USA-specifically, the CIA are capable of some pretty outrageous "foreign policy" gaffs. All be it in the interest of American business interests, slowing down drug imports, slowing down enemies supply routes. There is a theme to all this and that is, it is in American interests. What American interest would be served in murdering an outrageous number of American citizens and badly damaging the infrastructure of one of their own major cities, in the most public way possible?
All in a time when: I quote: They can't keep the Presidents love life a secret.
Give me strength!
Do I think they would do such a thing...you're damned right I do.
Well then you're a disgraceful human being.
Well then you're a disgraceful human being.
It is clear to me that your university teaches you what to think, but certainly not how to think.
You are being taught physics, is that right? Then how did the wings fold flat against the body of the plane that went into the Pentagon, such that we only had one hole in the wall?
It is clear to me that your university teaches you what to think, but certainly not how to think.
Well I've not actually had any lectures on Tony Blair, so not really...
You are being taught physics, is that right? Then how did the wings fold flat against the body of the plane that went into the Pentagon, such that we only had one hole in the wall?
Astrophysics. And I do not know if that is what happened, and no offence, but I'd rather not take your word on it.
Well I've not actually had any lectures on Tony Blair, so not really...
Astrophysics. And I do not know if that is what happened, and no offence, but I'd rather not take your word on it.
Well, then, you run off and continue to be spoon fed.
The "explanation" was from MIT. I better give you time to read up on it, since you are clearly incapable of reasoning for yourself.
America is a nation with weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological and have used all three. They gave arms to both Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
They sponsored terrorism in Nicaragua and El Salvador, overthrew the democratically elected Salvador Allende in Chile and replaced him with Pinochet. They overthrew the democratically elected government of Guatemala for the benefit of the United Fruit Company of Boston. They gave training in terrorism in Honduras and at the School of Americas, they gave training in chemical warfare at Fort McClennan. They supported the Khmer Rouge, they dropped half a million tons of bombs on Cambodia and two million on Laos when it wasn't at war with either. They supported Papa Doc and Baby Doc in Haiti and Marcos in the Philipines. They support Israel a land born out of terrorism and maintained with state terrorism.
They have refused to sign a global treaty banning landmines because it would infringe on freedom of trade, they refused to sign the UN protocol on torture because they said it infringed on their state rights. They have refused to accept the International Court of Justice.
Do I think they would do such a thing...you're damned right I do.
Sighs..........Here we go again!!!!!!!!!!!!![disgust]
roadbowler
01-Feb-10, 23:14
alan, actually, approximately, 1/8th of the casualities were foreign. Secondly, i have to really wonder how one can look at the staggering amount of atrocities perpetuated or assisted by western governments and think that someone who thinks they could be responsible for well maybe just another (which is frankly, fairly small fish compared to some of the others) is a 'disgraceful person'?:eek:
Well, then, you run off and continue to be spoon fed.
I'm currently doing classical & quantum physics, as well as numerous astronomy related topics. You surely understand that there isn't much room for improvisation there, or perhaps you think I should be arguing against Isaac Newton and Max Planck? The fact that they're both dead is just one of the many reasons I will not be doing this.
The "explanation" was from MIT. I better give you time to read up on it, since you are clearly incapable of reasoning for yourself.
If you think that you have genuine scientific proof that the whole thing was a conspiracy, then let's see it.
Sighs..........Here we go again!!!!!!!!!!!!![disgust]
You willingly blind, too, golach?
alan, actually, approximately, 1/8th of the casualities were foreign.
And that makes all the difference... Christ sake.
Secondly, i have to really wonder how one can look at the staggering amount of atrocities perpetuated or assisted by western governments and think that someone who thinks they could be responsible for well maybe just another (which is frankly, fairly small fish compared to some of the others) is a 'disgraceful person'?:eek:
It is the fact that in this day and age do you really think that they could get away with it? The answer is quite clearly no. And therefore anybody who thinks the murder of two thousand nine hundred and seventy three was masterminded by the American government of the time, is a disgrace.
You willingly blind, too, golach?
How boring is your life that you have to made up this rubbish?
I'm currently doing classical & quantum physics, as well as numerous astronomy related topics. You surely understand that there isn't much room for improvisation there, or perhaps you think I should be arguing against Isaac Newton and Max Planck? The fact that they're both dead is just one of the many reasons I will not be doing this.
Well then, you use Isaac Newton and explain why there was only one hole (not even another mark) on the Pentagon wall.
You willingly blind, too, golach?
I have my sight Stavro............But I know Fred of old, just been waiting for him to start his old rantings......got the T shirt, this is old ground he has opened up!!!
I have my sight Stavro............But I know Fred of old, just been waiting for him to start his old rantings......got the T shirt, this is old ground he has opened up!!!
I don't have the T-shirt. :lol:
northener
01-Feb-10, 23:24
aye, and a few million iraqis will never live to see if their country becomes more "stable and wealthy" as you put it. Many millions will live to watch their children and childrens children grow up with deformities and illness and short lives due to depleted uranium. The living generations will live with the psychological and physical terrorism we have inflicted on them and for what? Our own ex-prime minister cannot even answer the question properly. What about that is not very apparent to anyone paying even a little bit of attention?? What GOOD can possibly come of an invasion, slaughter of millions of innocent people and takeover of a country?
What a lovely emotional outburst this is Roadbowler. Unfortunately, wailing over the deaths of anyone won't change a thing. History is built upon harsh reality, not emotional niceties.
Look back at the history of any country and you will invariably come across death on a massive scale...and not always to the detriment of the whole in the long run.
I'm not saying that this means we should treat anyones' death in a flippant or casual manner, but it may be that years from now, we could possibly see something positive for the region as a whole.
I ain't taking sides on this, merely coming up with a dispassionate and pragmatic viewpoint......
And therefore anybody who thinks the murder of two thousand nine hundred and seventy three was masterminded by the American government of the time, is a disgrace.
Why is this?
Well then, you use Isaac Newton and explain why there was only one hole (not even another mark) on the Pentagon wall.
Do you not understand what I said? Well here it is as plainly as I can put it: I am not going to bother trying to explain something which did not happen.
Alan<maturity age of >16<months>, you are in my opinion a complete and utter idiot, but you do not have to open your mouth so often to prove it. :D
You think Bush et al killed two thousand nine hundred and seventy three people to further his political agenda. This means that I couldn't give a damn what you think of me.
Boozeburglar
01-Feb-10, 23:26
Yeah, and you had begun to think I talk out of my behind Golach.
At least Fred is back to put all that in perspective.
;)
Do you honestly believe this or is it a wind up? I would be the first to agree the USA-specifically, the CIA are capable of some pretty outrageous "foreign policy" gaffs. All be it in the interest of American business interests, slowing down drug imports, slowing down enemies supply routes. There is a theme to all this and that is, it is in American interests. What American interest would be served in murdering an outrageous number of American citizens and badly damaging the infrastructure of one of their own major cities, in the most public way possible?
Well they seem to have done all right out of it so far. Got to invade a few countries, tear up the Constitution. Oil companies, arms companies, mercenary companies all doing great.
How many times did Blair invoke 9/11 in his testimony?
Boozeburglar
01-Feb-10, 23:29
Alan<maturity age of >16<months>, you are in my opinion a complete and utter idiot, but you do not have to open your mouth so often to prove it. :D
How quickly your argument evaporates, and you recourse to personal attack.
How predictable.
Do you not understand what I said? Well here it is as plainly as I can put it: I am not going to bother trying to explain something which did not happen.
So according to you, there wasn't a single, 10-foot diameter hole in the Pentagon wall before that wall collapsed? Is that right?
Why is this?
Because it is an absolutely ludicrous, and horrible, suggestion.
How quickly your argument evaporates, and you recourse to personal attack.
How predictable.
Are you talking to yourself again, Boozeburglar?
northener
01-Feb-10, 23:33
Internet, wonderful tool, isn't it?[lol]
So according to you, there wasn't a single, 10-foot diameter hole in the Pentagon wall before that wall collapsed? Is that right?
If you can prove this with a reliable source, then there was such a hole. If not, then yes that is correct. Until otherwise I'm sticking with the latter. And another thing, this proves what exactly?
I'm out of here. The conspiracy nuts are taking over.
Internet, wonderful tool, isn't it?[lol]
It's outrageous that you can be flippant at a time like this.
Whoops, wrong thread. :eek:
Internet, wonderful tool, isn't it?[lol]
By that you surely mean: The internet; full of wonderful tools. :Razz
I'm out of here. The conspiracy nuts are taking over.
Again Rich!!!!!!!! [lol]
I have my sight Stavro............But I know Fred of old, just been waiting for him to start his old rantings......got the T shirt, this is old ground he has opened up!!!
You mean like these: 28-Oct-07, 08:28: "Nazi Germany was a military industrial complex, like America is."
Yep, looks like old times are a here again?
If you can prove this with a reliable source, then there was such a hole. If not, then yes that is correct. Until otherwise I'm sticking with the latter. And another thing, this proves what exactly?
Doesn't prove anything. I'm still waiting for you to explain it with all of that classical and quantum physics that your tutors have been teaching you, remember?
Internet, wonderful tool, isn't it?[lol]
Better than telly anyday!
I'm out of here. The conspiracy nuts are taking over.
The biggest nuts may well be those that believe the biggest conspiracy theory of all - the official government line.
Doesn't prove anything. I'm still waiting for you to explain it with all of that classical and quantum physics that your tutors have been teaching you, remember?
You want me to explain why there was a hole in a wall? I really don't think that is the best use of the money the Scottish government is giving me for my studies.
So prove said hole existed and what this has to do with anything, or stop talking about it.
The biggest nuts may well be those that believe the biggest conspiracy theory of all - the official government line.
The biggest nuts are those who think there is some nasty ulterior motive behind everything.
You want me to explain why there was a hole in a wall? I really don't think that is the best use of the money the Scottish government is giving me for my studies.
So prove said hole existed and what this has to do with anything, or stop talking about it.
Your attention span is severely limited. I asked you to explain, using Newton, quantum mechanics, special relativity or otherwise, why the wings of an airplane striking a brick wall at 400+ mph fold back along the body of the aircraft.
I'm still waiting.
Your attention span is severely limited. I asked you to explain, using Newton, quantum mechanics, special relativity or otherwise, why the wings of an airplane striking a brick wall at 400+ mph fold back along the body of the aircraft.
I'm still waiting.
You want me to explain something that you believe, not something I believe, so let's go with my idea: you explain whatever it is you believe, and I'll stick to explaining what I believe.
Also see:
Well then, you use Isaac Newton and explain why there was only one hole (not even another mark) on the Pentagon wall.
Because it is an absolutely ludicrous, and horrible, suggestion.
I quite agree on horrible, but not so ludicrous.
Lets face it the US are not up there on the moral highground and have a nice rosy, shiny history when it comes to "ambiguous" operations, shall we say.
Now I'm not saying this is what happened, nor am I standing in the conspiracy theorist camp. There are a few questions about what actually went on on 9/11 and US/CIA involvement at some level cannot be 100% ruled out as it is possible, quite a horrific thought yes, but not impossible.
I quite agree on horrible, but not so ludicrous.
Lets face it the US are not up there on the moral highground and have a nice rosy, shiny history when it comes to "ambiguous" operations, shall we say.
Now I'm not saying this is what happened, nor am I standing in the conspiracy theorist camp. There are a few questions about what actually went on on 9/11 and US/CIA involvement at some level cannot be 100% ruled out as it is possible, quite a horrific thought yes, but not impossible.
I don't agree that the US government could have had anything to do with it, but I appreciate the fact that you are disagreeing in a civilised manner.
According to Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue Univercity, a crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building. When Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, one wing hit the ground and the other was sheared off by the Pentagon's load-bearing columns.
Airplane debris including Flight 77's Black Boxes, the nose cone, landing gear, an airplane tire, the fuselage, an intact cockpit seat, and the tail number of the airplane were recovered at the crash site.
The remains of passengers and crew from Flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site and their identities confirmed by DNA analysis.
Many eyewitnesses saw the plane strike the Pentagon. Further, Flight 77 passengers made phone calls reporting that their airplane had been hijacked. For example, passenger Renee May called her mother to tell her that the plane had been hijacked and that the passengers had been herded to the back of the plane. Another passenger named Barbara Olson called her husband (US Solicitor General Theodore Olson and said that the flight had been hijacked, and that the hijackers had knive and box cutters..
Oh well, that's me finished, I'm off, let those who have other ideas argue amongst themselves.
Your attention span is severely limited. I asked you to explain, using Newton, quantum mechanics, special relativity or otherwise, why the wings of an airplane striking a brick wall at 400+ mph fold back along the body of the aircraft.
I'm still waiting.
Please see #134
Your attention span is severely limited. I asked you to explain, using Newton, quantum mechanics, special relativity or otherwise, why the wings of an airplane striking a brick wall at 400+ mph fold back along the body of the aircraft.
I'm still waiting.
Have you not seen all the conspiracy programmes on telly?. and I think there are about 8 of them. All exposing the "the conspiracy evidence" as bunk.
Or are you so paranoid as to think they were all produced by people in the conspiracy?
And you don't need to be an Astrophysicist (Crikey) to imagine what would happen to a flimsy Aluminium structure full of fuel (like an aircraft wing) when it hit a heavily constructed wall at 500 miles an hour.
It evaporated!
Boozeburglar
02-Feb-10, 00:05
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
Your attention span is severely limited. I asked you to explain, using Newton, quantum mechanics, special relativity or otherwise, why the wings of an airplane striking a brick wall at 400+ mph fold back along the body of the aircraft.
I'm still waiting.
I'm no expert but does it involve inertia?
Have you not seen all the conspiracy programmes on telly?. and I think there are about 8 of them. All exposing the "the conspiracy evidence" as bunk.
Or are you so paranoid as to think they were all produced by people in the conspiracy?
And you don't need to be an Astrophysicist (Crikey) to imagine what would happen to a flimsy Aluminium structure full of fuel (like an aircraft wing) when it hit a heavily constructed wall at 500 miles an hour.
It evaporated!
The engine bolted on to it? Did that evaporate as well?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
Yes, seen a lot of these pics before BB but I have to say I'm bloody impressed the parking sign made it!
The engine bolted on to it? Did that evaporate as well?
No, if you look at BB's pictures you'll see large amounts of them lying around.
I can't keep up with this thread, by the time you've answered one fool another has chimed in!
I'm curious as to where the foldy wings have come from.
I've just been doing the googling thing as it's been a while since I looked at the stuff from 9/11.
BB's link is pretty good though.
When you think about a plane the wings kind of support the body (wings, lift etc.) so when you ram them into a wall face on they are going to get ripped off, so the tube of the fuselage will go forward leaving the wings behind. The engines too being quite dense in comparison will continue forward whilst thrashing themselves to bits.
The wing while being quite good in vertical strength if you like but not really designed for head on impacts will just crumple and all the wing borne fuel tanks will break up and obviously the fuel will burn nicely. Aluminium doesn't take much before it's dribbling on the floor from the heat.
That's my theory anyway. :eek:
I'm curious as to where the foldy wings have come from.
I've just been doing the googling thing as it's been a while since I looked at the stuff from 9/11.
BB's link is pretty good though.
When you think about a plane the wings kind of support the body (wings, lift etc.) so when you ram them into a wall face on they are going to get ripped off, so the tube of the fuselage will go forward leaving the wings behind. The engines too being quite dense in comparison will continue forward whilst thrashing themselves to bits.
The wing while being quite good in vertical strength if you like but not really designed for head on impacts will just crumple and all the wing borne fuel tanks will break up and obviously the fuel will burn nicely. Aluminium doesn't take much before it's dribbling on the floor from the heat.
That's my theory anyway. :eek:
You aren’t an Astrophysicist are you Phill? :cool:
Boozeburglar
02-Feb-10, 00:28
Yes, seen a lot of these pics before BB but I have to say I'm bloody impressed the parking sign made it!
I wonder if the company that made and fixed that sign use that in their advertising? ;)
roadbowler
02-Feb-10, 00:28
What a lovely emotional outburst this is Roadbowler. Unfortunately, wailing over the deaths of anyone won't change a thing. History is built upon harsh reality, not emotional niceties.
Look back at the history of any country and you will invariably come across death on a massive scale...and not always to the detriment of the whole in the long run.
I'm not saying that this means we should treat anyones' death in a flippant or casual manner, but it may be that years from now, we could possibly see something positive for the region as a whole.
I ain't taking sides on this, merely coming up with a dispassionate and pragmatic viewpoint......
not an emotional outburst. It's the bloody truth and people need to reminded of it. Often. Next time i hear you bitchin' and squawkin' about anything that aggrieves you, i'll be the first til remind ye it might not be to the detriment of the whole! :lol:
I'm curious as to where the foldy wings have come from.
I've just been doing the googling thing as it's been a while since I looked at the stuff from 9/11.
BB's link is pretty good though.
When you think about a plane the wings kind of support the body (wings, lift etc.) so when you ram them into a wall face on they are going to get ripped off, so the tube of the fuselage will go forward leaving the wings behind. The engines too being quite dense in comparison will continue forward whilst thrashing themselves to bits.
The wing while being quite good in vertical strength if you like but not really designed for head on impacts will just crumple and all the wing borne fuel tanks will break up and obviously the fuel will burn nicely. Aluminium doesn't take much before it's dribbling on the floor from the heat.
That's my theory anyway. :eek:
Yes but if you look at the photo on BB's link, the one of the hole in the wall with the no parking sign next to it. Shouldn't there at least be a scratch on the wall where a few tons of titanium alloy rotor blades hit it at 600 mph?
I wonder if the company that made and fixed that sign use that in their advertising? ;)
I bet they would love to but er no.
The engine bolted on to it? Did that evaporate as well?
Plus, how come the fuselage made a hole and the engine/wing/tailgate did not?
bekisman - thank you for the response, giving the conspiracy theory (official) line.
And ducati - I do not have a TV, so do not watch the programmes you refer to.
You aren’t an Astrophysicist are you Phill? :cool:
Astrophysicists use Newton - and Newton does not have "foldy wings".
Boozeburglar
02-Feb-10, 00:43
Newton may not, but aircraft are very weak structures relative to buildings.
Yes but if you look at the photo on BB's link, the one of the hole in the wall with the no parking sign next to it. Shouldn't there at least be a scratch on the wall where a few tons of titanium alloy rotor blades hit it at 600 mph?
I'm not going to discuss this all night it has been done to death and it is so far away from the original post as to be surreal.
But.. you seem to think the aeroplane should have gone through the wall? This would not have been the case. Some of the heavier parts made it through but the majority of the plane would have been (almost)completely destroyed. And what I mean by that is tweezer size pieces. And tragically (and this is why I'm loosing my cool) the people on the plane had the same fate.
Newton may not, but aircraft are very weak structures relative to buildings.
From Newton we see that a 3 tonne engine traveling at 400+ mph is going to pack a very large amount of momentum. More than the aluminium nosecone.
The official story is a conspiracy theory of the very worst kind, for it does not make any sense.
It was a missile that hit the Pentagon. At least one eyewitness even said so.
Plus, how come the fuselage made a hole and the engine/wing/tailgate did not?
bekisman - thank you for the response, giving the conspiracy theory (official) line.
And ducati - I do not have a TV, so do not watch the programmes you refer to.
You don't have a tely but you do have a computer-thats just odd!
From Newton we see that a 3 tonne engine traveling at 400+ mph is going to pack a very large amount of momentum. More than the aluminium nosecone.
The official story is a conspiracy theory of the very worst kind, for it does not make any sense.
It was a missile that hit the Pentagon. At least one eyewitness even said so.
In the face of compelling evidence I officially change sides-is there a special handshake or anything? [lol]
I'm not going to discuss this all night it has been done to death and it is so far away from the original post as to be surreal.
So you accept then that there is no connection between 11th September 2001 (whoever did it) and the slaughter of human beings in Iraq, except for Bush and Blair (which brings us back to the original topic)?
roadbowler
02-Feb-10, 00:55
quick observation, eventho we are now way off topic. ;) Lockerbie plane blew up into a few bits in the sky then proceeded to hit the ground at an estimated 614mph. It hit a variety of surfaces. Ie. Grass, pavement, buildings. Nothing much disintegrated and they wernae pickin up bodies wi tweezers either.
So you accept then that there is no connection between 11th September 2001 (whoever did it) and the slaughter of human beings in Iraq, except for Bush and Blair (which brings us back to the original topic)?
Did I even have an opinion on that I can't remember!
Boozeburglar
02-Feb-10, 01:07
quick observation, eventho we are now way off topic. ;) Lockerbie plane blew up into a few bits in the sky then proceeded to hit the ground at an estimated 614mph. It hit a variety of surfaces. Ie. Grass, pavement, buildings. Nothing much disintegrated and they wernae pickin up bodies wi tweezers either.
As far as I remember it was not deliberately slung into a fortified building.
quick observation, eventho we are now way off topic. ;) Lockerbie plane blew up into a few bits in the sky then proceeded to hit the ground at an estimated 614mph. It hit a variety of surfaces. Ie. Grass, pavement, buildings. Nothing much disintegrated and they wernae pickin up bodies wi tweezers either.
Who estimated 614 mph? Everything falls at the same speed left up to gravity
roadbowler
02-Feb-10, 01:17
no actually, i'm wrong, parts of it did disintegrate. My point is a lot of it was intact, as i recall there was a repiece of the thing was there not and even one stewardess was actually seen alive but, she died soon after. It's just something i thought about after the 9\11 pentagon plane thing. Seemed like there wasna much left.
Boozeburglar
02-Feb-10, 01:26
So you accept then that there is no connection between 11th September 2001 (whoever did it) and the slaughter of human beings in Iraq, except for Bush and Blair (which brings us back to the original topic)?
Who said there is?
Terrorism and the war against it was the specious argument for ridding Saddam of supposed WMDs, then the ridding of Saddam.
9/11 was not required for any of that argument, it was a convenient catalyst for public approval.
Boozeburglar
02-Feb-10, 01:31
no actually, i'm wrong, parts of it did disintegrate. My point is a lot of it was intact, as i recall there was a repiece of the thing was there not and even one stewardess was actually seen alive but, she died soon after. It's just something i thought about after the 9\11 pentagon plane thing. Seemed like there wasna much left.
I passed by Lockerbie immediately after and the destruction was widespread.
Did it come to pieces in the skies? YES! That would mean smaller pieces had less momentum and would not be broken up as badly.
The jet that hit the Pentagon was whole, a totally different scenario.
:)
roadbowler
02-Feb-10, 03:21
aye, precisely what i mean. Smaller bit travelling at roughly the same speed as the big bit and the wee bit making a much bigger hole in what it hit then a tiny hole in the side of a building made by a 757. Aye, different scenarios but, I question it.
northener
02-Feb-10, 09:10
quick observation, eventho we are now way off topic. ;) Lockerbie plane blew up into a few bits in the sky then proceeded to hit the ground at an estimated 614mph. It hit a variety of surfaces. Ie. Grass, pavement, buildings. Nothing much disintegrated and they wernae pickin up bodies wi tweezers either.
Totally different set of circumstances, Roadbowler. Lockerbie invloved a relatively small explosion at 35,000 feet scattering debris and bodies over a wide area, these then free fell to earth. IIRC the maximum velocity a body in freefall is about 120mph (parachutist data).
Pentagon etc were driven at extremely high speed into a large stationary object...the results speak for themselves...regardles of what members of the Paranoid Club may have us believe.
northener
02-Feb-10, 09:13
Who said there is?
Terrorism and the war against it was the specious argument for ridding Saddam of supposed WMDs, then the ridding of Saddam.
9/11 was not required for any of that argument, it was a convenient catalyst for public approval.
Indeedy, and even though it was reiterated time and time again that Iraq was out of the frame regarding 9/11, it suited many people to constantly refer to 'Al Queda, terrorism and 9/11 in any discussion about Eyeraq.
All the US Gubbernment had to do was step back and let Joe Public wind themselves up.
Totally different set of circumstances, Roadbowler. Lockerbie invloved a relatively small explosion at 35,000 feet scattering debris and bodies over a wide area, these then free fell to earth. IIRC the maximum velocity a body in freefall is about 120mph (parachutist data).
Pentagon etc were driven at extremely high speed into a large stationary object...the results speak for themselves...regardles of what members of the Paranoid Club may have us believe.
Did my RAPA (Rhine Army Parachute Association) free-fall course in 1965..
The terminal velocity of a falling human being with arms and legs outstretched is about 120 miles per hour. However, by diving or "standing up"in free fall, any experienced skydiver can learn to reach speeds of over 160-180MPH. Speeds of over 200MPH require significant practice to achieve.
Had a friend 'Ginge' who fell from 12,000 feet, and for some reason did not pull either main or reserve, hit the ground at Bad Lippspringe drop zone (football fields; grass) did not make a 'hole' but slight indentation & crumpled body
Yes but if you look at the photo on BB's link, the one of the hole in the wall with the no parking sign next to it. Shouldn't there at least be a scratch on the wall where a few tons of titanium alloy rotor blades hit it at 600 mph?
But the hole in question is an exit hole in another part of the building. Once the aircraft starts breaking up and different parts are hitting different sections within the building it is going to defect/stop/slow/skew these parts, so it's not expected that you'll have matching aircraft shaped exit marks.
And neither picture shows an area wide enough to include the engine positions IF they had continued in line with the fuselage AND assuming that hole was created by the fuselage.
You aren’t an Astrophysicist are you Phill? :cool:
Yup, armchair astrofisisist, bar room lawyer and general know it all. Available for weddings, bar mitzvars and web forums.
:cool::cool:
Indeedy, and even though it was reiterated time and time again that Iraq was out of the frame regarding 9/11, it suited many people to constantly refer to 'Al Queda, terrorism and 9/11 in any discussion about Eyeraq.
All the US Gubbernment had to do was step back and let Joe Public wind themselves up.
No, they did a lot more than that they deliberately misled the American people and Congress.
The law permitting American action in Iraq, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, made specific reference to 9/11.
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
That isn't just idle chit chat, not something said in a TV interview that is legislation, a legal document and the American public would automatically assume that if 9/11 was specifically cited in the reasons for going to war with Iraq then Iraq must have been directly involved in the attacks.
Yes, seen a lot of these pics before BB but I have to say I'm bloody impressed the parking sign made it!
That was stuck on by the alien just before he did a runner from his crash site as a wind up for the conspiracy theorists.
That isn't just idle chit chat, not something said in a TV interview that is legislation, a legal document and the American public would automatically assume that if 9/11 was specifically cited in the reasons for going to war with Iraq then Iraq must have been directly involved in the attacks.
Could they have just cashed in on a terrible terrorist incident to go and get themselves a load of oil? Let the public think the're bringing peace and democracy to the world and in return they get the oil, seems like a deal.
Could they have just cashed in on a terrible terrorist incident to go and get themselves a load of oil? Let the public think the're bringing peace and democracy to the world and in return they get the oil, seems like a deal.
I agree totally but then again it's our own fault for having such a rose tinted view of our modern Democracies
Democracy being a very overused word but underused in actual practice.
Remember it was not an "invasion of Iraq" but a "preemptive strike on Iraq" the media friendly word in the Western World for an act of aggression!
OK, here's the roof where the plane/missile/TNT/flying saucer hit the pentagon:
http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy337/Phill_Rawlins/itsalljustrandom/51.jpg
Here's a link to the original image (quite large):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/DF-SD-04-12734.JPEG
Now here's a close up:
http://i805.photobucket.com/albums/yy337/Phill_Rawlins/itsalljustrandom/aerials.jpg
There are several antenna's in this picture, 4 of them are fixed installations, 3 dishes with a telly aerial stuck on and 1 mast antenna. Fixed with base support and hard tray/trunked wiring.
Immediately behind the "target area" area there are 3 temporary installations, breeze blocks holding them in place and loose unfixed wiring.
Were these NAV aids for ensuring the (insert weapon of choice) hit the correct spot to give minimum casualties but enough justification for war?
Could they have just cashed in on a terrible terrorist incident to go and get themselves a load of oil? Let the public think the're bringing peace and democracy to the world and in return they get the oil, seems like a deal.
Ah, you're one of those "Coincidence Theorists", one of those people who have to see a coincidence in everything connected with 9/11.
In Sep 2000 a Neocon think tank called PNAC publish a report called "Rebuilding America's Defences" in which they outline their plans for American total domination of the world. They add "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
Then a year later when, quite by accident, many of those who wrote the report are members of the American government, there were these terrorists in a cave in Afghanistan and their leader, who by strange coincidence had a brother who was a business partner of the President of the United States...oh and his father sat on the board of a firm which specialised in investing in the arms industry with the president's father...decided to plan an attack on America which could not possibly succeed unless, by some strange coincidence, the US Airforce wouldn't be available to intercept that day. Then, by some strange coincidence the trading in United Airlines shot to 90 times normal levels, most of it put options, in the days prior to 9/11 a lot of the trading done by a bank, AB Brown, who's former Chairman, A B Krongard, was now, purely by coincidence of course, Executive Director of the CIA.
We haven't even got to the bit where the only three steel framed buildings ever to suffer complete and symmetrical collapse coincidently all happen at the same place on the same day yet and already it's starting to look a bit far fetched.
roadbowler
02-Feb-10, 14:51
Totally different set of circumstances, Roadbowler. Lockerbie invloved a relatively small explosion at 35,000 feet scattering debris and bodies over a wide area, these then free fell to earth. IIRC the maximum velocity a body in freefall is about 120mph (parachutist data).
Pentagon etc were driven at extremely high speed into a large stationary object...the results speak for themselves...regardles of what members of the Paranoid Club may have us believe.
look, i don't do physics but, i reread all the lockerbie accident reports and etc after the megrahi release again and that is the speed estimate i remember. I also mind i was thinking at the time, damn that's moving out. I went to look again just now and the wing section was estimated to be descending at a speed of anywhere from 500 kts to a theoretically achieveable 650 kts. Guess what, all the bits fell at different speeds, my guess is its' got something to do with weight and drag. Ok? Strangely the wings in both towers and the wing section at lockerbie did not 'fold back'. At lockerbie, 90% of the hull was recovered and reassembled. Pentagon there was barely anything left. If to question that makes me a conspiracy theorist in your eyes, so be it. Wonder what that makes people who question nothing and believe all the crap they are spoon fed in the media and by people of tony blairs ilk?
Ah, you're one of those "Coincidence Theorists", Hmmm, if the label fits!
one of those people who have to see a coincidence in everything connected with 9/11.Nope, I question things yes, and I can see through some spin and media crap. I can't actually find any coincidences, I don't think it was a coincidence that they Invaded Iraq. It may have been a way of getting an excuse & public backing, but not a coincidence.
They have gone there for oil, I don't think that is a conspiracy and they'll tell you that is what they are needing.
The question is just how is Blair involved, was he duped, or is he complicit at the highest level?
In Sep 2000 a Neocon think tank called PNAC publish a report called "Rebuilding America's Defences" in which they outline their plans for American total domination of the world. They add "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."If I was out for global domination I wouldn't be making my plans and thoughts public. Surprise, surprise & fear, fear & surprise....etc.
Maybe that is where I have gone wrong!
the US Airforce wouldn't be available to intercept that day.How were they not available, how was the entire USAF grounded, bank holiday for the military except those firing on the pentagon?
look, i don't do physics but, i reread all the lockerbie accident reports and etc after the megrahi release again and that is the speed estimate i remember. I also mind i was thinking at the time, damn that's moving out. I went to look again just now and the wing section was estimated to be descending at a speed of anywhere from 500 kts to a theoretically achieveable 650 kts. Guess what, all the bits fell at different speeds, my guess is its' got something to do with weight and drag. Ok? Strangely the wings in both towers and the wing section at lockerbie did not 'fold back'. At lockerbie, 90% of the hull was recovered and reassembled. Pentagon there was barely anything left. If to question that makes me a conspiracy theorist in your eyes, so be it. Wonder what that makes people who question nothing and believe all the crap they are spoon fed in the media and by people of tony blairs ilk?
Have you considered containment?
35,000ft up there is little to resist the explosion, it will spread things about, fuel will disperse.
Put 38,000 litres of Jet A1 into a confined space and, well, your ed.
roadbowler
02-Feb-10, 15:03
phil and boozeburgler, possible scenarios. Using 9/11 as a tool for better public approval or as an excuse but, doesn't seem too likely. Did blair even mention 7/7 the other day? 7/7 happened here and they still din't have much public approval. How about the article in yesterdays independent? Google "independent oust saddam secret"
roadbowler
02-Feb-10, 15:09
Have you considered containment?
35,000ft up there is little to resist the explosion, it will spread things about, fuel will disperse.
Put 38,000 litres of Jet A1 into a confined space and, well, your ed.
yea, it makes a mess. In my opinion more of a mess of the building than what it did. As for what you posted about not keeping things secret. Actually, i find these things are mostly hidden in plain view.
Did blair even mention 7/7 the other day? 7/7 happened here and they still din't have much public approval.
But the UK has had a longer history of terrorist attacks and whilst horrific and atrocious, and I am not making light of the tragedy, it was another Brighton bomb, another Hyde Park, another Harrods.
It was never going to whip the UK into a "let's go and bomb them" frenzy.
Different history and psyche between the UK & US.
roadbowler
02-Feb-10, 15:28
yea, i agree with that. But, then why was blair trying to "use" 9\11 in this way? This obviously formed a large part of his reasoning for invading.
How about the article in yesterdays independent? Google "independent oust saddam secret"
A load of old crap, rehashed and peddled as news I'm afraid. As I said in post 69, I understand plans were in place during GW1 but never acted on.
How were they not available, how was the entire USAF grounded, bank holiday for the military except those firing on the pentagon?
Well now it's one of those strange coincidences that just before 9/11, on the 1st of June 2001 they changed the rules with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A which said that the US airforce could not intercept without permission from Secretary of Defence and by some coincidence he wasn't available, nobody seemed to know where he was, seems they still don't.
In any case it probably wouldn't have done any good because by coincidence there were five different military exercises taking place that day making it impossible for flight controllers, commanders and pilots to tell the difference between real world events and exercise scenarios.
Coincidentally one of the exercises involved a plane crashing into a building.
northener
02-Feb-10, 15:38
look, i don't do physics but, i reread all the lockerbie accident reports and etc after the megrahi release again and that is the speed estimate i remember. I also mind i was thinking at the time, damn that's moving out. I went to look again just now and the wing section was estimated to be descending at a speed of anywhere from 500 kts to a theoretically achieveable 650 kts. Guess what, all the bits fell at different speeds, my guess is its' got something to do with weight and drag. Ok? Strangely the wings in both towers and the wing section at lockerbie did not 'fold back'. At lockerbie, 90% of the hull was recovered and reassembled. Pentagon there was barely anything left. If to question that makes me a conspiracy theorist in your eyes, so be it. Wonder what that makes people who question nothing and believe all the crap they are spoon fed in the media and by people of tony blairs ilk?
Roadbowler, I'm not going to comment further on what bits of aircraft are likely to do what at a given speed, I can't be arsed. Believe what you will. You're wrong.
yea, i agree with that. But, then why was blair trying to "use" 9\11 in this way? This obviously formed a large part of his reasoning for invading.
Because 9/11 is far more spectacular and awe inspiring spin to throw to the news dogs.
Well now it's one of those strange coincidences that just before 9/11, on the 1st of June 2001 they changed the rules with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A which said that the US airforce could not intercept without permission from Secretary of Defence and by some coincidence he wasn't available, nobody seemed to know where he was, seems they still don't.
In any case it probably wouldn't have done any good because by coincidence there were five different military exercises taking place that day making it impossible for flight controllers, commanders and pilots to tell the difference between real world events and exercise scenarios.
Coincidentally one of the exercises involved a plane crashing into a building.
Do you really believe ATC had the time to realise just what was happening with a couple of aeroplanes, notify the appropriate authorities, get hold of the right people, and for them to launch whatever the US has for QRA, get them to the prerequisite locations amid confusion and get ready to bring down the aircraft without serious loss of life.
Looking at the Wiki timeline it took 6 minutes for ATC to sound the alarm, 26 minutes later the fighters were scambled, 40 seconds later the first plane struck.
Even if they couldn't get hold of someone to make a decision, they policies and procedures for getting aircraft airborne are, I would assume to be, automatic.
I'm sure you'll find it if you google it, but in the last few (post 9/11) years there was an exercise in UK airspace where a commercial airliner flew off plan and headed for a nuclear facility in a simulated airborne attack. After flying round for a while within immediate range of their target they got bored waiting for the RAF to come and blow them out of the sky.
roadbowler
02-Feb-10, 16:07
A load of old crap, rehashed and peddled as news I'm afraid. As I said in post 69, I understand plans were in place during GW1 but never acted on.
well, it might be crap yes. But, the fact you think that plan was in place in the first 'part' of the invasion might also be crap, ye see? However, the problem with people is that they've already got their 'theory' worked out and anything that does not fit their theory is cast out, ignored, and must be crap. Good luck with that i say. Blair decided to continue with his slaughter of the iraqi people and the man canna give us a straight answer for his actions. Even if he could, the slaughter is criminal for any reason. So far, my theory is well and truly open but, starts with the sad reality that the government are criminal.
well, it might be crap yes. But, the fact you think that plan was in place in the first 'part' of the invasion might also be crap, ye see? I accept what your saying, I'm not running on a theory on that issue though.
However, the problem with people is that they've already got their 'theory' worked out and anything that does not fit their theory is cast out, ignored, and must be crap. I'm not casting everything out, as I don't really have a theory figured out yet that satisfies my mind (9/11). I question certain things and I have different/opposing solutions or theories for parts of what went on, I'm not ignoring things though.
Blair decided to continue with his slaughter of the iraqi people and the man canna give us a straight answer for his actions. Even if he could, the slaughter is criminal for any reason. So far, my theory is well and truly open but, starts with the sad reality that the government are criminal.I agree the true reasons for going into Iraq are not out in the open. I don't think it is a huge conspiracy, it is about the oil. I think there has been a lot of spin and hoodwinking going on for Blair to get the backing he desired, I don't think he was colluding with the CIA/Bush Administration/little green men to concoct huge attacks on buildings and transport to get that backing.
Sory, it's me again. This will be brief. The conspracy theorists in all their illogicality and refusal to accept reality remind me of nothing less tha a religious cult. That is ironic because I am fairly certain that the conspiracy theorists pride themselves on being athiests ,or at the very. least agnostics. Should we add the Book of Fred or the Book of Stavros to the New Testament? Somewhere near the Book of Revelations?
Just asking....
Do you really believe ATC had the time to realise just what was happening with a couple of aeroplanes, notify the appropriate authorities, get hold of the right people, and for them to launch whatever the US has for QRA, get them to the prerequisite locations amid confusion and get ready to bring down the aircraft without serious loss of life.
Looking at the Wiki timeline it took 6 minutes for ATC to sound the alarm, 26 minutes later the fighters were scambled, 40 seconds later the first plane struck.
So after the first plane struck the most sophisticated defence force in the world would have known they meant business.
What about the other three planes?
Ah, you're one of those "Coincidence Theorists", one of those people who have to see a coincidence in everything connected with 9/11.
In Sep 2000 a Neocon think tank called PNAC publish a report called "Rebuilding America's Defences" in which they outline their plans for American total domination of the world. They add "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
Then a year later when, quite by accident, many of those who wrote the report are members of the American government, there were these terrorists in a cave in Afghanistan and their leader, who by strange coincidence had a brother who was a business partner of the President of the United States...oh and his father sat on the board of a firm which specialised in investing in the arms industry with the president's father...decided to plan an attack on America which could not possibly succeed unless, by some strange coincidence, the US Airforce wouldn't be available to intercept that day. Then, by some strange coincidence the trading in United Airlines shot to 90 times normal levels, most of it put options, in the days prior to 9/11 a lot of the trading done by a bank, AB Brown, who's former Chairman, A B Krongard, was now, purely by coincidence of course, Executive Director of the CIA.
We haven't even got to the bit where the only three steel framed buildings ever to suffer complete and symmetrical collapse coincidently all happen at the same place on the same day yet and already it's starting to look a bit far fetched.
Fred I know it's http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
But where exactly does it say "they outline their plans for American total domination of the world"?
northener
02-Feb-10, 17:10
So after the first plane struck the most sophisticated defence force in the world would have known they meant business.
What about the other three planes?
With respect, it doesn't work like that, Fred.
What you have to appreciate is that this form of attack - on this scale -was completely without precedent. No-one in the US really believed that anything so audacious could be successfully executed.
Plane 1 hit, at that point there was confusion over whether it was an accident or not, if they had had the wit to quickly link together all the other 'missing' aircraft into one planned assault and act upon this information, then maybe a couple of planes may not have got through.
But the problem was that this had never, ever been seen before, by anybody, anywhere in the world.
Confusion reigns in any situation such as this, and there isn't one military commander in the whole of the US Armed Forces who would have been willing to authorise a shoot-down of a civilian airliner without being 150% certain of their position. And that intelligence or level of understanding of the nature of the attack simply did not exist at that time.
A sophisticated defence system only works against threats that are understood, this understanding is based largely on pre-existing experiences and knowledge. Again, this attack was so well executed and audacious that many people would have doubted it was possible, or that any organisation could be so ruthless in it's ambitions.
The US miltary machine is certainly not as omnipotent as the US would have everyone believe. They screw up the same as everyone else. I've been on excersizes with US forces and, to be honest, they could be pretty basic to 'get one over' on - simply because they were over confident in their own security and underestimated everyone elses ability.
They're a damn sight sharper now since the idea of 'Fortress America' was blown out of the side of the Two Towers. I've no doubt that there would be very little hesitation to shoot down a civilian airliner should a similar situation arise tomorrow.
Boozeburglar
02-Feb-10, 17:15
No, they did a lot more than that they deliberately misled the American people and Congress.
The law permitting American action in Iraq, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, made specific reference to 9/11.
That isn't just idle chit chat, not something said in a TV interview that is legislation, a legal document and the American public would automatically assume that if 9/11 was specifically cited in the reasons for going to war with Iraq then Iraq must have been directly involved in the attacks.
How many of the American public do you think scrutinised the wording of H.J.Res.114?
Remember it was Afghanistan at the time of 9/11 that was considered the primary harbouring country.
By the time H.J.Res.114 was returned and passed, the public opinion train was already rolling, towards war anywhere against anyone. It was months after the attack, the people were impatient for action, and were not looking at the content of that resolution to decide on the issue.
If Bush had said they believed that Russia was behind the attacks then they would have been going to war with Russia.
The USA was hungry for revenge, and it does not matter who the victim was, the people would have swallowed the reasoning.
That is the problem with terrorism. Often its only result is terrorism.
So after the first plane struck the most sophisticated defence force in the world would have known they meant business.
What about the other three planes?
I think that they simply did not know what was going on.
It's all very easy to sit back now with huge rafts of data from 'tinterweb and collate facts, theories and outrageous lies then spend time disseminating it.
In the cold light of day, whilst witnessing a never before seen type & scale of atrocity, amid huge confusion and absolutely zero warning, the number of agencies involved and the geographical area covered......yes, they missed the trick, I think it was that simple.
I think that they simply did not know what was going on.
It's all very easy to sit back now with huge rafts of data from 'tinterweb and collate facts, theories and outrageous lies then spend time disseminating it.
In the cold light of day, whilst witnessing a never before seen type & scale of atrocity, amid huge confusion and absolutely zero warning, the number of agencies involved and the geographical area covered......yes, they missed the trick, I think it was that simple.
They simply didn't know what was going on yet at 09:17 CBS News correspondent Jim Stewart tells the world it was probably Bin Laden what done it? Personally I would have thought that not knowing what was going on would be all the more incentive to get some jets up there to find out what was going on, wouldn't you?
They were slow to react, disorganised but managed to have an invasion force in Afghanistan in 26 days? A massive piece of legislation called the Patriot Act before Congress in two weeks? That doesn't sound like they were slow to react to me.
There are normal procedures for any hijacking, the military are prepared to deal with hijackings, that is their job, they practice it, they didn't do it.
It only struck me last night. Why did I not see it before?
That the Chilcot Inquiry is a farce and a whitewash is an understatement in the extreme, but what is the real point of it?
Blair was nervous and ruffled to begin with, needing his bodyguards and doing a runner through the back door, both before and after his rehearsed lines were delivered. Perhaps that is why I missed it.
Blair is not interested in saying 'sorry'; not interested in the dead and maimed; not interested in the stealing of oil; not overly interested in the re-establishment of the opium trade in Afghanistan; and, as such, he seems in harmony with at least two of the five "inquiry" members.
No, the point both of Blair's "evidence" and this "inquiry," in my opinion, is to further mislead and brainwash the public. So, what does he go on about passionately?
...
... IRAN.
For no doubt people who cannot even see anything suspicious about the "New Pearl Harbour" - The Twin Towers of 11 September 2001 - which provided those people with an official conspiracy theory which they somehow need, will buy the IRAN(/Iraq) IS EVIL, IRAN(/Iraq) HAS WMDs, IRAN(/Iraq) IS A DANGER lies, perhaps because they are unable to ever see through anything?
It only struck me last night. Why did I not see it before?
That the Chilcot Inquiry is a farce and a whitewash is an understatement in the extreme, but what is the real point of it?
Blair was nervous and ruffled to begin with, needing his bodyguards and doing a runner through the back door, both before and after his rehearsed lines were delivered. Perhaps that is why I missed it.
Blair is not interested in saying 'sorry'; not interested in the dead and maimed; not interested in the stealing of oil; not overly interested in the re-establishment of the opium trade in Afghanistan; and, as such, he seems in harmony with at least two of the five "inquiry" members.
No, the point both of Blair's "evidence" and this "inquiry," in my opinion, is to further mislead and brainwash the public. So, what does he go on about passionately?
...
... IRAN.
For no doubt people who cannot even see anything suspicious about the "New Pearl Harbour" - The Twin Towers of 11 September 2001 - which provided those people with an official conspiracy theory which they somehow need, will buy the IRAN(/Iraq) IS EVIL, IRAN(/Iraq) HAS WMDs, IRAN(/Iraq) IS A DANGER lies, perhaps because they are unable to ever see through anything?
Bit confused here "not interested in the stealing of oil" - what stealing? could you provide a link or something?; ta
They simply didn't know what was going on yet at 09:17 CBS News correspondent Jim Stewart tells the world it was probably Bin Laden what done it? So the response of the US should have been based on a newsreaders spiel. There were all sorts of conflicting reports going on that day, they would have been spouting anything because they didn't have much in the way of facts to go on.
There are normal procedures for any hijacking, the military are prepared to deal with hijackings, that is their job, they practice it, they didn't do it.
And pre 9/11 it was be nice to Mr Hijacker, get the plane on the ground, do some nice chatty chatty and they'd call it a day or the plane was stormed and someone else called it a day.
So the response of the US should have been based on a newsreaders spiel. There were all sorts of conflicting reports going on that day, they would have been spouting anything because they didn't have much in the way of facts to go on.
They said they had got the information from the security services. So we'll leave aside the fact that the country with the most advanced defence system in the world couldn't get a supersonic jet in sight of a lumbering airliner when they had four to choose from.
What about that massive piece of legislation, the Patriot act, they didn't waste any time rolling out before Congress. Then by some strange coincidence congressmen started getting anthrax through the post. Of course the American government would never do a thing like that would they? Just another coincidence.
It only struck me last night. Why did I not see it before?
Boy boy. Who would believe some of the stuff posted on this thread. It's fantastic and nearly as tasty as the favourite sandwich thread. Fred still hasnt hit top gear but Stavro's horsing up the straight like a colt on fire. :lol:
I tell you now. This stuff is way beyond me. I cant begin to imagine why people can believe such stuff but I heard on the radio today that 1 in 3 Americans now believe their government had something to do with the Twin Towers attack. Another year or so of this propeganda being produced on the org and perhaps the majority of orgers will believe the same thing. Fred and Stavro want us to believe that our governments are evil and all this upheaval in the world is their responsability. Either their right and Im as niave as a new born baby or the idea is absurd. Their charge against the American government is pretty clear and Stavros has made his point about what he thinks of Tony Blair.
Whatever they think of Tony Blair I think he did what he thought needed to be done in a world torn apart by crazy beliefs. I admire Tony Blair for what he had to do considering the options and the politics available. This conflict had to happen and the blame lies firmly at the feet of whoever is responsable for the rising number of terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists.
Personally I think theres a lot of crazy mullahs out there who would have no hesitation in letting of a nuclear device in any country in the world and for that reason I am happier with a freedom loving people as the policeman of the world.
Dam right they should keep there eye on the Iranians. Nothing wrong with the Iranian people but their government is anti American. I hope nothing happens there but there seems to be a lot of discontent amongst the people so maybe there could be another revolution there and there will be no need to invade. :eek:
northener
02-Feb-10, 23:47
......
There are normal procedures for any hijacking, the military are prepared to deal with hijackings, that is their job, they practice it, they didn't do it.
Fred, you're way off here, mate.
northener
02-Feb-10, 23:51
They said they had got the information from the security services. So we'll leave aside the fact that the country with the most advanced defence system in the world couldn't get a supersonic jet in sight of a lumbering airliner when they had four to choose from.
.....
Well Fred, it's nice to see you haven't lost your knack of ignoring anyone else on a given portion of any subject you're discussing. I've covered this with logic for you already......
Both hands on, pull lever aaaaaaaaaaaaand eject.
Goodbye.[lol]
There are normal procedures for any hijacking, the military are prepared to deal with hijackings, that is their job, they practice it, they didn't do it.
I do not see any military action being taken against the Somali pirates and the hijackings they have done Fred, in fact a real lack of it, so I suspect your theory is flawed on this subject like most of your theories.
This conflict had to happen and the blame lies firmly at the feet of whoever is responsable for the rising number of terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists. :eek:
I know its not as simple as that and America has a lot to learn about alternative ways of using it's power, but I know what side I'm on.
"During his evidence concerning the Iraq war Mr Blair, who is now a Middle East peace envoy, mentioned Iran 28 times and added: 'I take a very hard line on Iran today and many of the same arguments apply.' ”
(Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/7110477/Former-ambassador-to-Iran-Sir-Richard-Dalton-criticises-Tony-Blair-over-Iran.html )
They said they had got the information from the security services. So we'll leave aside the fact that the country with the most advanced defence system in the world couldn't get a supersonic jet in sight of a lumbering airliner when they had four to choose from.
500 to 600mph is hardly lumbering. Looking through the timeline of events the first 2 aircraft were lost before any real idea had sunk in and military aircraft had barely got airborne. The third aircraft was not tracked due to radar outage (not uncommon) and was lost for 36 minutes. The last aircraft wasn't hijacked until 42 minutes after the first hit the WTC.
It wasn't a nice easy selection process of 4 planes lined up at once. This was busy airspace at a busy time of day spread over hundreds of miles with an unprecedented act, or acts, of terrorism.
I don't know what the US had pre 9/11 on standby to intercept and shoot down their own passenger jets, my guess not a lot. Nor the airborne assets monitoring commercial aircraft.
They may have had four to choose from but they were spread out time wise and amongst many,many other aircraft, and amid massive confusion.
Post event it may look like it was all so easy to just shoot down 4 planes, but whoever makes the decisions will always be quite a few minutes away from events and they will want as much info as possible to authorise such action.
Right now just short of 5000 planes are airborne in the US, one has just had a transponder failure and is not replying to radio calls. Shoot it down? right now, that's all you know, Shoot it down..NOW??
What about that massive piece of legislation, the Patriot act, they didn't waste any time rolling out before Congress. Then by some strange coincidence congressmen started getting anthrax through the post. Of course the American government would never do a thing like that would they? Just another coincidence.The Patriot act was massive but was far from well thought out, reads more like a wish list from every agency and cobbled together and thrown through the Houses whilst the heat was on. Only to later be fought against and sections repealed as unconstitutional with false arrests and public apologies.
The US has more than it's fair share of loons always ready to mix up the pot by sending stuff through the post or rampaging around with guns.
Anthrax in the post isn't exactly smart, I'm pretty sure if "they" wanted to take someone out they could do better than that.
The Patriot act was massive but was far from well thought out, reads more like a wish list from every agency and cobbled together and thrown through the Houses whilst the heat was on. Only to later be fought against and sections repealed as unconstitutional with false arrests and public apologies.
The US has more than it's fair share of loons always ready to mix up the pot by sending stuff through the post or rampaging around with guns.
Anthrax in the post isn't exactly smart, I'm pretty sure if "they" wanted to take someone out they could do better than that.
Take them out? They didn't want to take anyone out, they wanted them alive and scared witless when they voted for that Patriot Act.
A lot of innocent people did die but no Congressmen.
I admire Tony Blair for what he had to do considering the options and the politics available. This conflict had to happen and the blame lies firmly at the feet of whoever is responsable for the rising number of terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists.
Was Saddam an Islamic Extremist? Was Saddam invading the UK, was he brainwashing people into suicide bombings in the UK?
I don't think so.
Blair was press ganged into the Iraq invasion due to owing a few favours to the US or he believed his divine intervention would be a quick delivery of democracy.
Either way the WMD story was just that, a story and he had made HIS decision and then attempted to get support by peddling his story.
Either way the WMD story was just that, a story and he had made HIS decision and then attempted to get support by peddling his story.
Oh Right. I didnt know that.
Take them out? They didn't want to take anyone out, they wanted them alive and scared witless when they voted for that Patriot Act.
A lot of innocent people did die but no Congressmen.
Oh come on, you can do better than that. Scaring politicians with Anthrax!
They just need to air some dirty laundry, that would scare 'em.
The Anthrax was a nutters job for publicity.
Now, about our plane that may have gone AWOL, what's your decision?
I've got two fighters up ready to fire.
No transponder and not responding to radio calls, it's made some unusual manoeuvres now.
Do you want to shoot it down?? 163 on board ???
Look. I think it was perfectly reasonable for Tony Blair to think that Sadaam may have had some nasty weapons even without getting inteligence which would have been very difficult to obtain anyway, and very dangerous for anyone who was prepared to risk their lives and tell the Americans about sadaams capabilities. The guy was a proven danger who had already tried to start a Middle east war by firing Scuds at Israel so please no more of this Poor Mr innocent Sadaam stuff.
I don't think anyone here is trying to pretend that Saddam was some poor, misunderstood individual.
He was a tyrant, no question. And in my mind he needed taking out / removing from power. Also Mugabe does, but there isn't much US interest in that.
Whilst he was rattling the cages of his neighbours he wasn't out to cause the West much damage. Didn't the scuds only come in during GW1? Knowing that Israel is the key component for Western involvement and worry!
The combined intelligence agencies aren't totally numb, they are a government department so they are allowed their fair share of utter embarrassments but they aren't completely clueless. Between the UK & US, as suppliers, we would have a pretty good idea of what he had.
And anything coming from Russia would have been monitored by the US and MOSSAD would have kept a close eye on things anyway.
Whatever his reasons, I don't believe Tony did this the right way. I believe he was under pressure from the US and / or he saw this as an opportunity for him to gain ego points.
He should have got the full backing from the UN, and I do think the WMD was a stupid story.
Oh come on, you can do better than that. Scaring politicians with Anthrax!
They just need to air some dirty laundry, that would scare 'em.
The Anthrax was a nutters job for publicity.
Now, about our plane that may have gone AWOL, what's your decision?
I've got two fighters up ready to fire.
No transponder and not responding to radio calls, it's made some unusual manoeuvres now.
Do you want to shoot it down?? 163 on board ???
Come on fred this 'plane has been waiting for a decision for 5 hours - what's to do?
Come on fred this 'plane has been waiting for a decision for 5 hours - what's to do?
Ah well, there you go!
The plane had multiple electrical failures after being hit by lightning and lost navigational and communication equipment. Desperately hoping for military intervention to come along and guide them down.
The fighters were stood off waiting for a decision.
All three fell out the sky due to fuel exhaustion.
. Never mind hey.
Oh come on, you can do better than that. Scaring politicians with Anthrax!
They just need to air some dirty laundry, that would scare 'em.
The Anthrax was a nutters job for publicity.
The anthrax was traced to a top security government facility, no one claimed responsibility, how could it be for publicity?
Now, about our plane that may have gone AWOL, what's your decision?
I've got two fighters up ready to fire.
No transponder and not responding to radio calls, it's made some unusual manoeuvres now.
Do you want to shoot it down?? 163 on board ???
That wasn't the situation on 9/11.
They didn't get any jets in sight of the hijacked planes, the question is why not?
It was and still is standard procedure to send fighters to escort a hijacked plane.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/08/unruly.passenger/index.html
Look. I think it was perfectly reasonable for Tony Blair to think that Sadaam may have had some nasty weapons even without getting inteligence which would have been very difficult to obtain anyway, and very dangerous for anyone who was prepared to risk their lives and tell the Americans about sadaams capabilities. The guy was a proven danger who had already tried to start a Middle east war by firing Scuds at Israel so please no more of this Poor Mr innocent Sadaam stuff.
It didn't worry us too much that Saddam wasn't a nice guy when we were putting him into power. It didn't worry us too much him invading another country when it was the country we told him to invade. It didn't worry us too much him using chemical and biological weapons when he was using them against Iran, we even supplied him with the weapons.
Take another look at post #93 (http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=653636&postcount=93), just some of the misdeeds of America and just some of the ruthless dictators they have installed and supported.
The facts do not support your hypothesis.
The anthrax was traced to a top security government facility, no one claimed responsibility, how could it be for publicity?
That wasn't the situation on 9/11.
They didn't get any jets in sight of the hijacked planes, the question is why not?
It was and still is standard procedure to send fighters to escort a hijacked plane.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/01/08/unruly.passenger/index.html
Fred RE; Anthrax:
In mid-2008, the FBI narrowed its focus to Bruce Edwards Ivins, a scientist who worked at the government's biodefense labs at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland. Ivins was told of the impending prosecution and on July 27 committed suicide, by an overdose of acetaminophen
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/08/justice_department_concludes_d.html
That wasn't the situation on 9/11.
They didn't get any jets in sight of the hijacked planes, the question is why not?
It was and still is standard procedure to send fighters to escort a hijacked plane.
By my reckoning the handbook they had prior 9/11 was generally based around the self preservation of the hijackers and communication.
On this day there was a new set of cards dealt and the US were still looking at their hand. Amid the confusion they were looking for one aircraft that had already crashed, and another that was effectively lost due to radar failure.
I still maintain that in that confusion and lots of aeryplanes trying to find one or two that don't want to be found is going to take a lot of work and coordination between Mil & Civ controllers, the time wasn't there.
Fred RE; Anthrax:
In mid-2008, the FBI narrowed its focus to Bruce Edwards Ivins, a scientist who worked at the government's biodefense labs at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland. Ivins was told of the impending prosecution and on July 27 committed suicide, by an overdose of acetaminophen
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/08/justice_department_concludes_d.html
So let's see, Bush is trying to push through legislation which would give him free reign to do as he likes, spy on who he wants to, arrest who he wants to tear up the Constitution. Then by fortunate COINCIDENCE some government employee starts sending anthrax to congressmen while the bill is being debated.
Then by COINCIDENCE the man commits suicide before they have to go to court and present evidence or hear testimony.
How long do you think you can keep churning out your coincidence theories before you loose all credibility?
Fred: "How long do you think you can keep churning out your coincidence theories before you loose all credibility? "
Well, go on then, you mean yourself of course, don't you?
By my reckoning the handbook they had prior 9/11 was generally based around the self preservation of the hijackers and communication.
On this day there was a new set of cards dealt and the US were still looking at their hand. Amid the confusion they were looking for one aircraft that had already crashed, and another that was effectively lost due to radar failure.
I still maintain that in that confusion and lots of aeryplanes trying to find one or two that don't want to be found is going to take a lot of work and coordination between Mil & Civ controllers, the time wasn't there.
Air traffic controllers are supposed to know where aeroplanes are, civilian and military. They have ever inch of sky mapped on radar, their planes have radar, they have satellites that can read a car numberplate. Missiles that can bring down an ICBM before it gets halfway across the Atlantic.
At 08:36 they knew where two planes were, AA11 and UA175, they were both in the same place, they almost collided directly over Stewart Airbase. UA175 at this time had not been hijacked and radioed the position of AA11.
What are the chances of the two planes which hit the towers almost colliding directly over an airforce base? One of the planes known to have been hijacked yet they still couldn't get an intercept up.
Coincidence?
Talking about conspiracy theory: "I look forward to the trial of Sadam with great interest, I have a feeling if the truth is allowed to be let out people will realise things arn't just as black and white as they have been led to believe"
Ok, that was written by you in 2007, we're still waiting..
Talking about conspiracy theory: "I look forward to the trial of Sadam with great interest, I have a feeling if the truth is allowed to be let out people will realise things arn't just as black and white as they have been led to believe"
Ok, that was written by you in 2007, we're still waiting..
Erm, Saddam was hung in 2006, can't think why I would say that in 2007.
Saddam was only ever tried on one charge, the deaths of 178 Shiites, they made sure he never got to testify on anything else.
Anyhow if you've had to resort to raking through the archives to try and dig up dirt to try and discredit me you don't have much of an argument.
"raking through the archives "
Not me mate - ain't done that for ages
Boozeburglar
03-Feb-10, 16:23
if you've had to resort to raking through the archives to try . . . and discredit me you don't have much of an argument.
Geez, wouldn't take any raking mate. Just about any of your posts discredits you. ;)
Air traffic controllers are supposed to know where aeroplanes are, civilian and military. They have ever inch of sky mapped on radar, their planes have radar, they have satellites that can read a car numberplate. Missiles that can bring down an ICBM before it gets halfway across the Atlantic.
There is half the problem, their defences were watching everyone else and everywhere else and not their own back yard.
At 08:36 they knew where two planes were, AA11 and UA175, they were both in the same place, they almost collided directly over Stewart Airbase. UA175 at this time had not been hijacked and radioed the position of AA11.
What are the chances of the two planes which hit the towers almost colliding directly over an airforce base? One of the planes known to have been hijacked yet they still couldn't get an intercept up.
Coincidence?Pre 9/11 the USAF had 14 aircraft on standby. 14 for the whole of the US, that shows you how little they were expecting anything like this. They have now around 100.
I can look at a screen right now that shows me pretty much every commercial airliner airborne in the UK and a large part of Europe, but only because they are transmitting the required info' they switch it off they become dots on a screen.
The terrorist changed codes that are used by aircraft, called squawks, these are what is used to identify aircraft by ATC. Normally there is a particular code used for hijacking, these guys used different and changing codes. Possibly the same as other aircraft, I don't know, that is a guess. But either way it makes for very difficult positive identification.
This was not some Hollywood blockbuster where a nerd taps a few buttons and all of a sudden satellites immediately alter course and within seconds are flashing up images. It really doesn't work like that, and the spy satellites they have, again my guess is they were not watching the lawn grow at the White house, they may have been reading number plates in Russia.
Satellites are held in set orbits or geostationary, they cannot be moved at the flick of a switch. Even today using emergency beacons which scream out their message it can take and hour or so to pin point it's exact location depending on where the satellites are positioned.
I can only guess that the US have similar readiness for aircraft, it may have been around the 10 minute mark from being scrambled. As I mentioned 14 across the US, 3 & half states ish per plane, is not a lot.
They may have plenty of aircraft on the ground, or in ex's as you pointed out, but these will not be battle ready, even if they had the ground crews prepared and the right aircraft it still would have taken at least an hour to get additional up.
Here's a conspiracy for you, they may have actually sent to unarmed jets up expecting to just guide 1 plane into an airfield at worse, at best they probably expected a false alarm.
Pre 9/11 the USAF had 14 aircraft on standby. 14 for the whole of the US, that shows you how little they were expecting anything like this. They have now around 100.
I find that hard to believe, that the Country which spends more on defence than all other countries put together had only 14 combat ready planes. I find it especially hard to believe when they always did so well in the exercises (http://www.scribd.com/doc/16411947/NORAD-Exercises-Hijack-Summary) staged by NORAD four times a year to test their readiness for dealing with things like hijackings, the exercises which prove America was expecting something like that, there is a lot of evidence they were expecting something exactly like that.
I find that hard to believe that pre 9/11 they only had 14 planes but what is even harder to believe, when the allarm bells had been ringing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_advance-knowledge_debate), is that on 9/11 they only had four (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2222205.stm).
Coincidence?
I find that hard to believe, that the Country which spends more on defence than all other countries put together had only 14 combat ready planes. I find it especially hard to believe when they always did so well in the exercises (http://www.scribd.com/doc/16411947/NORAD-Exercises-Hijack-Summary) staged by NORAD four times a year to test their readiness for dealing with things like hijackings, the exercises which prove America was expecting something like that, there is a lot of evidence they were expecting something exactly like that.
I find that hard to believe that pre 9/11 they only had 14 planes but what is even harder to believe, when the allarm bells had been ringing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_advance-knowledge_debate), is that on 9/11 they only had four (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2222205.stm).
Coincidence?
4, yeah the four that covered North Eastern US. So going off what I said earlier they had about 14 States to cover so that sounds about right. NOT 4 covering the WHOLE US, 4 covering a section.
Pretty logical way of doing things.
Have a little read through this:
http://www.public-action.com/911/eberhart-testimony.html
One pertinent part and the last line in bold which is key:
"Sir, FAA is charged with the primary responsibility in terms of hijacking in the United States of America. We are charged with assisting FAA once they ask for our assistance. As you know, the last hijacking of a commercial aircraft in the United States of America was 1991. So although we practice this, day in and day out, the FAA sees on their scopes scores of problems that are a result of mechanical problems, switch errors, pilot errors, et cetera, and that that's what they think when they see this. Although we have exercised this, we have practiced it, in most cases it's a hijacking like most of the hijackings, all of the hijackings I'm aware of, where we have plenty of time to react, we get on the wing, and we follow this airplane to where it lands and then the negotiations start. We were not thinking a missile -- an airborne missile that was going to be used as a target -- a manned missile if you will.
And in most cases when we practice this, regrettably we practiced it -- the origin of this flight was from overseas and we did not have the time-distance problems that we had on that morning. We had plenty of time to react. We were notified that for sure there was a hijacking and we were notified that they were holding a gun to the pilot's head and telling him to fly toward New York City or Washington, D.C. So that's how we had practiced this, sir.
I certainly wish we had practiced it differently, but I really think that, for sure in the first two instances, and probably in the third, the time and distance would not have allowed us to get an airplane to the right place at the right time."
On a comparison note, although I don't know what the UK's budget for defence is in relation to the US, the UK has 4 QRA aircraft to protect our skies at readiness, 5 if you count the VC10. Doubled since 9/11.
There are plenty more about, flying up and down, on exercises, in combat in Afghanistan, doing pretty little displays, in training etc. etc. etc.
But combat ready = 4/327
I don't know how many the USAF have but extrapolates this to the US and that would give them over 8000 fighters NOT available.
And as one of your links pointed out they did have weaponless aircraft up to "fight" off the foe, just as I said as an aside.
me, that's a coincidence [para]
And yes they did seem to have covered a variety of hijacking possibilities in exercises, a very wide and varied selection.
But did they expect 4 on the same day, all from within the US?
They very obviously didn't.
They even had an exercise with a hijacked aircraft with WMD's on board, was that a coincidence or a conspiracy to bolster Mr Blair's claims.
There, I knew I'd get this nearly back on topic somehow!
Ah, you're one of those "Coincidence Theorists", one of those people who have to see a coincidence in everything connected with 9/11.
In Sep 2000 a Neocon think tank called PNAC publish a report called "Rebuilding America's Defences" in which they outline their plans for American total domination of the world. They add "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
Then a year later when, quite by accident, many of those who wrote the report are members of the American government, there were these terrorists in a cave in Afghanistan and their leader, who by strange coincidence had a brother who was a business partner of the President of the United States...oh and his father sat on the board of a firm which specialised in investing in the arms industry with the president's father...decided to plan an attack on America which could not possibly succeed unless, by some strange coincidence, the US Airforce wouldn't be available to intercept that day. Then, by some strange coincidence the trading in United Airlines shot to 90 times normal levels, most of it put options, in the days prior to 9/11 a lot of the trading done by a bank, AB Brown, who's former Chairman, A B Krongard, was now, purely by coincidence of course, Executive Director of the CIA.
We haven't even got to the bit where the only three steel framed buildings ever to suffer complete and symmetrical collapse coincidently all happen at the same place on the same day yet and already it's starting to look a bit far fetched.
Yes, coincidence theorists have a lot of explaining to do unless, like Boozeburglar, they just resort to personal attacks.
As you will know, the BBC reported that the 47-storey WTC7 ("Soloman Building," I think was its name) to have "also collapsed" more than 26 minutes before it was actually blown up.
Anyone like to hazard a guess as to how the BBC had foreknowledge of an impending event like this?
I don't think it even comes under a "coincidence theory," unless the BBC are in the habit of reporting that steel-framed skyscrapers have "collapsed."
Anyone like to hazard a guess as to how the BBC had foreknowledge of an impending event like this?
Because the BBC have a reputation for cocking up the news stories, like many other media organisations.
Remember the Queen Mother fiasco.
The south west corner of WTC 7 had significant damage to it, estimated to around 20 floors. It also had significant debris fall on it from one of the towers.
Get a cardboard box that will take your weight, stand on it and then get someone to kick the corner in, see what happens.
Because the BBC have a reputation for cocking up the news stories, like many other media organisations.
Remember the Queen Mother fiasco.
Wasn't just a cock-up though. It was news written ahead of the event. The only cock-up they made was in having it read too early.
The south west corner of WTC 7 had significant damage to it, estimated to around 20 floors. It also had significant debris fall on it from one of the towers.
Get a cardboard box that will take your weight, stand on it and then get someone to kick the corner in, see what happens.
Put some steel 'I'-beams in the cardboard box and note the difference. :eek:
Right, as you know I've been swayed by the overwhelming evidence of conspiracy, and changed camps. But just to get it straight in my own mind please let me recap:
Blair was lying about the belief in WMDs. He used this spurious argument to persuade the cabinet to support an illegal invasion of Iraq. That seems fairly straight forward and the reason he wanted to, was to inflate his own ego and help GW Bush get the oil.
That actually covers this thread.
Now we get to the juicy bits which are off topic:
9/11
There were 3 or poss even only 2 planes. They were flown by either: fanatical CIA agents or remote control or terrorists in the pay of the CIA
They did actually crash into the twin towers I'm pretty sure I saw that on the Telly (although Stavro missed it).
Having caught fire, the towers subsequently "fell" down taking an indeterminate number of other buildings with them. However, it wasn't as has been reported, the fire that felled them but a controlled demolition arranged by the CIA.
The third "plane" that crashed into the Pentagon building wasn't a plane at all, but a missile launched from somewhere in the USA or poss. by a ship or submarine or another aircraft.
I'm not sure what we decided about the alleged 4th plane that "Crashed" killing all on board.
We have established that the US Air Force and the civilian ATC are in it up to their necks.
And again the reason for all this was so GW Bush could persuade the American public and congress to support the invasion of Iraq so he could get the oil.
I think that about sums it up-thanks for your attention.
Right, as you know I've been swayed by the overwhelming evidence of conspiracy, and changed camps. But just to get it straight in my own mind please let me recap:
Blair was lying about the belief in WMDs. Yadda yadda yadda......
Wrong Wrong Wrong, here we go, I've succumbed:
Sometime in the late 1990's at a guess, or maybe earlier, the Bush family and various dynasties, big business', defence contractors, CIA, FBI, DoD, FAA, NORAD and Tony Blair started colluding on plans to dominate the World.
As a catalyst they dreamt up the 9/11 atrocity, followed by various other minor attacks including 7/7 in the UK.
They then go about the planning for this, and obviously they need to rig a few US elections first to ensure Dubya is gonna be boss at the required time. Obviously they did the same in the UK to get TB into No10.
Skip a few chapters.......
A team of explosive and demolition experts need to be brought in to plan the collapse of several skyscrapers, probably needing specialist advice from a team of civil and structural engineers. They then need to spend quite a bit of time beforehand in these building drilling and inserting TNT into all the appropriate building sections to feign the collapse, but it'll need to look good so they would have consulted some Hollywood SFX guys....hang on thats exactly what they did 'cos they got Bin Laden's face to appear in the smoke. OK add to the list smoke machines and fans to do the Face thing.
Then they need to get a group of pilots to agree to die for their country, err no, die for someone getting rich and World domination. Also they need to get them some acting lessons so they can be overheard in the cockpit being "hijacked" and make it sound plausible. And also get some asian guys also happy to die and create them a life history with Al Qaeda links and arrange some flying lessons etc. to make the story look good. And they need to cut a deal with Bin Laden to get him to take the wrap.
Skip some more chapters.....
OK, closer to 9/11. They need to buy off some FAA guys, ATC guys, and get the whole of the USAF to do, well nothing for a day without arousing suspicion.
Additionally they would have had to noble the might of the Secret Service and give all the agents and bodyguards the day off so no one would know where the government was so as to be sure no one could make a decision about blowing more stuff up. But Dubya screwed all this up by being on national telly at the time, bloody typical.
On the day they'll need good media coverage so they set up a load of people to be about New York with their cameras, how was this done, online competition for volunteers?
They also got the BBC onside, and one would assume hundreds of media agencies across the globe. They would have prepared a script to send out to all these agencies and even suggested good soundbites. Being scripted it would have needed a running order as well and all the auto cues loading up prior to broadcast, across the globe.
This is where the BBC in their part of the conspiracy dropped a booby and missed a few lines on the auto cue thus announcing the collapse of WTC7 in advance of the running order (did the producer get disciplined?).
A conspiracy made up from thousands of individuals, some of them to get no benefit other than to die. A conspiracy that was somehow global yet they were looking for world domination. A conspiracy of thousands of people where they would watch thousands of other people die and not one bottled it and spilled the beans. A conspiracy from the one of the most powerful nations in the world, the "Country which spends more on defence than all other countries put together" for world domination and they can't muster an invasion on there own.
Yeah, I'd buy that.
And yes they did seem to have covered a variety of hijacking possibilities in exercises, a very wide and varied selection.
But did they expect 4 on the same day, all from within the US?
They very obviously didn't.
Not just in exercises, from Sep 2000 to June 2001 jets were scrambled 67 times to intercept off course aircraft and things, presumably every time they managed to actually find the aircraft to intercept them.
Except on 9/11 when with four to choose from they didn't manage to intercept one according to the official story.
...
They did actually crash into the twin towers I'm pretty sure I saw that on the Telly (although Stavro missed it).
...
I watched this "live" on a TV in the window of Graham Begg's shop in Wick. [para]
I watched this "live" on a TV in the window of Graham Begg's shop in Wick. [para]
That's spooky. How did you know to be there? Is there something you're not telling us?
Wrong Wro....... Yeah, I'd by that.
Yeah, that's what I said
That's spooky. How did you know to be there? Is there something you're not telling us?
Nothing spooky, sorry. Hard not to see it when walking past. :)
Put some steel 'I'-beams in the cardboard box and note the difference.
But once you've buckled or sheared your 'I' beam what's gonna happen?
Not just in exercises, from Sep 2000 to June 2001 jets were scrambled 67 times to intercept off course aircraft and things, presumably every time they managed to actually find the aircraft to intercept them.
Except on 9/11 when with four to choose from they didn't manage to intercept one according to the official story.
How many of those scrambles were actually successful intercepts, how many were cancelled before even getting decent altitude?
They reckon a 40% success rate on identifying their targets.
"In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet."
Simple mechanics at play, again the last line from a previous quote:
"I certainly wish we had practiced it differently, but I really think that, for sure in the first two instances, and probably in the third, the time and distance would not have allowed us to get an airplane to the right place at the right time"
But once you've buckled or sheared your 'I' beam what's gonna happen?
I don't know how you are going to shear them without serious, internal explosions. As for buckling, that would take an awful lot more than a couple of small fires, and even then, the floors would buckle. The building would not collapse in on itself as it would under a controlled demolition.
It has struck me, that with the number of key words on this thread (and indeed the whole forum) that the CIA,s recognition, monitoring system must be lighting up like a christmas tree. :eek:
I don't know how you are going to shear them without serious, internal explosions. As for buckling, that would take an awful lot more than a couple of small fires, and even then, the floors would buckle. The building would not collapse in on itself as it would under a controlled demolition.
Why is it that the majority of structures, especially steel framed structures, get demolished after a major fire?
Here's WTC 7, South West corner:
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7Corner.jpg
Here's one of the "small" fires:
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/wtc7fire1.jpg
That's just one section, a pretty intense fire over a large area. not really small when you start scaling it out.
One more:
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_Magnum1.jpg
Looking at this, I would suggest the fires were pretty much top to toe.
My wee bit of experience in the property game would say that this is ed. Yes that's a technical term !!
It has struck me, that with the number of key words on this thread (and indeed the whole forum) that the CIA,s recognition, monitoring system must be lighting up like a christmas tree. :eek:
The weird dudes that talk up their sleeves have been on the phone, they say can we stop it now. They thought it was a giggle at first reading through but apparently we've crashed the Echelon server and their IT guy is a tad upset.
Why is it that the majority of structures, especially steel framed structures, get demolished after a major fire?
Because they don't just fall down of their own accord.
Here's one of the "small" fires:
That's just one section, a pretty intense fire over a large area. not really small when you start scaling it out.
Looks small to me.
This is what I call pretty intense over a large area:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/world/asia/10beijing.html
It didn't collapse.
Looking at this, I would suggest the fires were pretty much top to toe.
My wee bit of experience in the property game would say that this is ed. Yes that's a technical term !!
I see nothing but smoke, suggesting a small oxygen starved fire.
The facts are plain, in all the history of steel framed buildings only three have ever suffered total collapse as a result of anything but controlled demolition, all three on the same day at the same place.
Coincidence?
How many of those scrambles were actually successful intercepts, how many were cancelled before even getting decent altitude?
Look, we know from the Congressional hearing that the Christmas Day Bombing was allowed to happen by the American government.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/f253-f03.shtml
As a result of which the government of Yemen are allowing America to build an airbase on the island of Socotra thus controlling the Gulf of Aden which will be an even more strategic area when the oil pipes are extended from Turkey to Israel.
Are you starting to see a pattern here?
"Small" oxygen starved fire over 47 floors!!!
How is it oxygen starved? Just because there isn't flames licking out the window does that mean there is no fire?
Quite a lot of thick black smoke there 47 floors high. I'd say there was a fire, probably several, and not small ones either.
No other steel structures had 35,000 - 40,000 litres of highly volatile fuel rammed into them at 500-600 MPH.
The third had tonnes of debris dropped onto it, I don't think that has happened to another skyscaper either.
And yes, structures do fall down of their own accord due to fire damage. I've seen smaller buildings go that way.
They actually say the towers performed better than expected after the attack, they stood long enough to allow some to evacuate.
"Small" oxygen starved fire over 47 floors!!!
How is it oxygen starved? Just because there isn't flames licking out the window does that mean there is no fire?
Quite a lot of thick black smoke there 47 floors high. I'd say there was a fire, probably several, and not small ones either.
Your photo doesn't show a fire over 47 floors.
Your photo just shows a lot of smoke.
No steel framed building has ever suffered total collapse before or since as a result of anything but controlled demolition.
Coincidence?
Here's a lot of smoke:
http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/oilfire02.jpg
No fire though hey.
WTC7 had huge chunks of WTC 1 fall on to it and into it, causing structural damage and starting a fire or fires. There was a failure of the sprinkler system and low water pressure for the firefighters.
The fire was able to burn for several hours, coupled with structural damage something failed, something gave way. The straw that broke the camels back.
It takes weeks of work to prepare a building for explosive demolition, drilling into the core structure to place hundreds of charges. Additionally they often use welding gear to cut certain sections of steel to aid the collapse.
How did this get done without nobody noticing?
Nobody noticed hundred of wires trailing round the building?
It's all very well having the conspiracy theory but how do you actually implement it and get these things done.
Were talking hundreds and thousands of people being complicit. Preparation works going undetected.
Your photo doesn't show a fire over 47 floors.
Your photo just shows a lot of smoke.
No steel framed building has ever suffered total collapse before or since as a result of anything but controlled demolition.
Coincidence?
What do we say to the people who say you need to gut a building before you can prepare it for demolition and you need truck loads of equipment and hundreds of workmen and big noisy drills and cutting tools and why didn’t the charges go off by themselves when an aeroplane full of fuel crashed into it at 500mph?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.