not me that was one of the best post in this thread.
Printable View
not me that was one of the best post in this thread.
Building 7, a building that was forty something stories tall and if in any other city in America would be one of the tallest buildings. Fell in the same manner as the towers at like 5:30 in the evening on 911. It was not hit by a plane, let me type it again for you, it was NOT hit by a plane. It had fires on a couple of floors. We DO know what happens when fires burn in skyscrapers dont we. If not check James Crows exellent post.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalAsiaticBlackDan
Another strange thing is that the CIA had offices in Building 7, the city had an emergancy management command center in the building. Interesting coincidence that the only skyscraper to ever fall from fire would have these offices in them and that many buildings in the surrounding area were far more badly burned and dammaged but yet they did not collapse.
But then 911 was a day when the impossible was made possible.
You weren't ignored, trustQuote:
Originally Posted by James Crow ESQ
you're still talking?
you went from the term AQ, to the definition of "jihad" to Fox News, and to the question "Why does Blackwater target civilians in Iraq?"
fucking IDIOT lmao
You're still stalking? Give up. You lost. You can't answer 6 simple questions.
How about one question, really simple....
Why did we invade Iraq?
I'll take a wild guess and say it was for Money, and oil. >_>
^I'll be here waiting for those contradicting eye-witness accounts.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalAsiaticBlackDan
The fact that it is increasingly difficult to hide information these days makes it easier for it to be an inside job. They don't have to be very secretive about it at all. Its all hidden in broad day light behind terms like "Conspiracy Theory", "Al-Qaeda", "Terrorism" etc.Quote:
We live in a time where it is increasingly difficult to hide information.
The levels of conspiracy and secrecy required for this to be an "inside job" are ridiculous and unfathomable.
SHEM HETEP
People always roll out the tired idea that it was for oil.Quote:
Originally Posted by beautifulrock
It was always more of a geopolitical maneuver than anything else, the rest is a bonus.
Ok PatSean, so your explanation for the collapse of the towers was the direct result of planes crashing into them, right? Now explain building 7.
I don't know why you want to get into that once again.
As when we "discussed" the events surrounding the entire situation earlier (not just building 7) whatever explanation i provide you rubbish and label as the result of brainwashing.
I answered your question about Iraq, we've already been over 9/11 and it proved fruitless for the both of us.
Pursue it with someone else.
Dude you really sound like such a conservative ignorant individual right now, and that's a surprise seen as I thought you were somewhat learned on the ways of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Bateman
The term "geopolitical" is a meaningless fancy term, just like all political terminology is, there queer words used to cover a more sinister actions and developments.
The entire Infrastructure of Iraq has been destroyed, and it will be replaced with the "democratic capitalism" the Americans are known for, there building mc D's there as we speak.
I'm sickend that you would divert the suffering and mutilation of the innocent iraq people with words like "it was a bonus".
Your taste in music is good pat, your taste in political motives and aspirations leaves somewhat to be desired.
I think you have misinterpreted what i'm saying.
The US opportunistically invaded Iraq, in my humblest of opinions, in order to bolster their influence in a region which is extremely important to them politically. In that sense, it is geopolitical more than anything else.
People can choose to select oil as the primary reason for invasion, but this neglects the glaringly obvious US endeavour can gain leverage in the Middle East, which in the past has proved volatile consistently and therefore concerning for the US.
You think i support this kind of shit?
My personal political beliefs are far to the left of anyone who posts here, trust me.
I despise any militaristic action, with very few exceptions.
I find the slaughter of any civilians in such instances vile let alone the number that have been killed.
At the time of the initial invasion i had countless heated and long arguments with my moderate right wing friends about it.
If you still feel that way about me after my explanation, that's cool, but i think my phrasing in that initial post reflects a belief which i do not have.
I've never been called conservative before by anyone, so that's a slight shock... maybe you're going off some things i said about Chavez and Ghadafi, i don't know. I don't dislike those individuals because they are socialist, i dislike them because they have systematically removed various aspects of the legislative and judiciary arms of their own countries in order to further their own selfish ambition, which is not always in the interest of their citizenry.
Calling Chavez a pig is possibly over the top, but virtually any politician is a pig to me, much like any cop is a pig to some people. He's done some good things, but his gradual abolition of various aspects integral to the democratic system bother me.
I have no qualms about calling Ghadafi a pig, and i guess we'll differ on that regardless.
Additionally, i can't help using idiotic terms like "geopolitical".
I am a product of the education which i have received, and a university education in politics is designed to engender students with a catalog of gibberish and double speak in order to prepare them for a future of sloganeering within the public service.
sean's gonna be a pig politician when he grows up
Quote:
Originally Posted by beautifulrock
Nobody wants to acknowledge Building 7 cuz its the biggest hole in the whole official conspiracy theory. Even the bullshit 911 comission ignored it. It was just last year or the year before that it was addressed and what did the NIST come up with it to explain the collapse? FIRE.............they dont really know how or why but it was fire. Nice, well case closed on that, I guess. :{
Its always been funny to me how anyone wanting an explination for the many improbable and impossible aspects of what we are told happened that day are labled "conspiracy theorists".
When the official story is that a secretive, clandestine, shadowy group is solely responsible for everything. Sounds sorta like conspiracy to me. And everything that had to go wrong within the USA infastructure for there cockamamy scheme to work did go wrong. And everything that had to go right on the "terrorist" part went right.
All of that is as hard for me to believe as other more powerful, and resourcefull parties haveing a hand in what went down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beautifulrock
Nobody wants to acknowledge Building 7 cuz its the biggest hole in the whole official conspiracy theory. Even the bullshit 911 comission ignored it. It was just last year or the year before that it was addressed and what did the NIST come up with it to explain the collapse? FIRE.............they dont really know how or why but it was fire. Nice, well case closed on that, I guess. :{
Its always been funny to me how anyone wanting an explination for the many improbable and impossible aspects of what we are told happened that day are labled "conspiracy theorists".
When the official story is that a secretive, clandestine, shadowy group is solely responsible for everything. Sounds sorta like conspiracy to me. And everything that had to go wrong within the USA infastructure for there cockamamy scheme to work did go wrong. And everything that had to go right on the "terrorist" part went right.
All of that is as hard for me to believe as other more powerful, and resourcefull parties haveing a hand in what went down.
pat's geopolitical explaination is a bit on the shallow side.
okay yes, they want a foothold in the ME. but why is the ME important?
many parts of the world are unstable but yet america has kept out.
africa comes to mind.
could it be possible that oil is the reason? and geopolitics is the excuse? who really believes that we as americans really care about regional stability, when you consider the actions we have taken to destabilize nations?
We never got into building 7 at all, and you have a convenient way of dodging things when you can't answer them. Maybe you don't understand that building 7 was 300 feet away from the towers and was never struck by falling debris. The NIST said that no explosions occurred at site 7 in their "official" report, which is a lie, and furthermore stated that the building was brought down because of fire, another lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Bateman
But i never said nor do i think that it was an attempt to restore stability in the Middle East.Quote:
Originally Posted by James Crow ESQ
I said it was geopolitical in the sense that the US needs to be able to express influence within the Middle East for US stability.
Yes, oil is a factor, but it isn't the only or most important factor.
The United States under Bush was clearly determined to maintain US hegemony and Iraq is a reflection of this. It's about dominance not only economically but also politically.
Hence, 9/11 provided the perfect opportunity for the US to increase it's presence within the Middle East quickly and without a great deal of meaningful opposition.
but what is the reason for mid east dominance if oil is not the most important reason? what is more important? political power? religious power? what do these things have to do with american life?
come on pat you, are letting me down with your analysis. i'm nopt asking you to agree with me but the answers you are giving aren't providing any insight.
we are spending too much money in the ME to just be establishing dominance for the sake of dominance.
if you are online for the next few hrs... peep this nice 911 vid.
http://www.justin.tv/montydj
Yeah, but you don't subscribe to the notion that dominance can be sought for reasons other than the economic.Quote:
Originally Posted by James Crow ESQ
So i mean, it's going to be hard for me to convince you that the US was not simply (or primarily) motivated by economic factors in it's insurgence into the Middle East.
As i said, it's mainly an attempt to be able to hold sway in the Middle East, which was (during Bush's reign) perceived not only as a threat to US security but also as a threat to US hegemony.
You think the US government was solely motivated by money, which to me seems somewhat misguided, unless you can present some reason why they would be. The war has provided a number of private organisations with opportunities to make money which they otherwise wouldn't have had, and a number of politicians involved at the time had previous had ties to these companies. Once again however, that's more a case of opportunistically favouring these companies rather than the sole motivation for the conflict.
I don't see either campaigns (in Iraq or Afghanistan) as in any way particularly beneficial for the US economy at any level, so again, i fail to see significant economic motivation.
Oil is an important factor, and on that i guess we'll just have to continue to differ in opinion. I see it as an act of opportunism, or as i crudely put it previously 'a bonus'. You see it differently, and i don't think either of us is going to be swayed on that.
At the time of the US involvement in Iraq, Iran was clearly beginning to become an issue for the US both politically and in security wise. Pakistan additionally has always been a particularly volatile region, providing further incentive for the US to establish influence at that particular time.
My appraisal of events was that it was far more important to the then administration for the US to have a military presence within the Middle East than to embark on a military operation of that scale simply for for economic reasons.
I mean, i can't provide you with any proof, it's just my opinion. It is not by any means 'dominance for the sake of dominance' as such a thing doesn't exist. Political dominance provides for advantage for a nation universally.
How can i begin...
Money is in the background of everything worth working for, it is the slab of meat dangling from the string next to the dogs face.
It is the source of all major political, corporate and public operations, so of course "economic" factors played the main role in Iraq, they are going to turn Iraq into a powerhouse of the middle east mark my words, then the Arabs will have to get raw.
All the stuff about Iraq, afghanistan being a threat, you believe that garbage? even though the guy who supposedly found out about WMD's in iraq the English professer Kelly dude was found hung (murdered) in the woods shortly after the invasion.
Money is the root of all evil, it goes without saying really.
9/11 was the spark, the catalyst they needed to build up global reactions and invade the Oil-laden lands of the blessed Middle East, i see skulls, crossbones and money with the queen of Englands face on it right about now.
I think you have been kinda warped into this whole political dimension of looking at things from your biased classes in politics, even though all politics are just fancy ways of spreading lies, deceit and misinformation, politicians are the same as lawyers in my eyes.
No offence to you pat, your cool but i think the politics ting is illusionary meaningless and a diversion from other trill shit.
The term politics in itself is a blurred term with no clear defining characteristic, in a ideal world "politics" would be great, but sadly we have a lot of dark, wise and terribly rich people overlooking our every moment of existence and bombarding us with subliminal subconcious bypassing suggestions.
Shit is sinister, you have to make sure you align with the right side.
First of all, i haven't been warped into anything by anything i study. I barely go to classes.
Secondly, i view politics pretty skeptically, but i don't attribute the amazing intelligence and foresight that many here do to politicians. One problem i have with conspiracies is the level of credit they grant to politicians.
I agree that politics is a charade, but i don't believe there is a sinister motive beyond reelection, as many seem to think. Politicians will do anything if they envisage that it will result in an increase in support, the invasion of Afghanistan is a clear example of a reactionary attempt to appease a nation of bereaved and furious people. The overall majority of American's supported movement into Afghanistan, Bush just misjudged the public's support for military action in Iraq (which American's only began opposing when it became clear it was going to become a huge drain on the nation both financially and in terms of US soldiers being killed).
And thirdly, i still don't see how Iraq will be a great source of wealth for the US.
I didn't say those countries were a threat, they are a perceived threat.
As i said also, political dominance is beneficial for a country universally, this includes economically.
I just don't think that short term economic factors played an important role in the motivation to invade Iraq, as everyone else here seems to think.
You have presented the idea that it is a long term endeavour to turn Iraq into an economic power house as some kind of extension of the US.
I disagree, and don't see anyway that Iraq will become even economically self sufficient in the short term, let alone an economic power in the long term. It is unrealistic to think that governments are planning such operations on such a huge time frame.
The pay off financially would be so far into the future that the Bush administration at the time would have had no motivation to pursue it.
And again, i understand that a lot of people here think that both sides of politics conspire to achieve long term goals to further the cause of a wealthy sub section of society, but there is no logic behind this.
You obviously think Obama plans to continue Bush's vision?
Why then, is he recalling troops from Iraq (slowly, but with the goal of a full withdrawal).
Is this just a political move to keep people happy... with the eventual plan to reintroduce troops to the region later on in his term?
It doesn't fit together at all.
just to touch on one thing you said...the war in iraq was profitable for US companies because one, they got all they contracts to build bombs, tanks etc, and to destroy the place.
2: they got the contracts to rebuild iraq. now the corporations are being installed there= big money
its not so much great wealth for the US but great wealth for the special interest groups
oh yea and i read a study that showed for every 100 dollars in circulation, the fortune 500 has 95, the rest of the WORLD POPULATION get 5$ to share. maybe we need to have a redistribution of the wealth and start over?
Crusades.:ouch:Quote:
Originally Posted by James Crow ESQ
Yeah, i agree with you on that. I just don't agree that this was the main motivation behind the US involvement.Quote:
Originally Posted by PALEHORSE
And wealth disparity in the US and more broadly is terrible. Solving it is difficult though as the wealthiest consequently are the most powerful.
the most influential, I'm not sold on the idea of most powerful. As long as their power structure sits firmly atop our backs, it is the people who truly hold the power only their influence keeps us from realizing this and acting accordingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Bateman
So it looks like the skeptics got nothin to say about Building 7. I know its a doozy, but maybe there was a shockwave from the two planes hiting the towers and because of the angles that the planes hit it sent a massive shockwave down and 300 feet straight into building 7 causing structual damage. And some jet fuel must have splashed over and got building 7 causeing the fires and there fore causing the freefall of the building. That sounds about right huh?
building 7 fell because al qaeda asked allah to magically implode its structure using help of the jinn. there ya go. problem solved.
lol
This is going to be a long reply...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Bateman
Ok firstly it dosent take amazing intelligence or foresight for a group of influential, rich and like minded individuals to come together and plan something meticulous like the invasion and rebuilding of Iraq.
Whether the reward be personal or for the states true interests at heart remains to be seen by some people. They control all of Iraqs assets and have deployed and secured all major oil wells and reserves in the country, they have built the biggest embassy in the world (iraqi whitehouse) and will oversee the countries development with the motives and benefits of the united states at heart. This fact whether you believe it to be sinister or not is a personal thing, but you cannot deny that this is really happening.
Iraq is a very oil rich country, that's were the money is, tourism and corporatism will follow.
Long term endevaour?? they have already been there for 8 years or something.
There is no cause for a wealthy sub-section of soceity?
Dude these people are famous and drenched in power and respect beyond your imagination, do you really think they have YOUR interests at heart when they are in another dimension entirely.
Napoleon, Hitler, Khan, Suliemen, Alexander, these people were individuals and they conquered the world, the same is going on to today under the curtain of diplomacy.
Its in our nature.
My energy is drained, i,ll continue later.
Bump
I read your reply.
I don't have anything to add that i haven't already said to be honest.
You and i have a difference of opinion on a number of things, arguing about them further is evidently pointless.
And i don't think you really addressed my post, particularly the last half of it.
I'm pretty sure most people have made their opinions clear in this thread already, not sure what else there is to be added really.
In relation to building 7, there is much information out there refuting conspiracies.
Again, it's pointless for me to even post it, it will be disregarded instantly by those who are closed minded.
People refuting conspiracies theories will say one thing, people espousing them will say another. There will never be agreement.
People who purport to know of a conspiracy will quote various sources such as the NIST out of context, they will post various enhanced and misleading images and pieces of video footage and they will invariable call into question the intellectual integrity of their perceived nemeses.
But basically it will come down to them inferring that fire cannot cause a steel construction to collapse.
Which has been refuted constantly by physicists and engineers.
Whatever though, this link covers most of the stuff fairly well, again, pointless posting it, but i figure i may as well (and yes, before anyone says it, i realise Popular Mechanics is a tool of the illuminati designed to control the masses via the advertisement of hunting goods and chewing tobacco)
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=5
sean, I almost posted the same link, before I realized that the entire "truth" movement cares nothing about facts or reality. They only look for what supports what they already believe.
THey don't realize that controlled deomlition is scientifically and physically much less likely than any of the theories they scoff at.
But they get an idea from people who hate everything they hate, and they cling to it, and then ironically call everyone else sheep.
you display the same behavior your trying to point out on the truth movement
Yeah, you know, i can never help but be drawn back into posting in KTL despite myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOriginalAsiaticBlackDan
I realise the futility of it most of the time, but it's worth hanging around for a number of jewels.
Not going to lie, some of the posts in here are flipping my fucking wig. Makes you really wonder about the future of the world.
What exactly was Building 7 (it's purpose, function, relation to the towers, etc.)? I apologize if one of the previous links explained this, I must have missed it.
building 7 was part of the same complex of the world trade center buildings, just down the block a little more.
and im sure the BILLION dollar insurance policy change a few months prior had nothing to do with it either
Lol @ SID citing "tourism" as an future economic benefit of the Iraqi invasion. I can't believe people missed that.
If tourism becomes a big industry in Iraq in the next couple of years I'll deposit $100 bucks in your bank account you muppet.
Apparently the US government is banking on Poland becoming an economic force.