Jump to content

KrustyKidd

Member
  • Posts

    2,493
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KrustyKidd

  1. Name us a few people who do things because Bush has some sort of power over them other than by his office. Gerry, it is not so clear though. As a matter of fact, you have a hard time even making any of those 'clear' points even float here.
  2. The truth comes from the strangest places doesn't it? "We also know that Iraq has aquired a CW capability from Western nations, including possibly, a US susiduary"
  3. I think the obcession is that in a civil war, there would be clear cut sides. And with clear cut sides, they have clear cut objectives. And, one of those objectives would be to be anti USA. Ommiting of course the fact they would more than likely be anti everything to do with the west, any religion other than Islam and so on and forth. A very bad group for anybody to deal with. If it is chaos then there is still factions to deal with that can hold power in their terrirtory or whatever as well as an opportunity for order to come out of it. With a government backed by the USA. Hence, civil war is the anti US stance every time.
  4. Monty, Sean ain't that good and, he isn't whupping Liberals. He's going up against some of the lamest morons whom the fringe perscribe to for their dogma. Sean is niether an intellectual nor a strategic thinker. Simply a guy who has it straight and debates well on his feet with well known facts, benifit of quick thinking and good old USA down to earth charm. His opponents are the likes of Michael Moore, Baldwin and this moron. None of them could hold their own in this or any of my forums so is it any surprise he make mince meat of them on his show? Real Liberals are sometimes for the war as well. The guys he takes on are jsut morons for publicities sake and for various reasons (money, fame, misguided faith) lack facts, understanding of the issues can only compete on one stage - their own. Now, would really like to see him against Chomsky. If Noam would spare the time. Bet if it was equal time mike that Noam would leave him flip flopping through an open book quick search throughout the entire debate. And the funny thing is, both of them would be right for different reasons.
  5. Well, is it ethical to lie in order to benifit your country? Churchill did it a thousand times, and, many politicians do it over and over every day. To give us the information to decide if it is right or not would also give the enemy an advantage so, guess we have to trust their judgement? Fine if you are the part of the country getting the benifit but what if you're the guy getting screwed to have this benifit take place?
  6. Don't have to, basicaly says what we all know, that you have a phsycotic obcession with Bush and any post you produce has that at it's core..
  7. Iran doesn't have military expansionism in mind and will never have a nuclear weapon. Those are two wide based realities. So, their threat and the need for action? They have ifluence through subversion and economic throughout the area. They are however, out classed by militaries from Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in terms of quality. The single most powerful military force in the Persian Gulf is the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, which would make short work of any Iranian attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz, probably before it could even begin. So, reason for war with Iran?
  8. Other methods are propaganda, fear mongering, religion, cultural/nationalistic identity, racial intolerance and money.
  9. And, if they don't do their job then our children may be reaping the Conservative Wahhabist whirlwind. This is scientific analysis from yourself, a qualified individual or just another immature ranting from a leftist who doesn't have a clue of what is going on so they just jump aboard the socialist bandwagon, with all the propaganda fthat it carries with it ad nausium? The twisted hatred on the face of anti war people is far more phsycotic than any facial expression Bush ever put on. Here, an example of the idocy at work. Read somewhere some person actually said th Bush reminds him of Charles Manson. Now, on what basis would they figure that a guy who is elected President should be compared to another homless drifter who slices people up for no apparent reason? Only in the minds of morons.
  10. The US does not need Saudi Arabia. They need it not to turn into a militent Ilamic state as does the world. It is the country which is the objective of Al Queda. It is also considered holy by Muslims the world over. Control Saudi and you control Muslims, and much of the world's economy. Unfortunate but a much lesser threat than a country run by Al Queda. If this is your version of proof, no wonder your arguments arre so terrible. I won't even bother going after other sources to provide counter information as this one is reporting wrong information. Here also from the article you supply is and; Well, we know OBL had training camps all over the place and, actually phoned his mother the friday prior to 911 to tell her that there would be big news and that she would then not hear from him for a plong period.
  11. They invaded Iraq to influence Saudi behavior to take care of their Al Queda infestation and to provide a base for themselves in the ME to continue to prosecute the war on terror. Objective met on the first immediately and the second soon to come. You find me ten guys that you would bet your life on that they first of all, have no concsience and second, will never change. Then multiply that number by a hundred or a thousand and you have a very long shot that you are betting everything on. Comon! You are telling us that executives in suits and disquises (so people wouldn't recognize them as they would be rather high profile) crawled around in air ducts and crap laying explosives? Of course they didn't, they required working people in the hundreds if not thousands. That requires a lot of communication and supervision and would leave lots of trails at all levels. And, as for enjoying their new ound wealth, they would spend the rest of their lives making sure the evidence was all taken care of as there would be a lot of it and with sluthes like yourself on the case, they would have no respite. Not the government but is the goverment but is for personal gain but is for the government and not for the peoole but is for government friends. Got it. Not one whistle blower out of all those thousands of people directly involved and the people who must have seen them saying, doing, planning, covering up or sweating about something. Just guys nit picking over a hole in a wall and which building fell when.
  12. Ohhh, now this is interesting. If the US is in cahoots with the terrorists or even know about it and plant exposives all over Manhattan at great expense, secrecy, risk, effort and trouble, what happens if some check in girl at Logan blows the whistle? Wow, a lot of variables for even more risk.
  13. Already went over this economist. Out of his league when trying to become a structural engineer. Not one would have a guilty concsience - ever? That's a pretty large leap for anybody to make and peg their life on it. Co conspiritors turn on each other all the time for a multitude of reasons, and where would they recruit these guys from? Dr Evil's bad guy network? Not trying to make this a little crazy but from what you are trying to portray there are suspicious things in EVERY aspect of the whole day. That is four events to cover which would require not only a lot of people but the peoplke to cover it up afterwards meaning there would be an immense participation by all levels of government from the watchman, investigators to the leaders. Not to mention the planning etc. So, how are such high up people supposed to communicate with all these levels of operatives outside of their normal jobs without one secretary raising an eyebrow? Not one memo has come out where a security executive needs an extra five million for explosives or, a pencil pusher needs more grappling hooks. This would leave a trail somewhere outside of 'funny' conincidences.
  14. And how many people do you have to bring into the scheme to pull it off? How much of your profit do you have to pay to have their complete loyalty for the rest of their lives that they won't ever utter a peep? From the evidence you are trying to show, it seems there is a mountain of things that have to all be covered 100% soi would need some pretty specialized people in the numbers of thousands, all wanting to be paid. And, what happens if one of them, just one develops a concsience? You get injection. As does every one of them. A pretty flimsy conspiracy for not much money.
  15. The US gets less than thirty percent of it's ol from the ME, Europe gets far more. If the US wanted oil, they would have found it a lot cheaper and more politically expedient to simply make a deal with Saddam or, simply issue well hats to the two hundred wthousand troops staging in Kuwait and take oil from there. Saddam certainly would have gone along with any deal that made him money and preserved his pride - even to the extent of allowing his entire oil infastructure to be built back up by Haliburton. The fact that this was not entertained by the US tells a great deal of thier intent. Why rebuild an entire country from the bottom up to get expensive oil when you only had to do back door bargining to get cheap oil through the top down? Sure nobody is foolish to think the US did this to be nice guys however, Saudi Arabia was the key and they could not be invaded without aggrevating the situation even more. Hence, the second best (or less worse of a bad lot of options) was to invade Iraq.
  16. People on flight dead, family in contact on cell phones, airline missing a large aircraft, witnesses on ground during and in aftermath, reason for faking, what was done with passengers, relatives and any and all possible witnesses. Provide rationale for risk vs payoff please.
  17. And, with all the variables going on - airspeed, wind direction, millions of potential witnesses any one of them might actually see something that is telling. A lot of moving parts in public going on, so many that I upgrade my failure rate to 99.999999999% or, a sucess rate of less than one in a billion. Yes, everything is there but risk assisment and a purpose that makes that risk worthwhile. The purpose of the US defense department is not to provide Canadian or US internet posters refuting proof for their fantasies. As Chomsky observed, conspiracy theories are on big time waster.
  18. Or, a lot of time and energy wasted. When things happen, they don't always happen as per a textbook theory. Lots of unexplained stuff that doesn't add up to conspiracies. Here at the Pentagon, you have a building and such that is pretty much in the open. One guy with a camera recording a missile and he comes forth a week after the government says it was an aircraft and the whole government falls. Executions take place of leading politicians and so on and forth. The entire USA is put into lockdown at this attempted sabotage. So, just on that risk factor alone, I would say the conspiracy theorists don't have much to stand on. Multiply that risk factor by four (irregularities in the other aircraft) and, you have a conspiracy that stands a better than 99% chance of being detected and exposed. One random guy with a camera, a credible witness seeing something real, not imagined and conincidental and the entire plot comes out. Speaking of plots, there isn't one that is remotely plausible.
  19. So what you are saying is that steel does not bend and buckle at high temperatures? Beg to differ, we used to heat the rails to close gaps of feet with only propane heat. Concrete does not expand at the same rate as steel and, with rivets loosened due to melted lock washers you have one heck of a lot of metal bending at irregular spots wieghed down by concrete doing the same in various unpredicatable ways. If you think this occuring for over six hours would leave any building unscathed I believe you are wrong. When any object has enough inertia its gong to go somewhere. The force of any object with metal in it travelling at those speeds is going to go through just about anything a certain distance. Leaving of course, not much in big pieces. Yep, it was moving pretty fast. Not really. They did carry out two of the three objectives in that they toppled the Taliban and removed Al Queda's headquarters. They invaded Iraq to influence Saudi behavior to take care of their Al Queda infestation and to provide a base for themselves in the ME to continue to prosecute the war on terror. Objective met on the first immediately and the second soon to come. Saddam was not a suicidal terrorist. He was a despotic dictator who placed his own political and personal survival above all. Osama is not forgotten however, he is still a target for the ten thousand or so troops still after him. Only the hesitation to kill hundreds if not thousands of Pakistani people in order to do it prohibits his capture.
  20. Should've, could've. Maybe it had something to do with having an inordinate amount of diesel fuel (tens of thousands of gallons) feeding the fires which raged all day. Hardly a 'normal' fire situation for any building. And only designed to be fire resistant for short duration rather than long term. I've seen pictires of them and explanations of other crashes that were less traumatic and had more unrecognizable debris. Try cramming an alluminum aircraft at seven hundred miles per hour into a building. Something is going to give in both the craft and the building. Sides, you said it was reinforced. I would imagine disintigrated after going through that reinforced concrete. Barely visable beside the tracks of the contractor's trucks. Why wasn't it hit five meters to the right or left? I don't know, why wasn't it hit in another area? Gone to the same home the Zparuder film spent thirty years in I imagine. They are all saying the same thing if you read it with an open mind "holy shit, it all happened so fast I can only give you an impression of what I saw and heard.'
  21. Take a look at your diagram, they are short and squat and require less strength to provide that same or better structural integrity as their neighbors which are five to twenty times as high. It is only common sense they did not fall.
  22. I have testomony from an Arizona housewife who has a brother in law that one saw the towers while on vacation. He says it was terrorists. An economist, get real. Sure. They didn't have to melt though and nobody is saying they did so please stop putting words in people's mouths. KK from last night
  23. Plastic and rubber melt. Washers that hold the beams tight used those. Steel flexes in temperature extremes far differently than the concrete attached to it. In all, you end up with a loose structure that is flexing and shifting at different times in all sorts of directions with heavy concrete attatched to it also shifting in various directions. Something should give.
  24. It is isn't it? However, deliberate or not, it did. Meaning he read it right. I agree. However, it is not, but may be
×
×
  • Create New...