Can anyone list a war worth having after ww 2? They all seem to benefit people who already have a lot of money and want more
No. Not sure how many wars EVER were worth it.
Look at China they practically own Africa and all its resources without a shot being fired. Not holding them up as moral examples but they seem a bit cleverer than us.
Ethics, old boy. Plus ineffective trade relations and no commercial might. Oh, and Prince Andrew.
here's a good one i saw earlier in this thread! wtc7 collapsed after fires burned out of control all day and caused structural failure of the steel.
[i]"...we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. "[/i]
-- [url= http://www.firehouse.com/stateprovince/new-york/deputy-chief-peter-hayden ]Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, Firehouse Magazine, April 2002[/url]
That from a fire chief on the scene. A fire chief who lost a lot of friends on Sept 11. Do you [i]really[/i] think he'd be complicit in a cover up?
fires intense enough to melt steel will blow out the glass long before the steel fails.
A practical experiment to try at home: Take a U shaped block of concrete with a steel rod braced across the top of the U. Heat the rod. Steel expands. Concrete cracks. Structure collapses. There is no need to get anywhere near steel melting point.
[i]"The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors."[/i]
-- [url= http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm ]NIST, Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation[/url]
I think one of the biggest fallacies spouted by the conspirancy theorist is that the twin towers fell within there own footprint. They didn't, debri was spread over a large area. Infact large pieces of one of the towers stuck WTC7 and helped to weaken that structure too.
If it was a controlled demolition then it wasn't a very good one but thats okay because the conspirators no doubt intended to bring down WTC7 as well.
At some point you need to call Occam's Razor and realise that however hard it is to believe that a bunch of Arab terrorists planned and carried out the most audacious terrorist attack ever on the world most powerful conutry; its a lot more beliveable than a conspiracy involving hundreds of people in the US Government actively conspiring to murder their own people and then covering it up for ten years
Can anyone list a war worth having after ww 2? They all seem to benefit people who already have alot of money and want more.
Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone. All three of them poor, out of which the UK has not made a profit and where the outcome was better than not having done anything. (Not that it might not have been worth doing something earlier, in hindsight).
Arguably the Malayan Emergency was worth fighting as well - not that the way it was fought was necessarily the right way to fight it, you understand.
Edit: and I suppose this is not exactly addressing the point you've made, but NIreland and the Falklands were military engagements which were huge moneylosers too, for whatever that is worth.
later on 2 squaddies took a wrong turn into the funeral procession for one of the dead.
What happened to them was truly awful. The explanation that they were just lost ambling around W Belfast on the day of a very contentious funeral was somewhat unlikely, though.
They don't hate "us" for our freedoms, they hate us for their lack of freedoms, for the regimes we supported that gave them no freedom
I half agree with that, except that I don't think that "they" hate "us".
Looking at the facts I would say it's unlikely we have been to the moon but I am sure the Russians wouldn't be in on the conspiracy.
How can you conclude that 😯 - do you not think the russians may have outed them at the time during the cold war and the race if it were not true ? YUou can check the signal delay from the radio signals and triangulate the location. The left reflector dish can still be bounced today - clearly we went anything else is just ludicrous clutching at straws from a few misunderstod facts.
Could you at least list the facts so I can debunk them one by one?
PS
[b]@graham5 - you talk rubbish - and too much if it.”[/b]
😀
What is interesting about the conspiracy theorists' claims is that they believe that the scientific truth of their claim is so obvious that even lay people with no or only an elementary understanding of the science involved can see it. Yet simultaneously none of the many, many thousands of people with a relatively advanced knowledge of the science (from every secondary school physics teacher on upwards and at least some of whom must be "open minded" non-sheeple) have ever written a scientific critique of the "official version" that stands up to peer review.
No, I don't think the firechief would be complicit in a cover up regardless of whether he lost friends or not.
He gave an eyewitness account saying he expected the building to collapse. I would expect, given what happened earlier in the day - he wasn't going to risk any more firefighters' lives.
His eyewitness account, while I don't dispute it for a second (although you could argue his verbal testimony is as likely to be true as is Leslie Robertson's re. his assertion that he did indeed carry out the collision calculations he said he did in the 1960s), does not mean I have to accept the excerpt from the NIST report about WHY it fell.
This is matters of opinion. The building is quite clearly not engulfed by fire and did not suffer as severe damage from falling debris as other buildings closer to the twin towers which did not fall down - hence people are naturally suspicious as to why such a structure should give the appearance of being demolished in a controlled manner.
What I (and elfinsafety before in this thread) have been trying to put across all along is that there is so much contradictory opinion on the possible causes of what happened that it is not beyond doubt for a lot of people that the offical version of events is correct.
The people calling foul here do include some of the usual 'George Bush is a lizard' folks but there are also a lot of other academics who question the version and who are not the typical 'tin foil hat' brigade.
It is the opinion of some posters here that the conspiracy theories are easily debunked. I followed one of the links posted as evidence and the first article was a discrediting of a guy from ae911.
Discrediting someone is not the same as debunking a theory.
Let's respect each others' opinions
He gave an eyewitness account saying he expected the building to collapse. I would expect, given what happened earlier in the day - he wasn't going to risk any more firefighters' lives.
In fact they were so certain it would collapse they withdrew everyone at 3:30 and it collapsed two hours later.
His eyewitness account, while I don't dispute it for a second.... The building is quite clearly not engulfed by fire
His eyewitness account said there was "a heavy body of fire" within the building which they did not attempt to fight. So you [i]are[/i] disputing that. Did you have a better view than him?
people are naturally suspicious as to why such a structure should give the appearance of being demolished in a controlled manner.
What sort of controlled demolition puts a three-storey high bulge in a building, three hours before the main demolition?
Why is it that an eyewitness fire chief, a first-hand expert on buildings collapsing during fires, doesn't think there was anything odd about the collapse? Don't you think he'd mention if he thought someone had blown up the building?
Why on earth would the building be prepped for demolition and rigged with demolition charges in the first place? It makes no sense.
Let's respect each others' opinions
I can listen to your opinion - and respond to it politely - but I'm afraid I can't respect it.
pictures of wtc7 before and during the collapse show no signs of major fire. no major smoke or flames billowing from the building, glass intact.
The intensity of the fire, the structural damage and the likely effect of the fire were evident to the fire chief in advance of the collapse.
The wikipedia page for WTC Building 7 has a photo of the building with a large amount of smoke coming from it.
hence people are naturally suspicious as to why such a structure should give the appearance of being demolished in a controlled manner
This is a bit like your earlier suspicion about why there weren't more people and tourists standing outside the Pentagon, though. It's a false premise based on ignorance.
Both of your claims (that it was suspicious there were not more tourists and people standing around outside the Pentagon filming it because that what usually happens and that there were no signs of major fire at WTC Building 7 before collapse) were untrue as a fact, not opinion. Even if they were reasonable things to think in the first place, reasonable people would be able to get to the bottom of them by referring to the easily-discoverable and easily-verifiable facts.
This is not like the moon landings nonsense - which is laughable but ultimately inoffensive. Believing in conspiracy theories about 9/11 and putting forward falsehoods is - like Holocaust denial - either wilfully or unwittingly giving encouragement to those who would exploit those lies for their own evil purposes.
Ok Graham but I think you haven't got the point i've been trying to make plus you posted a cut and paste of what I wrote to make a quote of of your own.
I've read the debunking viewpoints as well as the conspiracy theories and when I read them both make me think that what they are saying sounds feasible. My point is trying to say that it is understandable that you then need to decide which is right and which is wrong and therefore why there are so many people who will question the truth of the official version - myself included.
konabunny you are completely twisting the comment I made about the Pentagon and the lack of video footage of the explosion there and have mentioned several times about my ignorance thinking a tourist may have captured something but have not answered whether or not you think it is surprising that no tv news teams would be there as it was a good 40 minutes after. You see, everyone has an agenda when it comes to trying to prove a point and will pick and chose what they reply to - classic example above with Graham making up his own selective quotation from my earlier post.
I have seen those WTC7 pictures as they are available on any google search and they show a lot of smoke from the rear combining with the dust from the earlier collapses but not flame.
I'm not trying to convince anyone here and stating that what I say is a fact - i'm expressing my own opinion which is different from yours but I haven't tried to put anyone down becuse they see things differently than I do.
Okay grantus, I don't think you are trolling I think you are genuinely interested, if a little bit ill-informed.
So ask away about any questions you have, any doubts you have about the theories and the good people of STW will put your mind at rest!
you posted a cut and paste of what I wrote to make a quote of of your own.
Not with the intention of twisting your words. Just demonstrating that you made two contradictory statements: you accepted the fire chief's statement as fact, but then said that in your opinion the building didn't have major fires.
you then need to decide which is right and which is wrong and therefore why there are so many people who will question the truth of the official version
Nothing wrong with questioning the official version. Contrary to Elf's earlier assumptions I think it is only right and proper to question the "official line".
I did the same thing with 9/11 - but when I found that my questions had perfectly reasonable answers backed by physical evidence and expert eyewitness testimony then I decided the official line was about as close to the truth as can be reasonably expected.
a better way of explaining it may be to look at the Pan Am 103 example. Dr Jim Swire is quite a high profile campaigner in this country and thinks the truth has not been told. Other families believe justice was served. Both parties will have grounds for thinking the way they do.
Why is this? natural cynicism?, government mis-information? track record of cover-ups/partial cover ups of embarassing/damning evidence which if brought to light would end political careers? Probably a combination of all these things.
Yes, I can see that Graham - personally, I don't quite buy the offical version as I have written before I am suspicious of many things about it but, equally, still find it hard to believe that elements of American government or whoever, could/would have done this regardless of what other things they could be capable of although I find myself not being able to rule it out completely.
I'll keep an open mind on it.
There is a quote in Jeremy Whittle's Bad Blood book he uses at the start of a chapter.
"There are three sides to every story - yours, mine and the truth" 🙂
a better way of explaining it may be to look at the Pan Am 103 example
There is quite a difference between conspiring to blame one "bad guy", instead of another (when neither claim responsibility) and conspiring directly with the "bad guys" to help them murder nearly 3000 of your own citizens on your own soil.
Sensible question though: IF all three WTC buildings were somehow secretly prepped for a controlled demolition (main structural supports cut and hundreds of remote demolition charges strategically placed around the building) - what would the conspirators have done if the hijack plot failed?
They couldn't very well leave the buildings fatally weakened and covered in explosives. How would they explain it if someone found them? That's a pretty big risk.
I agree - it would have to be foolproof in that case.
How to make it foolproof? I don't know
Grantus what konabunny and Graham and I are saying is that you keep saying that both sides are plausible without checking the facts
[b]1)[/b] No tourist pics at pentagon - if there were usually loads of tourists surrounding the pentagon then yes you have a case but there are not as it isnt in downtown WDC:
So your case based on unresearched falshoods x1
[b]2)[/b] WTC7 no fire. Again a statement you made withoput qualification when in fact there are loads of photos of pints of smoke billowing from wtc 7, loads of damage, videos of bulging and loads of firemen/witness to testify that it was burning like crazy.
This is just laughable. Are you saying there was a massive smoke generator in there? Making all different coloured smoke and some massive variable speed fans to simulate the convective pulsing? The fires were hidden by the smoke..I have seen those WTC7 pictures as they are available on any google search and they show a lot of smoke from the rear combining with the dust from the earlier collapses but not flame.
Another case based on unresearched falsehoods x2.
[b]3)[/b] WTC towers and freefall - again pished on by Northwind and myself.
Another case based on unresearched falsehoods x3.
[b]4)[/b] The wtc towers designed to withstand impact. - Again pished on by me and the others.
Another case based on unresearched falsehoods x4.
Can you see a trend developing here?
These are not a matter of opinion they are a matter of obvious fact with a small amount of critical thinking, I think this is why people are starting to disrespect you, its possible that you are just taking the mick (trolling) but it's getting boring.
I just said they seem plausible to me when reading articles made by people supporting both viewpoints therefore they put doubt in my mind.
I've tried to explain that in about the last several posts i've made on this thread.
They don't seem plausible to you - that's your opinion. I'm not trying to convert anyone or tell you that you are wrong or make 'a case' . I don't think the reference to not seeing flame licking out the building is laughable. I never said it wasn't on fire - I said it wasn't engulfed by fire for example the high rise fires you can see on google images which are raging infernos. This one is quite obviously on fire.
The terminology 'freefall' and 'near freefall' are ones that are used by commentators on the subject and that is what it looks like to me as well. These are not my statments of fact.
The question of whether or not the towers were designed to withstand impacts. Pished on? The designer claimed to have carried out tests. There is no evidence of this having been done. It is another question of who you believe. I believe he did. I also said it an earlier post that perhaps the tests were flawed but maybe they were not. You don't know and I don't know but we have an opinion.
There are families of 9/11 victims who think there is a conspiracy and there are those who don't. Get over yourself.
found this while looking for something else:
[url] http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2011/03/japan-tsunami-caused-by-haarp.html [/url]
makes the 9/11 conspiracies look almost credible....
Still?
[i]STILL????[/i]
😯
(Goes off to ride bike...)
Still?STILL????
(Goes off to ride bike...)
That guys up to something – probably something architectural. I can feel it!
🙂
EDIT: Welcome back, old friend thread.
There is no doubt that the official line that the air at ground zero was safe to breathe 7 days after the attack was spectacularly incorrect . Thousands of cases of people with respiritory problems relating to 9/11 persist .
There is no doubt that the official line that the air at ground zero was safe to breathe 7 days after the attack was spectacularly incorrect . Thousands of cases of people with respiritory problems relating to 9/11 persist
See this is the kind of conspiracy theory I can get onboard with.
Gulf War Syndrome is another good one where there might be evidence of a government cover up.
But these less sensational issues always get sidelined by nutjobs looking for Area 51, evidence of Prince Philip killing Diana, fake moon landings etc.
Maybe that's the real conspiracy
The Gulf War Syndrome for sure.
Area 51 is one of them i'm 50/50 with. Reckon most likely scenario is a top secret military test/spy facility as opposed to cold storage for aliens but you never know.
Princess Di - can't really think why Prince Phillip would really give a toss, to be honest, about who she was shagging and potentially going to marry.
The moon landings - don't really have an opinion on that one either way.
As for the Gulf War again, I seem to remember reading somewhere that Saddam thought he had tacitly been given a green light to occupy Kuwait by the West but then when he went and done it they double-crossed him and declared war. I suppose it could be true, but, if they wanted an excuse to get him then they wouldn't have let him stay in power another 12 years, would they?
Princess Di - can't really think why Prince Phillip would really give a toss, to be honest, about who she was shagging and potentially going to marry.
Prince Phillip - so Mrs 16 has it - wanted to protect the good name of the royal family (!). Not only was Diana doing so many good works that the royals were left in her wake – looking like ineffectual remnants of an out-dated paradigm - but she was also shagging a foreigner and the prospect of heirs to the throne having a non-white baby for a relative was too much to bear.
So the argument goes. Personally I can't see how Prince Philip could lead a super-clever conspiracy and then keep quiet for more than a decade. Dude's a total p*sshead and discretion is not one of his strong points...
and this, if its not already been posted?
That Clangers really live on the Moon 😯
Dude's a total p*sshead and discretion is not one of his strong points...
so the cover's not been blown yet then?
so the cover's not been blown yet then?
If that's a cover, I can't wait for it to be blown.