Attention all moon landing sceptics Page 17

Quote: sootyj @ July 21 2009, 4:43 PM BST

A vast cabal of people running the world?

View original

It's you using the words "vast" and "secret", sootyj( ), not me. Fine to dissent with my opinions, but not to misquote me. (Oh, BTW, sorry for the invasion/investigation thing. )

All I'm saying is that if I were powerful and dynasty-inclined, that's the way I would organise things. Dictatorships and military regimes always ultimately fail and fall. A lasting system of control and power requires more subtle and intelligent means. If people detached themselves from the humanitarian consequences of this thinking, likening it more as a game played by the exceptionally powerful and wealthy, it makes more sense. Trouble is that none of us like to believe we can be fooled on such a grand scale.

Quote: Tim Walker @ July 21 2009, 2:43 PM BST

for the official explanation to be true the the laws of physics must have taken a day off on September 11th 2001.

View original

I'm pretty sure the laws of physics wouldn't have a problem explaining the collapse of a building that was hit by a projectile weighing several hundred tons, moving at 400 MPH and filled with tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel. And those same laws of physics apply when thousands (millions?) of tons of debris fall from a height of a thousand feet onto a nearby building which is then allowed to burn uncontrolled for several hours. Roofs collapse under the weight of a couple feet of snow, so why is it so hard to believe that a building would collapse when a skyscraper falls on it? Girders and concrete ain't exactly fluffy little snowflakes.

Have you seen the buildings near the WTC after the collapse in person? I have and the damage to them was extensive. Here's a photo of the Verizon building which stood/stands next to WTC7. It's a miracle it didn't collapse as well.

Quote: Tim Walker @ July 21 2009, 3:10 PM BST

The point being that the US had been prior to 9/11 an increasingly isolationist country in terms of foreign policy. It had got out of the habit of acting independently overseas, due to lack of support for foreign intervention at home. Vietnam was the death blow to broad-based support for US "best intentioned" military intervention, plus the scandals which occurred when it got involved through covert missions involving the CIA and contra-funding. Even NATO-led military intervention was losing support at home.

The military was beginning to look like a massively-overfunded white elephant, with no obvious purpose either as a nation-building machine - standing up for democracy and freedom - nor as a defensive neccesity (who was attacking the US?). Budgets were being reviewed, cuts were to be made (even by Rumsfeld, who was shocked by the mad weapons contracts that existed, which swallowed money with little or no result). The arms industry gravy train was drying-up. The US military's influence was diminishing.

In terms of neocon geo-political agenda and both military and arms industry interests, 9/11 certainly came at just the right time. Before then it would have been very hard to gain support from the average US citizen for an interventionalist foreign policy or for more capital spending on defence.

View original

You don't understand the American people very well. The military is the most highly regarded and trusted element of our government. We willingly pay huge amounts of taxes to support a strong military. And there was plenty of support for foreign intervention pre-9/11. Just look at the first Gulf War, Somalia, Haiti and plenty of operations in the Middle East.

And I can say without reservation that the military, its leaders and its soldiers are the LAST people who would be eager for war.

Quote: Tim Walker @ July 21 2009, 3:33 PM BST

Saudi and the US have excellent political and ideological ties (I'm talking about those in power in Saudi, not any religious or democratic issues), US bases are not going to be lost there.

View original

I may be out of the loop, but I'm pretty sure there are no more than 200 or so American troops in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. began pulling out before the war in Iraq was a month old in early 2003.

Quote: Tim Walker @ July 21 2009, 4:52 PM BST

It's you using the words "vast" and "secret", sootyj( ), not me. Fine to dissent with my opinions, but not to misquote me. (Oh, BTW, sorry for the invasion/investigation thing. )

All I'm saying is that if I were powerful and dynasty-inclined, that's the way I would organise things. Dictatorships and military regimes always ultimately fail and fall. A lasting system of control and power requires more subtle and intelligent means. If people detached themselves from the humanitarian consequences of this thinking, likening it more as a game played by the exceptionally powerful and wealthy, it makes more sense. Trouble is that none of us like to believe we can be fooled on such a grand scale.

View original

Merely extrapolating.

Maybe removing security from the towers was easy. But transporting 100s of pounds of explosive into 3 buildings and distributing it with out raising suspicion. Taking command of the command structures of the airforce involving possibly 1000s of people without raising suspicion.

That's not going to happen with a little conspiracy now is it?

The sad thing is just how utterly mundane the truth is.

1 GWB slashes CIA funding for all its operations when he was elected, as part of a general cost cutting program which his rather dreary presidential campaign was based on.

2 Strong antiAmerican sentiment in Saudi allows a core of intelligent, capable men to be recruited by Al Quaeda. Backed with a Saudi policy of ignoring fund raising for AQ if terrorism stayed out of the country.

Regarding that the buildings mysterioulsy collapsed pretty much straight down and that that's against the laws of physics (which I think was what Tim was saying, although his posts were too long for me to be bothered reading), such buildings are designed to do that.

And a 200 tonne jet carrying thousands of pounds of fuel and flying at 500mph. That's a bigger missile then anyone seem's to have used to date on a scryscraper.

Quote: DaButt @ July 21 2009, 5:34 PM BST

You don't understand the American people very well. The military is the most highly regarded and trusted element of our government. We willingly pay huge amounts of taxes to support a strong military. And there was plenty of support for foreign intervention pre-9/11. Just look at the first Gulf War, Somalia, Haiti and plenty of operations in the Middle East.

And I can say without reservation that the military, its leaders and its soldiers are the LAST people who would be eager for war.

View original

I don't think you understood what I said, with respect. I think it's a little hopeful to link the support for the 1st Gulf War (a decade before, intervening with UN mandate and after the invasion of a soveriegn state - sound familiar?) with the immediate pre-9/11 conditions. Somalia, Haiti and other 'Middle East' operations were not unilateral actions. The current Iraq war effectively unilateral was because there was no UN mandate, no (stated) humanitarian cause and allied goverments (including ours) had to be brought in against the wishes of their peoples. The Saudi troop argument is slightly irrelevant, as the ability to base forces there is an open possibility, strategicaly vital.

I'm not disrespecting the American troops or (I think) misunderstanding the American people. In this country (as is evidenced by the current fury against our government over defence funding of our troops) we are just as supportive of our troops. We do, however, have a greater capacity to support our troops whilst at the same time despising what is done with them, both by the government and their military leaders.

I think this thread is a fake.

You're the fake!

I wish it was.

Quote: Tim Walker @ July 21 2009, 6:32 PM BST

I don't think you understood what I said, with respect. I think it's a little hopeful to link the support for the 1st Gulf War (a decade before, intervening with UN mandate and after the invasion of a soveriegn state - sound familiar?) with the immediate pre-9/11 conditions. Somalia, Haiti and other 'Middle East' operations were not unilateral actions. The current Iraq war effectively unilateral was because there was no UN mandate, no (stated) humanitarian cause and allied goverments (including ours) had to be brought in against the wishes of their peoples. The Saudi troop argument is slightly irrelevant, as the ability to base forces there is an open possibility, strategicaly vital.

View original

1) Public support in the U.S. for the invasion of Iraq was initially something like 75%.

2) 38 nations provided troops for the war in Iraq. That is not my definition of unilateral.

3) There seems to be a clearly stated humanitarian cause in this speech given by President Bush on the eve of the invasion:

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need. We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.

As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country. Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation.

The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region. Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace.

4) The U.S. has almost no troops in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis don't want us there and we don't want to be there. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignoring the facts.

I'm going to leave this here, as it could go on forever, and at some point one of us might get grumpy about it.

Quote: DaButt @ July 21 2009, 7:25 PM BST

2) 38 nations provided troops for the war in Iraq. That is not my definition of unilateral.

View original

Ok that one's a bit weak, Mongolia sent a 100 troops. Basically it was US, UK and anyone GWB could bully.

There is something profoundly shameful about Georgia's troops going home to fight the Russians without any support from the US.

Quote: Tim Walker @ July 21 2009, 7:31 PM BST

at some point one of us might get grumpy about it.

View original

That's not my style.

Infairness I have never known DaButt to get riled. How ever much some people may have expected him to.

Shame he's not president.

Quote: DaButt @ July 21 2009, 7:37 PM BST

That's not my style.

View original

Not saying it is. It's an interesting discussion. What I'm saying is that we are probably not going to reach any sort of understanding, so I don't want to be seen as antagonistic.