Page 3 of 7

Re: political debate.

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:01 am
by MajorLeeHurts
Its standard procedure and a safety precaution to confiscate firearms any law abiding owner of a firearm would and should understand that. It was done for the safety of the providers, (not to mention the number of fatalities from illegal firearms in this country ) Not to violate their civil rights. I am an owner of fire arms I personally have had them confiscated and returned and had no issue with it, it comes with the responsibility of ownership and should be understood. Especially under those circumstances.

Re: political debate.

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 3:55 am
by MajorLeeHurts
Jack wrote:
MajorLeeHurts wrote:Its standard procedure and a safety precaution to confiscate firearms any law abiding owner of a firearm would and should understand that. It was done for the safety of the providers, (not to mention the number of fatalities from illegal firearms in this country ) Not to violate their civil rights. I am an owner of fire arms I personally have had them confiscated and returned and had no issue with it, it comes with the responsibility of ownership and should be understood. Especially under those circumstances.

I fail to see how me buying a gun in order to defend myself only to have them confiscated when I actually need them the most is a good thing.


smooshable wrote:hehehe, I love the gun debate, rarely is the contrast between the left and the right so visible.

Left: Guns are the PROBLEM
Right: Guns are the SOLUTION

:lol:



if taken out of context yes this is a completely different debate.

But.

If the authority taking the firearm is doing so under the guise that you would be protected by the same authority who allows you the right to bear arms do you really have the right to protest and hinder a process that is put in place to protect those same rights.

Re: political debate.

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 9:16 am
by Phoenix of Terra
Actually, I'd be interested to see a new 2nd Amendment case go to the Supreme Court and get a strong opinion one way or the other (this court has too many 5-4 votes). Its been 70 years since the last case, and this discussion between individuals and militias needs to be laid to rest.

Re: political debate.

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:00 am
by Iƒrit
[KMA]Avenger wrote:i know of the tapes, 1 was proved to have been made by an impostor, but the 1st tape was actually mistranslated...some would say deliberately so...

i'll try and find the source and post it.

tbh, i dont know why he hasn't but he does have the power to order marshal law...did you know that FEMA have been building concentration style camps?


OH, btw, while the fiasco of the aftermath of hurricane Katrina was going on do you guys know that the 2nd amendment to the constitution was suspended and the police were ORDERED to go round and collect peoples weapons? :shock:
the tape is an imposter...one look at the ring on his left hand..a wedding band :? and then on the right you see a watch...both are in contridiction to his religion. Then if you look at CIA files you will notice that Osama is left handed but he is writting with his right hand...lol that tape is a fake. Further more if he admits to it why did media report that osama states he was not involved???

Re: political debate.

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:31 am
by Iƒrit
The Collapse of the World Trade Center:
The first thing I will begin to discuss will be the amazing and unique designs of the actual towers. The Word Trade Center was actually designed and built around the mid-1960’s all the way through the early 1970’s. They were believed to show a new and inventive approach to skyscrapers, in that they were very light in weight and incorporated new modular construction methods to reduce the time of construction, and to reduce the total costs of the towers. Both of the towers stood four hundred and eleven meters above the ground level and twenty-one meters below the ground surface. The buildings were both square, and measured sixty-four meters. The design was dominated by wind loads instead of gravity loads, and the total weight of the structure was somewhere around five hundred thousand tons. Being in the sense that skyscrapers take on heavy wind forces. It was designed to resist two hundred and twenty-five kilometer per hour hurricane winds, and a resist a wind load of 2kPa which is a total lateral load of 5,000 tons.
Designing a building of this magnitude formed as a difficult task for architects and engineers. The best way to look at the idea for the design of this building would be to look at it like a giant egg-crate. The construction allowed the structure to be composed of approximately ninety-five percent air, which was somewhat apparent when the towers collapsed because the height of the rubble was merely only a few stories above ground. This was manly used to make the towers more cost affective and consume less construction time. The architects used a light in weight perimeter tube that had consisted of two hundred and forty-four exterior columns that were made of thirty-six centimeter square steel box section on one hundred centimeter centers. This design allowed the windows to be more than one-half meters wide, and still be able to give the proper structural support. Inside of the outer tube the design was a twenty-seven meter by forty meter core to allow the support of the weight of the tower. There were web joists that were eighty centimeters tall that had connected the inner core to the perimeter of each individual story, and there were concrete slabs produced on top of these to form the different floors. This was a new technique in the building of skyscrapers because there were usually formed with columns on five centimeter centers and contained lots of masonry to accept the loads formed by the structure. This lightweight design allowed the possibilities that if few columns were lost; the loads of the structure would shift to the adjacent columns to help keep the structure standing. This was shown and demonstrated during the initial impact of the airplanes. This is why the World Trade Center has been labeled as “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers ever built even to this day.

The next topic of discussion will be the actual impacts of the airplanes into the sides of the towers. If any of you watched the news reports that first covered the incident you would notice that the structures took the initial impacts very well. This is very true in the fact that the structures were more than one thousand times the mass of the aircraft and able to resist wind forces of up to thirty times the weight of the airplane. On the day of September 11, 2001 there was no heavy wind force so the building was only stressed to approximately one third of its allowed stress allowable from the two hundred MPa design. The structure wasn’t exactly designed for airplane impact collisions, but when you do the math it should have been able to withstand the initial collision. So if this wasn’t the cause of the collapse, what was?
The only component of the airplane that can be compared to the strength of the boxed perimeter of the World Trade Center is the keel beam location at the bottom of the planes fuselage. When the loads shifted as the columns were taken out by the aircraft, the aircraft left approximately ninety thousand liter gallons of jet engine fuel that was ignited. This obviously would create a major problem in any building. This is clearly the key factor in the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Center. A thing as simple as a fire is considered the most misunderstood part of the collapse of September 11th. Many scientists and reporters believe that the “steel melted” due to the immense amounts of jet fuel burning so hot inside the towers, but when you compare thoughts of thermodynamics and combustion science, this is simply not true.
It is said that a main part of the problems is that some engineers and the average man confuse the concepts of temperature and heat, which is understandable. These two terms are very similar and sometimes it may be hard to distinguish the difference between these two concepts. These two concepts are related, but they are not the same. According to thermodynamics, heat contained in materials is directly related to the temperatures through the heat capacity and the density of the medium. When you compare the definitions of these two terms you will find that; temperature is an intensive property that does not vary with different amounts of material, while heat is an extensive property, varying with changes in the amounts of different materials. I found a very good analogy that can help us better understand this concept. If I were to add a second log to a fire would the temperature of the fire double? They answer to this is obviously no, but if I were to add this second log to the fire, the size of the fire would be expected to double, while the temperature would remain roughly the same. Thus the concept of the enormous amount of jet fuel “burning hotter” is a false statement because of thermodynamic principles. The temperature of the fire in the World Trade Center, was not an unusual fire, and did not possess the capabilities to melt steel. We can also take a look at combustion science to see for a fact that the steel did not actually melt.
When we talk about combustion science we get the concepts of three basic types of flames. Jet burners are generally described as mixing the fuel and the oxidants in stoichiometric proportions and igniting them in a constant-volume chamber so they are not allowed to expand and exit with extreme velocities. This creates enormous amounts of pressure which is why it results in such extreme velocities. This is the most intense heat produced, and is what happens to occur in a jet engine. The next type of flame is called a pre-mixed flame. Bunsen burners are considered pre-mixed flames; they are very similar to the concepts of jet burners but travel at much slower velocities. Since the size of the chamber is non existent and the mixing occurs at the last possible second, the velocities cannot be as high due to a lack of high pressure. The flame that creates the lowest intensity of heat is called a diffuse flame. In this flame the fuel and oxidant are not mixed before the ignition. These two materials are left to flow uncontrollably and will ultimately combust when the ratios reach ranges to cause a flame. Another simple way to look at this would again be a fireplace, which is a diffuse flame exactly like that of the World Trade Center.
Numbers will prove that the fire did not cause the steel to melt, but that the steel was softened and its strengths cut in half due to the temperatures of this fire. It is said that when burning fuels at room temperatures you can define a maximum temperature for the flame. When you burn carbon with pure oxygen the maximum intensity is said to be three thousand two hundred degrees Celsius, while hydrogen burns at a maximum of two thousand seven hundred and fifty degrees Celsius. So if you but them together the maximum of three thousand degrees can be agreed as the maximum temperature of any hydrocarbons burning in pure oxygen. As we have come to discover that the air is reduced by two-thirds that of pure oxygen. When you burn pure oxygen you only need to heat its two molecules; carbon monoxide and water, but when you heat air you not only need to heat these two molecules but also four molecules of nitrogen that are also in the air. This is where you get the result that oxygen has one-third the burning intensities of pure oxygen. This means that burning jet fuel in pure oxygen; the maximum temperature possible is approximately one thousand degrees Celsius, which is not enough to melt steel whose melting point is found to be roughly one thousand five hundred degrees Celsius.
Another reason to support this concept is also that diffuse flames are also found to be very difficult to reach there maximum temperatures. There are many left over fuel molecules that must also be burning to be mixed with the best ratios. If we yet again look at a fireplace, notice that when you blow on the fire the intensity and size of the fire increase. This is a result in extra molecules that need to be burned. This concept yet again lowers the ratios of heat found in the fire in the World Trade Center. It is said that most common house fires are approximately found to be around five and six hundred degrees Celsius. The soot and black smoke confirms the ideas that I have just suggested since they are evident in fires that are fuel rich. Even with all this evidence against the idea of the steel melting, the fire was the reason for the collapse of the towers. Evidence shows that the collapse of the towers was caused by the loss of strength of the steel due to softening, and the damage to the structural integrity due to the distortion of the steel. It has been determined that the fires inside the towers were approximately around seven hundred and fifty to eight hundred degrees Celsius. It has also been determined that steel begins to soften around four hundred and twenty five degrees Celsius and loses approximately half its strength around six hundred and fifty degrees Celsius.
When both of the structures were hit there was a loss of more than one important structural member. This caused the towers to have a somewhat domino affect when collapsing. The main assumption that we can use to determine this collapse has to the with the angle clops between the outer walls and the structural core. When the fire had weakened the structural integrity of the above floors, they began to bow outwards and fall on top of each other. This in result was too heavy of force for the lower levels to support. Which in result was the reason why neither tower tipped over, but they just crumbled directly towards the ground. There was not enough lateral velocity created in the short amount of time that it took for the towers to crumble. This was a major reason why the building was created and approximately ninety-five percent air. This is why engineers have come to the conclusion that the design of these towers was very sufficient.

Ok now you have some information about the World Trade Center, and the unlikely-ness that a fire caused the building to collapse. However some skeptics will argue that point. So to insure that they are wrong lets view other sky-scaper fires and then compare them to this event.

The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".
The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. 4 Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

skyscraper didnt collapse

The First Interstate Bank fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:
In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

skyscraper didnt collapse

The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

skyscraper didnt collapse

Caracas Tower Fire
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.

Lax enforcement of fire codes in Venezuela was blamed for the malfunctioning of water pumps and a lack of fire extinguishers inside of the building. Because the building was empty when the fire broke out, no civilians were killed or injured. 8

skyscraper didnt collapse

Ok did you hear about "secondary devices going off"?
Firefighter Schroeder - http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/au ... osions.htm
9/11 NBC News broadcast - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGE ... evices.wma

What about Building 7?
Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper. Nor could the fires had reached a tempture that would have damaged the structure to cause a collapse in the amount of time.

The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed.

Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent?

Other interesting facts and documents to look at

A interesting quote from the PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses"
Everyone is familiar with this quote...
"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."

go take a look at the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and review whats inside that document...no doubt there its a plan to ruin americas national soverity.
wiki link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_fo ... s_Defenses


U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba
Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba
By David Ruppe

N E W* Y O R K, May 1, 2001* In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."

Gunning for War
The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.

Actual Document - http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010 ... hwoods.pdf

Here are a few video's that also support the truth about 9/11
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9024486145
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0886411718
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0296169386

Re: political debate.

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 12:32 pm
by Fear Of The Duck
and what difference does it make?

Re: political debate.

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 5:46 pm
by papa~smurf
ifrit, nicely written, lots and lots of info which i can not prove or disprove. I was with u right to the end. At first it seemed u where saying that heat/temp where at a point where the structure was compromised, even if the metal had not melted, it had been weaken to the point that it could not support the floors above. And the building simple imploded (fell into it self). Then u talk about other fires as if to prove that sky scrapers do fall down from fire. In any case thanks for the lesson in fire (looks for matchs)

Re: political debate.

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 5:50 pm
by Iƒrit
papa~smurf wrote:ifrit, nicely written, lots and lots of info which i can not prove or disprove. I was with u right to the end. At first it seemed u where saying that heat/temp where at a point where the structure was compromised, even if the metal had not melted, it had been weaken to the point that it could not support the floors above. And the building simple imploded (fell into it self). Then u talk about other fires as if to prove that sky scrapers do fall down from fire. In any case thanks for the lesson in fire (looks for matchs)

no you completely misunderstood that...lol...I hope your just being funny :P

Re: political debate.

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 5:54 pm
by Phoenix of Terra
*Sigh* Where to start...

Ifrit wrote:[spoiler]The Collapse of the World Trade Center:
The first thing I will begin to discuss will be the amazing and unique designs of the actual towers. The Word Trade Center was actually designed and built around the mid-1960’s all the way through the early 1970’s. They were believed to show a new and inventive approach to skyscrapers, in that they were very light in weight and incorporated new modular construction methods to reduce the time of construction, and to reduce the total costs of the towers. Both of the towers stood four hundred and eleven meters above the ground level and twenty-one meters below the ground surface. The buildings were both square, and measured sixty-four meters. The design was dominated by wind loads instead of gravity loads, and the total weight of the structure was somewhere around five hundred thousand tons. Being in the sense that skyscrapers take on heavy wind forces. It was designed to resist two hundred and twenty-five kilometer per hour hurricane winds, and a resist a wind load of 2kPa which is a total lateral load of 5,000 tons.
Designing a building of this magnitude formed as a difficult task for architects and engineers. The best way to look at the idea for the design of this building would be to look at it like a giant egg-crate. The construction allowed the structure to be composed of approximately ninety-five percent air, which was somewhat apparent when the towers collapsed because the height of the rubble was merely only a few stories above ground. This was manly used to make the towers more cost affective and consume less construction time. The architects used a light in weight perimeter tube that had consisted of two hundred and forty-four exterior columns that were made of thirty-six centimeter square steel box section on one hundred centimeter centers. This design allowed the windows to be more than one-half meters wide, and still be able to give the proper structural support. Inside of the outer tube the design was a twenty-seven meter by forty meter core to allow the support of the weight of the tower. There were web joists that were eighty centimeters tall that had connected the inner core to the perimeter of each individual story, and there were concrete slabs produced on top of these to form the different floors. This was a new technique in the building of skyscrapers because there were usually formed with columns on five centimeter centers and contained lots of masonry to accept the loads formed by the structure. This lightweight design allowed the possibilities that if few columns were lost; the loads of the structure would shift to the adjacent columns to help keep the structure standing. This was shown and demonstrated during the initial impact of the airplanes. This is why the World Trade Center has been labeled as “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers ever built even to this day.

The next topic of discussion will be the actual impacts of the airplanes into the sides of the towers. If any of you watched the news reports that first covered the incident you would notice that the structures took the initial impacts very well. This is very true in the fact that the structures were more than one thousand times the mass of the aircraft and able to resist wind forces of up to thirty times the weight of the airplane. On the day of September 11, 2001 there was no heavy wind force so the building was only stressed to approximately one third of its allowed stress allowable from the two hundred MPa design. The structure wasn’t exactly designed for airplane impact collisions, but when you do the math it should have been able to withstand the initial collision. So if this wasn’t the cause of the collapse, what was?
The only component of the airplane that can be compared to the strength of the boxed perimeter of the World Trade Center is the keel beam location at the bottom of the planes fuselage. When the loads shifted as the columns were taken out by the aircraft, the aircraft left approximately ninety thousand liter gallons of jet engine fuel that was ignited. This obviously would create a major problem in any building. This is clearly the key factor in the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Center. A thing as simple as a fire is considered the most misunderstood part of the collapse of September 11th. Many scientists and reporters believe that the “steel melted” due to the immense amounts of jet fuel burning so hot inside the towers, but when you compare thoughts of thermodynamics and combustion science, this is simply not true.
It is said that a main part of the problems is that some engineers and the average man confuse the concepts of temperature and heat, which is understandable. These two terms are very similar and sometimes it may be hard to distinguish the difference between these two concepts. These two concepts are related, but they are not the same. According to thermodynamics, heat contained in materials is directly related to the temperatures through the heat capacity and the density of the medium. When you compare the definitions of these two terms you will find that; temperature is an intensive property that does not vary with different amounts of material, while heat is an extensive property, varying with changes in the amounts of different materials. I found a very good analogy that can help us better understand this concept. If I were to add a second log to a fire would the temperature of the fire double? They answer to this is obviously no, but if I were to add this second log to the fire, the size of the fire would be expected to double, while the temperature would remain roughly the same. Thus the concept of the enormous amount of jet fuel “burning hotter” is a false statement because of thermodynamic principles. The temperature of the fire in the World Trade Center, was not an unusual fire, and did not possess the capabilities to melt steel. We can also take a look at combustion science to see for a fact that the steel did not actually melt.
When we talk about combustion science we get the concepts of three basic types of flames. Jet burners are generally described as mixing the fuel and the oxidants in stoichiometric proportions and igniting them in a constant-volume chamber so they are not allowed to expand and exit with extreme velocities. This creates enormous amounts of pressure which is why it results in such extreme velocities. This is the most intense heat produced, and is what happens to occur in a jet engine. The next type of flame is called a pre-mixed flame. Bunsen burners are considered pre-mixed flames; they are very similar to the concepts of jet burners but travel at much slower velocities. Since the size of the chamber is non existent and the mixing occurs at the last possible second, the velocities cannot be as high due to a lack of high pressure. The flame that creates the lowest intensity of heat is called a diffuse flame. In this flame the fuel and oxidant are not mixed before the ignition. These two materials are left to flow uncontrollably and will ultimately combust when the ratios reach ranges to cause a flame. Another simple way to look at this would again be a fireplace, which is a diffuse flame exactly like that of the World Trade Center.
Numbers will prove that the fire did not cause the steel to melt, but that the steel was softened and its strengths cut in half due to the temperatures of this fire. It is said that when burning fuels at room temperatures you can define a maximum temperature for the flame. When you burn carbon with pure oxygen the maximum intensity is said to be three thousand two hundred degrees Celsius, while hydrogen burns at a maximum of two thousand seven hundred and fifty degrees Celsius. So if you but them together the maximum of three thousand degrees can be agreed as the maximum temperature of any hydrocarbons burning in pure oxygen. As we have come to discover that the air is reduced by two-thirds that of pure oxygen. When you burn pure oxygen you only need to heat its two molecules; carbon monoxide and water, but when you heat air you not only need to heat these two molecules but also four molecules of nitrogen that are also in the air. This is where you get the result that oxygen has one-third the burning intensities of pure oxygen. This means that burning jet fuel in pure oxygen; the maximum temperature possible is approximately one thousand degrees Celsius, which is not enough to melt steel whose melting point is found to be roughly one thousand five hundred degrees Celsius.
Another reason to support this concept is also that diffuse flames are also found to be very difficult to reach there maximum temperatures. There are many left over fuel molecules that must also be burning to be mixed with the best ratios. If we yet again look at a fireplace, notice that when you blow on the fire the intensity and size of the fire increase. This is a result in extra molecules that need to be burned. This concept yet again lowers the ratios of heat found in the fire in the World Trade Center. It is said that most common house fires are approximately found to be around five and six hundred degrees Celsius. The soot and black smoke confirms the ideas that I have just suggested since they are evident in fires that are fuel rich. Even with all this evidence against the idea of the steel melting, the fire was the reason for the collapse of the towers. Evidence shows that the collapse of the towers was caused by the loss of strength of the steel due to softening, and the damage to the structural integrity due to the distortion of the steel. It has been determined that the fires inside the towers were approximately around seven hundred and fifty to eight hundred degrees Celsius. It has also been determined that steel begins to soften around four hundred and twenty five degrees Celsius and loses approximately half its strength around six hundred and fifty degrees Celsius.
When both of the structures were hit there was a loss of more than one important structural member. This caused the towers to have a somewhat domino affect when collapsing. The main assumption that we can use to determine this collapse has to the with the angle clops between the outer walls and the structural core. When the fire had weakened the structural integrity of the above floors, they began to bow outwards and fall on top of each other. This in result was too heavy of force for the lower levels to support. Which in result was the reason why neither tower tipped over, but they just crumbled directly towards the ground. There was not enough lateral velocity created in the short amount of time that it took for the towers to crumble. This was a major reason why the building was created and approximately ninety-five percent air. This is why engineers have come to the conclusion that the design of these towers was very sufficient.[/spoiler]


TBH, you didn't convince me that fire didn't cause the collapse. In fact, the second to last paragraph did quite the opposite. Furthermore, the part in red at the beginning completely negates the below in my opinion, as they had different engineering and architectral designs. As papa smurf says (or at least what I thought he was saying), you kind of send mixed messages.

Ifrit wrote:[spoiler]Ok now you have some information about the World Trade Center, and the unlikely-ness that a fire caused the building to collapse. However some skeptics will argue that point. So to insure that they are wrong lets view other sky-scaper fires and then compare them to this event.

The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".
The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. 4 Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

skyscraper didnt collapse

The First Interstate Bank fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:
In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

skyscraper didnt collapse

The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

skyscraper didnt collapse

Caracas Tower Fire
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.

Lax enforcement of fire codes in Venezuela was blamed for the malfunctioning of water pumps and a lack of fire extinguishers inside of the building. Because the building was empty when the fire broke out, no civilians were killed or injured. 8

skyscraper didnt collapse[/spoiler]


Well, I already addressed this part, so...

Ifirit wrote:Ok did you hear about "secondary devices going off"?
Firefighter Schroeder - http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/au ... osions.htm
9/11 NBC News broadcast - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGE ... evices.wma


So...? Are you going to come out and say that the government planted the bombs and caused the collapse, or just imply it? Personally, I don't believe it, but I can't disprove it. Though more than explosives and jet fuel can explode (and would elevator cable soften to the point that the elevator would collapse in the above mentioned temperature? That's a serious quiestion, not a leading one)

Ifrit wrote:What about Building 7?
Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper. Nor could the fires had reached a tempture that would have damaged the structure to cause a collapse in the amount of time.

The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed.

Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent?


Once again, you failed to convince me about the fire's being inconsequential in the collapse. Furthermore, what do you expect the people of NYC to do, sit around and look at the rubble? Cause NY cleaned it up, not Big Brother.


Ifrit wrote:Other interesting facts and documents to look at

A interesting quote from the PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses"
Everyone is familiar with this quote...
"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."

go take a look at the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and review whats inside that document...no doubt there its a plan to ruin americas national soverity.
wiki link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_fo ... s_Defenses


Interesting, but I fail to see how that plan deteriates our national soveirgnty. It seems to move us into a position of significant strength on the international arena. So what? How does being the policeman of the world effect the way things go in our house? I don't see the Mexicans or Canadians suddenly being granted power to rule US domestic policy because of these guys' ideas.

Ifrit wrote:[spoiler]U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba
Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba
By David Ruppe

N E W* Y O R K, May 1, 2001* In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."

Gunning for War
The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.

Actual Document - http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010 ... hwoods.pdf[/spoiler]


Ha. Haha. Hahaha. You've got to be kidding me. First of all, the military makes lots of plans, not all of them pretty. Concentration camps during WWII. Nuclear attacks on China during the Korean War. Agent Orange in Vietnam. Multple uses of flame throwers and other fire weaponry. Plus, the US military has plans to deal with most, if not all, theatres; and then contingency plans off of those plans. Not surprising they had a plan on Cuba. Also, I'd like to pull a quote from the following link on the Cuban Missile Crisis

Wiki wrote:Soon after the Cuban Revolution, America became concerned about the political positions of Fidel Castro's government, and therefore Cuba was a major focus of the new Kennedy administration when it assumed power in January 1961.[2] In Havana, there was fear of military intervention by the United States in Cuba.[3] In April 1961, the threat of invasion became real when a force of CIA-trained Cuban exiles opposed to Castro landed at the Bay of Pigs. The invasion was quickly terminated by Cuba's military forces. Castro was convinced the United States would invade Cuba.[4] Shortly after routing the Bay of Pigs Invasion, he declared Cuba a socialist republic, established formal ties with the Soviet Union, and began to modernize Cuba's military.


A couple of things I'd like to mention in there. First is in cyan, dealing with the Kennedy administration's interest in Cuba. The reasons for plans such as the ones mentioned come from up above. Yes, the military made the plan. And I will bet my entire, wimpy account that McNamara at least hinted, if not ordered, on behalf of JFK, that plans for war against Cuba (with provisions for starting the war) were to be drawn up. We're talking about a president who pushed the world to the brink of nuclear war.

To back that up are the parts in orange. First, the Bay of Pigs already shows aggression against Cuba, before the plans came out. Secondly, the plans came out over a year after new administration came to power, plenty of time for them to put together a brand new plan on the issue if they have a big enough staff. Furthermore, this plan went through the Joint Chiefs as opposed to a localized command (CENTCOM, etc). If this had been a simple plan drawn up for possible future conflicts, it would have gone to the Secretary of Def (btw, my opinion of McNamara is very low; the man was a know-it all maverick) without worrying the Joint Chiefs (credit would go to the localized commander). As it is, coming from the Joint Chiefs seems to imply that it was ordered by the president and, furthermore, catered to him.

I'm actually surprised to see the civilian leadership rejected it. Personally, I think it was more because they were worried about public image as opposed to the state of their souls.


May watch later. No time atm.

Re: political debate.

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 7:21 pm
by Iƒrit
Phoenix of Terra wrote:*Sigh* Where to start...

Ifrit wrote:[spoiler]The Collapse of the World Trade Center:
The first thing I will begin to discuss will be the amazing and unique designs of the actual towers. The Word Trade Center was actually designed and built around the mid-1960’s all the way through the early 1970’s. They were believed to show a new and inventive approach to skyscrapers, in that they were very light in weight and incorporated new modular construction methods to reduce the time of construction, and to reduce the total costs of the towers. Both of the towers stood four hundred and eleven meters above the ground level and twenty-one meters below the ground surface. The buildings were both square, and measured sixty-four meters. The design was dominated by wind loads instead of gravity loads, and the total weight of the structure was somewhere around five hundred thousand tons. Being in the sense that skyscrapers take on heavy wind forces. It was designed to resist two hundred and twenty-five kilometer per hour hurricane winds, and a resist a wind load of 2kPa which is a total lateral load of 5,000 tons.
Designing a building of this magnitude formed as a difficult task for architects and engineers. The best way to look at the idea for the design of this building would be to look at it like a giant egg-crate. The construction allowed the structure to be composed of approximately ninety-five percent air, which was somewhat apparent when the towers collapsed because the height of the rubble was merely only a few stories above ground. This was manly used to make the towers more cost affective and consume less construction time. The architects used a light in weight perimeter tube that had consisted of two hundred and forty-four exterior columns that were made of thirty-six centimeter square steel box section on one hundred centimeter centers. This design allowed the windows to be more than one-half meters wide, and still be able to give the proper structural support. Inside of the outer tube the design was a twenty-seven meter by forty meter core to allow the support of the weight of the tower. There were web joists that were eighty centimeters tall that had connected the inner core to the perimeter of each individual story, and there were concrete slabs produced on top of these to form the different floors. This was a new technique in the building of skyscrapers because there were usually formed with columns on five centimeter centers and contained lots of masonry to accept the loads formed by the structure. This lightweight design allowed the possibilities that if few columns were lost; the loads of the structure would shift to the adjacent columns to help keep the structure standing. This was shown and demonstrated during the initial impact of the airplanes. This is why the World Trade Center has been labeled as “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers ever built even to this day.

The next topic of discussion will be the actual impacts of the airplanes into the sides of the towers. If any of you watched the news reports that first covered the incident you would notice that the structures took the initial impacts very well. This is very true in the fact that the structures were more than one thousand times the mass of the aircraft and able to resist wind forces of up to thirty times the weight of the airplane. On the day of September 11, 2001 there was no heavy wind force so the building was only stressed to approximately one third of its allowed stress allowable from the two hundred MPa design. The structure wasn’t exactly designed for airplane impact collisions, but when you do the math it should have been able to withstand the initial collision. So if this wasn’t the cause of the collapse, what was?
The only component of the airplane that can be compared to the strength of the boxed perimeter of the World Trade Center is the keel beam location at the bottom of the planes fuselage. When the loads shifted as the columns were taken out by the aircraft, the aircraft left approximately ninety thousand liter gallons of jet engine fuel that was ignited. This obviously would create a major problem in any building. This is clearly the key factor in the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Center. A thing as simple as a fire is considered the most misunderstood part of the collapse of September 11th. Many scientists and reporters believe that the “steel melted” due to the immense amounts of jet fuel burning so hot inside the towers, but when you compare thoughts of thermodynamics and combustion science, this is simply not true.
It is said that a main part of the problems is that some engineers and the average man confuse the concepts of temperature and heat, which is understandable. These two terms are very similar and sometimes it may be hard to distinguish the difference between these two concepts. These two concepts are related, but they are not the same. According to thermodynamics, heat contained in materials is directly related to the temperatures through the heat capacity and the density of the medium. When you compare the definitions of these two terms you will find that; temperature is an intensive property that does not vary with different amounts of material, while heat is an extensive property, varying with changes in the amounts of different materials. I found a very good analogy that can help us better understand this concept. If I were to add a second log to a fire would the temperature of the fire double? They answer to this is obviously no, but if I were to add this second log to the fire, the size of the fire would be expected to double, while the temperature would remain roughly the same. Thus the concept of the enormous amount of jet fuel “burning hotter” is a false statement because of thermodynamic principles. The temperature of the fire in the World Trade Center, was not an unusual fire, and did not possess the capabilities to melt steel. We can also take a look at combustion science to see for a fact that the steel did not actually melt.
When we talk about combustion science we get the concepts of three basic types of flames. Jet burners are generally described as mixing the fuel and the oxidants in stoichiometric proportions and igniting them in a constant-volume chamber so they are not allowed to expand and exit with extreme velocities. This creates enormous amounts of pressure which is why it results in such extreme velocities. This is the most intense heat produced, and is what happens to occur in a jet engine. The next type of flame is called a pre-mixed flame. Bunsen burners are considered pre-mixed flames; they are very similar to the concepts of jet burners but travel at much slower velocities. Since the size of the chamber is non existent and the mixing occurs at the last possible second, the velocities cannot be as high due to a lack of high pressure. The flame that creates the lowest intensity of heat is called a diffuse flame. In this flame the fuel and oxidant are not mixed before the ignition. These two materials are left to flow uncontrollably and will ultimately combust when the ratios reach ranges to cause a flame. Another simple way to look at this would again be a fireplace, which is a diffuse flame exactly like that of the World Trade Center.
Numbers will prove that the fire did not cause the steel to melt, but that the steel was softened and its strengths cut in half due to the temperatures of this fire. It is said that when burning fuels at room temperatures you can define a maximum temperature for the flame. When you burn carbon with pure oxygen the maximum intensity is said to be three thousand two hundred degrees Celsius, while hydrogen burns at a maximum of two thousand seven hundred and fifty degrees Celsius. So if you but them together the maximum of three thousand degrees can be agreed as the maximum temperature of any hydrocarbons burning in pure oxygen. As we have come to discover that the air is reduced by two-thirds that of pure oxygen. When you burn pure oxygen you only need to heat its two molecules; carbon monoxide and water, but when you heat air you not only need to heat these two molecules but also four molecules of nitrogen that are also in the air. This is where you get the result that oxygen has one-third the burning intensities of pure oxygen. This means that burning jet fuel in pure oxygen; the maximum temperature possible is approximately one thousand degrees Celsius, which is not enough to melt steel whose melting point is found to be roughly one thousand five hundred degrees Celsius.
Another reason to support this concept is also that diffuse flames are also found to be very difficult to reach there maximum temperatures. There are many left over fuel molecules that must also be burning to be mixed with the best ratios. If we yet again look at a fireplace, notice that when you blow on the fire the intensity and size of the fire increase. This is a result in extra molecules that need to be burned. This concept yet again lowers the ratios of heat found in the fire in the World Trade Center. It is said that most common house fires are approximately found to be around five and six hundred degrees Celsius. The soot and black smoke confirms the ideas that I have just suggested since they are evident in fires that are fuel rich. Even with all this evidence against the idea of the steel melting, the fire was the reason for the collapse of the towers. Evidence shows that the collapse of the towers was caused by the loss of strength of the steel due to softening, and the damage to the structural integrity due to the distortion of the steel. It has been determined that the fires inside the towers were approximately around seven hundred and fifty to eight hundred degrees Celsius. It has also been determined that steel begins to soften around four hundred and twenty five degrees Celsius and loses approximately half its strength around six hundred and fifty degrees Celsius.
When both of the structures were hit there was a loss of more than one important structural member. This caused the towers to have a somewhat domino affect when collapsing. The main assumption that we can use to determine this collapse has to the with the angle clops between the outer walls and the structural core. When the fire had weakened the structural integrity of the above floors, they began to bow outwards and fall on top of each other. This in result was too heavy of force for the lower levels to support. Which in result was the reason why neither tower tipped over, but they just crumbled directly towards the ground. There was not enough lateral velocity created in the short amount of time that it took for the towers to crumble. This was a major reason why the building was created and approximately ninety-five percent air. This is why engineers have come to the conclusion that the design of these towers was very sufficient.[/spoiler]


TBH, you didn't convince me that fire didn't cause the collapse. In fact, the second to last paragraph did quite the opposite. Furthermore, the part in red at the beginning completely negates the below in my opinion, as they had different engineering and architectral designs. As papa smurf says (or at least what I thought he was saying), you kind of send mixed messages.

you obviously didnt understand where I was going there.

Ifrit wrote:[spoiler]Ok now you have some information about the World Trade Center, and the unlikely-ness that a fire caused the building to collapse. However some skeptics will argue that point. So to insure that they are wrong lets view other sky-scaper fires and then compare them to this event.

The One Meridian Plaza Fire
One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".
The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. 4 Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.

skyscraper didnt collapse

The First Interstate Bank fire
The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:
In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

skyscraper didnt collapse

The 1 New York Plaza Fire
1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours.

skyscraper didnt collapse

Caracas Tower Fire
The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters.

Lax enforcement of fire codes in Venezuela was blamed for the malfunctioning of water pumps and a lack of fire extinguishers inside of the building. Because the building was empty when the fire broke out, no civilians were killed or injured. 8

skyscraper didnt collapse[/spoiler]


Well, I already addressed this part, so...

comparision...the WTC didnt burn for that long what was it an hour if that...Im postive its valid.

Ifirit wrote:Ok did you hear about "secondary devices going off"?
Firefighter Schroeder - http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/au ... osions.htm
9/11 NBC News broadcast - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGE ... evices.wma


So...? Are you going to come out and say that the government planted the bombs and caused the collapse, or just imply it? Personally, I don't believe it, but I can't disprove it. Though more than explosives and jet fuel can explode (and would elevator cable soften to the point that the elevator would collapse in the above mentioned temperature? That's a serious quiestion, not a leading one)

Its an implication that secondary devices where used to cause the collapse, again you didnt follow.

Ifrit wrote:What about Building 7?
Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper. Nor could the fires had reached a tempture that would have damaged the structure to cause a collapse in the amount of time.

The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed.

Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent?


Once again, you failed to convince me about the fire's being inconsequential in the collapse. Furthermore, what do you expect the people of NYC to do, sit around and look at the rubble? Cause NY cleaned it up, not Big Brother.

No acually if you reasearch it Chaney had the evidence destroyed and recycled....

Ifrit wrote:Other interesting facts and documents to look at

A interesting quote from the PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses"
Everyone is familiar with this quote...
"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."

go take a look at the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and review whats inside that document...no doubt there its a plan to ruin americas national soverity.
wiki link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_fo ... s_Defenses


Interesting, but I fail to see how that plan deteriates our national soveirgnty. It seems to move us into a position of significant strength on the international arena. So what? How does being the policeman of the world effect the way things go in our house? I don't see the Mexicans or Canadians suddenly being granted power to rule US domestic policy because of these guys' ideas.

it destorys our CONSTITUTION!! WE THE PEOPLE give the goverment its power, not the other way around. And sure allow immigrants to come in through our borders while us CITIZENS are forced to have a RFID chip...awesome *rols eyes*. Furthermore, didnt the supposed hijackers enter our contry through the borders now your just gonna open them up for more supposed terrorist? The only real terrorist are the group of elites and there followers.

Ifrit wrote:[spoiler]U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba
Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba
By David Ruppe

N E W* Y O R K, May 1, 2001* In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."

Gunning for War
The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.

Actual Document - http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010 ... hwoods.pdf[/spoiler]


Ha. Haha. Hahaha. You've got to be kidding me. First of all, the military makes lots of plans, not all of them pretty. Concentration camps during WWII. Nuclear attacks on China during the Korean War. Agent Orange in Vietnam. Multple uses of flame throwers and other fire weaponry. Plus, the US military has plans to deal with most, if not all, theatres; and then contingency plans off of those plans. Not surprising they had a plan on Cuba. Also, I'd like to pull a quote from the following link on the Cuban Missile Crisis

Wiki wrote:Soon after the Cuban Revolution, America became concerned about the political positions of Fidel Castro's government, and therefore Cuba was a major focus of the new Kennedy administration when it assumed power in January 1961.[2] In Havana, there was fear of military intervention by the United States in Cuba.[3] In April 1961, the threat of invasion became real when a force of CIA-trained Cuban exiles opposed to Castro landed at the Bay of Pigs. The invasion was quickly terminated by Cuba's military forces. Castro was convinced the United States would invade Cuba.[4] Shortly after routing the Bay of Pigs Invasion, he declared Cuba a socialist republic, established formal ties with the Soviet Union, and began to modernize Cuba's military.


A couple of things I'd like to mention in there. First is in cyan, dealing with the Kennedy administration's interest in Cuba. The reasons for plans such as the ones mentioned come from up above. Yes, the military made the plan. And I will bet my entire, wimpy account that McNamara at least hinted, if not ordered, on behalf of JFK, that plans for war against Cuba (with provisions for starting the war) were to be drawn up. We're talking about a president who pushed the world to the brink of nuclear war.

To back that up are the parts in orange. First, the Bay of Pigs already shows aggression against Cuba, before the plans came out. Secondly, the plans came out over a year after new administration came to power, plenty of time for them to put together a brand new plan on the issue if they have a big enough staff. Furthermore, this plan went through the Joint Chiefs as opposed to a localized command (CENTCOM, etc). If this had been a simple plan drawn up for possible future conflicts, it would have gone to the Secretary of Def (btw, my opinion of McNamara is very low; the man was a know-it all maverick) without worrying the Joint Chiefs (credit would go to the localized commander). As it is, coming from the Joint Chiefs seems to imply that it was ordered by the president and, furthermore, catered to him.

I'm actually surprised to see the civilian leadership rejected it. Personally, I think it was more because they were worried about public image as opposed to the state of their souls.

you missing the point, it was supporting, that 9/11 was a "fals flag" operation. Operation Northwood is a unclassified "false flag" operation that was planned by the goverment, and its not the only false flag op used by goverment to rally support from the people to go to war. Others false flag ops include; Operation Himmler, probably the most known. Pearl Harbor, yes we knew the japaneese were planing to attack pearl harbor, and the goverment did nothing to stop them. "Remember the Maine", and the Italy bombings that happened to support invasion of Iraq.
The point is these are LIES to get the support of the people to fight a war that isnt real, innocent people are dying for the wrong reason, that is a LIE.
Further more the President, JFK didnt support the idea of Operation Northwood, he infact was the reason it did not happen. The idea may actually originated with President Eisenhower in the last days of his administration.



May watch later. No time atm.
Good you should


I just also want to add if America knew that there was "terrorist" plan to hijack air planes and crash them into buildings (one person who reported this was also Osama Bin Laden, but several other reported this as a possible attack), then why, when the first plan crashed, did NORAD order a stand down?

Other stuff I didnt include, but should have.

Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.

A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."

Look I dont want to just tell you everything, my purpose is to get you thinking about this, use your minds, Im here sharing what I have researched. Hoping that you will see what I saw, question wether its true or not, DO YOUR OWN REASEARCH!!

Re: political debate.

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 7:43 pm
by smooshable
I'd just like to point out that the 9/11 highjackers didn't sneak over the Mexican border. They entered the country completely legally.

Terrorists are well funded, you can't keep them out by doubling the border patrol.

Also I'd like to add in defence of Phoenix of the Terra: when ever he counters you he brings up points. When ever you counter him you say "if you research it you'll see <insert crazy theory here>". Instead of telling us we should research better, why don't you show us your research and where you got it from. Just so you know, some 38 year old virgin from Austin who lives in his mothers garage, has posters of UFO's all over his wall and runs his own website called ISeeDeadPeopleDotNet is not a source that is going to convince me (and without presuming to speak for him, I doubt it'll convince Phoenix either).

Re: political debate.

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:03 pm
by Iƒrit
smooshable wrote:I'd just like to point out that the 9/11 highjackers didn't sneak over the Mexican border. They entered the country completely legally.

Terrorists are well funded, you can't keep them out by doubling the border patrol.

Also I'd like to add in defence of Phoenix of the Terra: when ever he counters you he brings up points. When ever you counter him you say "if you research it you'll see <insert crazy theory here>". Instead of telling us we should research better, why don't you show us your research and where you got it from. Just so you know, some 38 year old virgin from Austen who lives in his mothers garage, has posters of UFO's all over his wall and runs his own website called ISeeDeadPeopleDotNet is not a source that is going to convince me (and without presuming to speak for him, I doubt it'll convince Phoenix either).

well it was stated that some of the supposed hijackers entered through the canadain boarder, so your correct the didnt enter through the mexican border.
I did supply some of my research and provided a few links. If you look at Alex Jones' Research (assuming thats the "38 year old virgin from Austen who lives in his mothers garage, has posters of UFO's all over his wall and runs his own website called ISeeDeadPeopleDotNet is not a source that is going to convince me" your refering to) he does share his research. Other known sources have their research and have shown that it some of the videos I provided.

Furthermore why dont you share some of your research??

Re: political debate.

Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 8:22 pm
by papa~smurf
you did it, they did, he did it, they all did it,....in the end it's the way our socity works, and for that matter humanity through te ages. there is little question we live in troubled times, that with the advent of international covarge, we are over whemmed by images and stories tht bring us close to the truth of how bad things are to day. And it been true since the cave man to today, when faced with unspeakable things, we find those to blame for them. thats what at the heart of every conspericy throry that has been around my whole life.

If u believe the government is able of such master planning, deep cover obs, i forgive u. I am sure u didn't live through watergate and iran/contra to understand how truly inept they are. Hell, they couldn't even come up with one WOMD, and u would think a sinister, deep cover ob could pull that off if they could fake a attack on our own soil.

face the truth that we are slowly becoming our own undoing. The life style of the western world has become a two edge sword. They hate us for it, and then they try to reshape the world to gain a piece of it. All cross the western world, and in some of the emerging consumer/capitalist base nations, the acts of terrorism are there. Are we to believe that Madrid, London, Saudi, and other attacks are being done by there governments to slowly take away the rights of the people ? I do not disagree that our rights are going, but we are giving them away whole sale. From fear of the "lighting in the sky", just like the caveman must of.

Re: political debate.

Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:37 am
by [KMA]Avenger
@smoosh, i never said i didnt read books, what i meant to say (my bad for not making my point more clearly) is that i don't read the mainstream books and i am in fact VERY choosy as to what i believe to be true and what i think is a crock of stinking **Filtered**. i NEVER trust anything i cannot verify from an independent source, and the more sources i can find to back up a claim then who can argue?

i cant remember who posted it (my bad) here about bombs in the towers but i would ask you guys to go find out which corporation had (or maybe still has) the security contract for the whole of the WTC, and who was CEO of that corporation.
i would also be researching why the bomb sniffing dogs were removed from both towers the day before the attacks.
i should also be looking into the many reports from the firefighters and civilian's and WTC employees (who were in the buildings that survived) who heard many explosions going off in the lobby and below ground level after the planes struck the building...now ask yourselves, why should there be explosions in the lobby and below ground level in a building which had NO elevator that ran the entire height of the building? in short you could not take an elevator from any lower floor and travel all the way to the top (or bottom) or even half way up (or down) of the buildings. so for explosions to be going off due to either debris impact or as a result of fire so far down the building would mean that the central columns and the entire core section of both towers would have had to have been completely and utterly destroyed seconds after impact, its pretty safe to asume that neither tower suffered a core collapse as the planes impacted.

both towers had 3 stages separated by 2 sections which were supposed to stop any pancaking effect at each section, so both towers having 2 sections designed to stop any kind of collapse both failed, this feature was incorporated into the design to give the buildings even more redundancy and both safety features not only failed but failed so terrible that the collapse of the buildings didnt even slow down as it hit and passed each section

and as for the buildings collapsing from fire i can only laugh, WTC buildings 4 and 5 (i think its 4 and 5, cant remember the numbers) both stood at the foot of the 2 towers and had both towers drop on them which as you can imagine caused massive structural damage, even more so then the towers had initially suffered from the impact of the planes, and neither 1 of those buildings collapsed totally.

hers a clip showing explosion after explosion prior to each stage of the collapse...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd8B-8Au-Wk

and here we have bush flat out lying about the events on 9/11...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60

google the designs of the buildings and you'll see for yourselves.

anyways, i hope we don't get fixated on 9/11 because this goes WAAAAAY beyond 9/11 and any terrorist attacks.

Re: political debate.

Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:19 am
by [KMA]Avenger
1 more thing about 9/11 before i move on...

if 9/11 wasnt an inside job then how come the BBC reported the collapse of building 7 a full 20 mins before the building actually collapsed???

or should i say, demolished?!

now please dont try and debate that with me because you can find the BBC report on youtube, the newscaster is reporting that building 7 HAS collapsed when in fact you can STILL see it standing in the background.

now, moving on...what the hell is wrong with this picture, people in america starving, are you kidding me or what? :shock: and i'm not talking about a Ghetto area. see for yourselves...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnJJFiczgPY

you was warned it was coming and no one listened. these guys knew exactly what was coming...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd8wwMFmCeE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ngJNIk8elA

this next clip is footage from a FREE press and not the corporate press which are owned by the military contractors...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHIyeglKxso

Bill O'Reilly the loud mouthed has no clue disrespectful piece of crap gets owned big time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctlmholr45c