Military Drills

[Alanador]

My link to his site was by proxy and contained none of his subject matter...you and I would probably agree on most points regaurding Alex Jones, but at least my link worked! :) I do not discredit your information. But as far as 7/7 goes (if that is what you are referring to) that video is not only solid, but 'from the horses mouth', and very rare indeed. If you refer to the 9/11 drills I have read so many variations reported on it that who knows what the drill really was, I look only at the fact that they both happened. It is odd neh? And so far my only information of the drills in Madrid was just given to me. Did the three attacks (collectively) have any other common elements? On a side note, if you want to know if I trust my government I would say one thing...Kent State University, Ohio, 1970. I trust certain people within the government, but no, I do not trust any government that is not transparent. When the order can be given for our military to kill us, and it is followed, I tend to be cautious. But we can start a thread on that sometime I guess, as it is not used here to bolster any part of this thread, that is just the most significant example for me, personally.

[loveme4whoiam]

I do think that if Bush had just gone ahead and popped a cap in Saddam's a.s.s.

 

Lol - after the first Gulf War that is exactly what Maggie Thatcher wanted to do to him, but old Bush Snr. stopped her. Funny how stuff turns out, eh?

 

While I in no way endorse any terrorists' actions, I would also like to see what the difference is between Bush and Bin Laden. One terrorised a nation through the 11th September attacks, and then the Madrid Bombings and the London Bombings; the other has terrorised several countries using the world's most advanced military.

 

The US has never been against semi-secret military operations against a group of people, so why did they have to invade entire countries to go after Bin Laden's group (which, interestingly, using to be on the payroll of the CIA during the Cold War)? He has gone far and away beyond the call for revenge.

 

And just as an addendum, I hate those film stars who come over all political when it is popular; if the might of the UN (ho ho) couldn't get Guantanemo Bay shut down, do you really think you'll be abe to Susan Sarandon?

[karkarinus]

I do not trust any government that is not transparent.

 

 

 

So which government do you trust? I'm not going to go into conspiracy theories, but that's what politics are all about: making people think you are transparent by performing a few public thingummyjigs, putting down the opposition, and all the time it's just another business.

[Alanador]

There are individuals within our government, like the 6 retired generals who have called for Rumsfields relief from duty, that are transparent, and who have the concern of our people, our way of life, AND our foriegn relations at heart. I have not experienced any government other than my own and it's seems without enough congressional oversight they are anything but transparent and lie at whim. How can I believe them on anything when they lie about so much. Do I think Bush is the problem? No, no one man can create, utilize and hide NSA warrantless wiretaps, (just an example) whether they are found to be legal under his constitutional powers or not. If they care sooo much about my security and the security of my son, why is the Mexican border out of control? I have a two hour intelligence commitee meeting I will be posting at Google video, it usually takes a few days to go through. This intelligence commitee meeting was held february 14th, 2006 and I recorded it live off of CNN. It had 4 whistle blowers testimony, an Army Specialist, a Lt. Col. / Special Ops, an FBI agent, and an NSA agent. Their testimony is incredible. I will post the link when the video goes through on their server.

 

I agree Loveme, like religion and politics, I think celebrity and politics should remain seperate.

[Peregrine]

My link to his site was by proxy and contained none of his subject matter...you and I would probably agree on most points regaurding Alex Jones, but at least my link worked!

 

So was mine, it was an exact reprint of an article from elsewhere. I'm not saying yours is invalid, I'm just criticizing the hypocrisy of posting an item from a site, then protesting about biased sources when I post a similar item from the exact same source.

 

===================================

While I in no way endorse any terrorists' actions, I would also like to see what the difference is between Bush and Bin Laden. One terrorised a nation through the 11th September attacks, and then the Madrid Bombings and the London Bombings; the other has terrorised several countries using the world's most advanced military.

 

Take a look at the choice of targets. Bin Laden aimed his attacks to kill as many innocent civilians as possible. Bush and the US military at least try to attack only valid military targets, targets who openly call for the destruction of the US. The innocent victims of the US were not supposed to be the victims, they just had the misfortune of being caught in the line of fire. Civilian casualties are an unfortunate part of every war in history, this one is no different.

 

Compare this to attacking office buildings full of innocent people, or suicide bombings of crowds of innocent people, and you'll see a clear difference.

 

The US has never been against semi-secret military operations against a group of people, so why did they have to invade entire countries to go after Bin Laden's group (which, interestingly, using to be on the payroll of the CIA during the Cold War)? He has gone far and away beyond the call for revenge.

 

Because those groups were smaller, and probably had a much weaker grip on power. There's a difference between assassinating a leader of one side of an unstable civil war and trying to break an oppressive government's control of a helpless population. If the US had tried to win the war with just an air strike or two, the only result would've been the second in command taking over for the people we killed, and nothing really changing.

 

Just look at Iraq if you don't believe it... even with all the resources we've devoted to the war, we STILL have people fighting against us.

 

==================================

 

 

There are individuals within our government, like the 6 retired generals who have called for Rumsfields relief from duty, that are transparent, and who have the concern of our people, our way of life, AND our foriegn relations at heart.

 

How do you know? Because they're on your side of the argument, and the Bush administration isn't? How do you know they aren't just seeking some publicity or looking for political benefits? How do you know that the Bush administration isn't acting honestly (though incompetently) in what they see as our best interest?

I have not experienced any government other than my own and it's seems without enough congressional oversight they are anything but transparent and lie at whim.

 

And this is unique to the republicans? Both sides are just as bad about this.

Do I think Bush is the problem? No, no one man can create, utilize and hide NSA warrantless wiretaps, (just an example) whether they are found to be legal under his constitutional powers or not.

 

And the democrats are guilty of just as many unconstitutional acts. This just happens to be the latest case of the government ignoring the law to do what it wants.

 

If they care sooo much about my security and the security of my son, why is the Mexican border out of control?

 

Because the democrats want to buy votes from poor mexicans with promises of large welfare checks, and the republicans want campaign donations from the large corporations who love the cheap labor. The best interest of the average citizen is far from either party's top priority in this case.

[Alanador]

You are correct Peregrine, on many counts, in my opinion. As for Alex, yes, almost all of his articles can be verifed by the sources he quotes them from (I actually did not see your redirect until the next day, without knowing the content I assumed too much. You have my apology). I will stop the conversation there to avoid any drawing in of why most folks don't like him. But I think we are getting off topic, and I say that not to avoid further debate, but to avoid needless debate, I think from what you (Peregrine) said we are on the same track. Should we add some more facts before we begin to debate the real issues behind this topic? I think entering into the area we are going without really laying down a foundation of facts that all agree on leads to what almost happened at the begining of this particular thread. I have to head off to work today...so let's all take a breather. By this evening I will put up more "easily verifiable by redundancy" evidence. YES these were crimes...we will be debating who had criminal knowledge or negligence (edit) of these acts. But wait....don't run on that flippant comment...I DID NOT SAY WHO HAD criminal knowledge or negligence. I look forward to a most interesting debate when the facts we all agree on are before us. Peace all! Thanks for stimulating the hell outta my brain! Also, one more thing..

 

I am not Dem or Rep...I am a constitutionalist...a term that OHIO is using RIGHT NOW to label "terrorist potential". I will provide that link if you'd like it. (Brother it isn't just 6 retired generals...there is an ever growing line of "defectors" from this administration). I am currently posting an Intelligence Commitee meeting that I recorded live from CNN on Feb. 14, 2006, testimony of 4 whistle blowers. I will be entering that as evidence when it becomes available as well, as it covers this topic. You can call me a moron...but don't call me a democrat or a republican. :)

 

Please, if you have ANY...ANY pertinent information on the terrorist attacks...not hyperbole, but fact, for either side, let's put them on the table to be labeled as evidence. The real debate hasn't even begun yet, so far we're just debating the introduction of evidence. Without further information to debunk these three facts...That on 9-11 in New York City, USA there was an attack, and a drill...that on 7/7 in London, England there was an attack and a drill....and that on 3-11 in Madrid, Spain there was an attack, and a drill.....I move that they be entered into evidence as Exhibit A.

[Peregrine]

Should we add some more facts before we begin to debate the real issues behind this topic?

 

Like what? Stop evading the question and post your so-called real issue, if it isn't about a government conspiracy being responsible for the attacks.

I think entering into the area we are going without really laying down a foundation of facts that all agree on leads to what almost happened at the begining of this particular thread. I have to head off to work today...so let's all take a breather. By this evening I will put up more "easily verifiable by redundancy" evidence.

 

You could post countless pages of evidence on the attacks, and there would be no point. Either get to the point, or admit that you don't have one. Stop stalling for time by insisting on collecting evidence that has already been collected elsewhere before starting a debate.

YES these were crimes...we will be debating who had criminal knowledge or negligence (edit) of these acts. But wait....don't run on that flippant comment...I DID NOT SAY WHO HAD criminal knowledge or negligence.

 

Of course you didn't say who, you're still trying to put up this absurd illusion that you aren't really implying government responsibility in the attacks. Of course if you weren't, you'd be eager to prove it by posting your real argument... but instead, you keep playing these silly games and trying to hide you real point.

 

Please, if you have ANY...ANY pertinent information on the terrorist attacks...not hyperbole, but fact, for either side, let's put them on the table to be labeled as evidence. The real debate hasn't even begun yet, so far we're just debating the introduction of evidence.

 

Are you honestly this stupid? Do you have any idea how many thousands of pages of information "any pertinent information" is?

 

And that's ignoring the issue that 90% of it won't even be relevant, depending on what you finally reveal your argument. I'm not going to spend countless hours posting page after page of engineering documents detailing structural analysis of the building collapse to attack the idea of controlled demolition vs. planes, just so you can say your real point is just that the government didn't act on its knowledge efficiently enough and come to the right conclusions.

[Alanador]

Not at all Peregrine, you either over or underestimate me (you seem to be so black & white). For example, I had no idea there was a third set of drills which coincided with the attacks. I'm still gathering information myself. You are too quick paced, and in your haste it seems you didn't even know about ANY of the drills, yet you seem to take so seriously your political views. How many more things can be proven that you have written off in that way? No-one has said they would like me to stop this. You also have the option of not participating in this thread. One more time, I am not a conspiracy theorist, as I have NO THEORY. What I have are questions. As an engineer perhaps you can help with one thing I just discovered? The towers were the first steel buildings IN HISTORY to collapse due to fire. Fire which was out...remember the people in the holes where the planes hit...NYC Firefighters said the fire was out and under control. I have personally heard the tapes and could provide the links but we aren't at that point yet. You turning a blind eye to this doesn't make it go away, and is almost as much an attack on the unfortunate folks who died there, since denial means the crime goes unaccounted for. Does it mean it is a government conspiracy if someone within the government was involved...no. But here's a link just for you engineer...

 

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

 

As for this...

" I'm not going to spend countless hours posting page after page of engineering documents detailing structural analysis of the building collapse to attack the idea of controlled demolition vs. planes, just so you can say your real point is just that the government didn't act on its knowledge efficiently enough and come to the right conclusions."

 

Nobody said you had to brother...you can leave whenever you like.

 

The above link was for Peregrine exclusively, as it is full of technical jargon that I'm sure only he can understand. The next point I wanted to raise is this. If I took an insurance policy out on my wife, a record insurance policy, with specific provisions in the case of say, drowning...if after 6 weeks of getting this policy my wife drown, would that be suspicious? Would the investigators write it off as coincidence? These links will illustrate that someone DID profit from 9-11...twice in fact. Larry Silverstein is the owner of WTC. Larry Silverstein owned WTC 7 (the building that collapsed even though it wasn't hit...) and in April of 2001 moved to purchase the entire complex, which was a closed deal in July of 2001, six weeks before the attacks. His insurance policy had a specific clause for terrorism attacks...which paid him the insured value of the property, & freed him from a 99 year lease (something my resort town does actually, 99 year leases on property...assinine). Further, he also insists that becuase the towers were hit with two seperate planes he is due to twice the insurance policy. How's that for interesting Peregrine? Here are some links...I will add a few, and any from the BBC I can find...

 

http://proliberty.com/observer/20050510.htm

 

http://www.insurancejournal.com/magazines/...tures/23196.htm

 

http://www.nysscpa.org/printversions/nyssc...version6.htm%5b

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3471199.stm

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/29/attacks.insurance/

[Peregrine]

The towers were the first steel buildings IN HISTORY to collapse due to fire.

 

Link to proof of this absurd statement? I seriously doubt that NO other steel-frame buildings have collapsed from fires.

 

Of course even if this is true, it doesn't really mean much. You're looking at a very, very different set of structural stresses in a massive building compared to more typical shorter buildings. Not only that, but the fire has to go out of control long enough to weaken the structure. So it's still a pretty rare set of circumstances, a tall enough building to create massive stress on weakened steel, and a long enough fire duration to cause the damage.

 

Fire which was out...remember the people in the holes where the planes hit...NYC Firefighters said the fire was out and under control.

 

Try again. Anyone who saw the state of the fires immediately before the collapse is dead. Unless you have some weird supernatural talents you're not telling us about, I seriously doubt you have statements from them.

 

I have personally heard the tapes and could provide the links but we aren't at that point yet. You turning a blind eye to this doesn't make it go away, and is almost as much an attack on the unfortunate folks who died there, since denial means the crime goes unaccounted for. Does it mean it is a government conspiracy if someone within the government was involved...no. But here's a link just for you engineer...

 

I'm not turning a blind eye towards anything, I'm just refusing to accept ignorant statements about government involvement. And the crime hasn't exactly gone unaccounted for... remember that minor war we started over it? If the people behind the attack are still alive, it sure isn't because of lack of interest in vengeance.

 

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

 

I stopped reading at about the point where the author focuses on melting temperatures and insists thermite was required to generate the necessary temperatures, but fails to account for how the exact location of a fire can dramatically change its temperature. Just look at how a wood-fuel forge can burn hot enough to melt steel if properly designed. That's kind of a fatal blow to the author's credibility...

 

Besides, you still haven't provided an answer to the most important question: WHY would anyone want to fake the attack? Like most conspiracy idiots, you're so intent on finding coincidences and apparent holes in the story that you don't bother checking the bigger picture, and if your theory actually makes any sense.

 

 

 

 

As for this...

" I'm not going to spend countless hours posting page after page of engineering documents detailing structural analysis of the building collapse to attack the idea of controlled demolition vs. planes, just so you can say your real point is just that the government didn't act on its knowledge efficiently enough and come to the right conclusions."

 

Nobody said you had to brother...you can leave whenever you like.

 

Or I can continue to mock your paranoid delusions, and have a little fun. And make sure nobody actually takes you seriously.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Now then, read the following articles before you come back. I expect your concession to follow quickly.

 

INDEX: READ IT ALL

 

THE NRO DRILL

 

Oh wait, like I had suspected... the office building in question is located at the end of a runway. So suddenly practicing their evacuation procedures for an accidental crash of a small plane doesn't seem so unusual, does it?

 

NORAD DRILLS

 

Oh look, not such a coincidence after all... now we've gone from "there was a hijacking drill" to "there was a military drill of some kind, probably not involving either real aircraft or hijackings." Not such a coincidence after all, when you consider how common military drills are.

 

NORAD, PART II

 

READ THIS ONE TOO

[Alanador]

First..here's your link to the firefighters EYE WITNESS TESTIMONIES...I'll be going on for a bit. Thank you for the link, contrary to your already made up mind..this is what I'm after. But, how about addressing the 7/7 bombings? Or is that irrefutable due to the video evidence? It will take some time to address (your links), please be patient. (man it's gonna be a late night...2 days no Oblivion :( )

 

Firefighters 1

 

Firefighters 2

 

http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Dis...TICLE_ID=131225

 

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefight...pe-excerpts.htm

 

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/wtcaudio/

 

http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/under..._explosions.htm

 

 

Pictures of people alive in the hole's the planes left...

 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_fire.html

 

Further, the fire was at the top of the building...and almost out. There's your location. How did molten steel show up in the basement, buried, 21 days after the incident...still molten!?

 

The Madrid tower burned for 10 hours (reports vary and go as high as over 1 day, this is the shortest time I could find)...and didn't collapse.....looking for verification only steel building in history to collapse...

 

http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/wtc/...pse%20fire'

 

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm (This site only for it's steel structure building collapse research.)

 

And why was Giuliani warned? And why weren't the firefighters warned too? From the transcripts above (post mortem recordings) we can see they reached the floor of impact and reported 2 small pockets of fire...be sure you read those transcripts closely. Better yet, listen to the tapes themselves (via the link under it), and listen to the voices...did they sound like they were in a towering inferno?

 

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html

 

(more coming...)