So you kill the fanatic. Is that the end of our problems? How do we stop others from rising up and taking this fanatic’s position?
Yes, yes as first stated by CIA Chief George Tenet on 9/11, â??This has bin Laden all over it, Iâ??ve got to go!â??.
Oh, a wiki article based on the 9/11 commission. Don’t think i haven’t read the september 11 commission report. It was one of the biggest piles of circumstantial, nonfactual, bullshit I’ve ever read. As much as i wanted to believe everything they said none of it was logical. Much of it was plain proven wrong. I think we should base an invasion off of more than speculation.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Therizza wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
What the fuck? Tell me how the kingdom of smurf isn’t the strong hold. What the fuck kind of illogical bastard taught you that thinking? The burden of proof for INVADING A NATION is on YOU, not me. Illogical, irrational…
[/quote]
Again I find myself asking, where you shaken as a baby?[/quote]
derorum is a fucking tool. /end[/quote]
Let him go. You can’t argue with someone who acts as though he’s high on meth. The guy chose the right avatar, I will say that.[/quote]
Yes, ok. Since i cannot prove that Afghanistan is not the terrorist strong hold it proves that it must be just that. I apologize for trying to ask for logic and FACTS and for disturbing the group think here.
[quote]Deorum wrote:
Yes, yes as first stated by CIA Chief George Tenet on 9/11, â??This has bin Laden all over it, Iâ??ve got to go!â??.
Oh, a wiki article based on the 9/11 commission. Don’t think i haven’t read the september 11 commission report. It was one of the biggest piles of circumstantial, nonfactual, bullshit I’ve ever read. As much as i wanted to believe everything they said none of it was logical. Much of it was plain proven wrong. I think we should base an invasion off of more than speculation.[/quote]
Can you back that up?
You aren’t going the TRUTHER route are you?
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
Yes, yes as first stated by CIA Chief George Tenet on 9/11, �¢??This has bin Laden all over it, I�¢??ve got to go!�¢??.
Oh, a wiki article based on the 9/11 commission. Don’t think i haven’t read the september 11 commission report. It was one of the biggest piles of circumstantial, nonfactual, bullshit I’ve ever read. As much as i wanted to believe everything they said none of it was logical. Much of it was plain proven wrong. I think we should base an invasion off of more than speculation.[/quote]
Can you back that up?
You aren’t going the TRUTHER route are you?[/quote]
What the hell is “Truther”? Which part should i backup? The part where the commission found its report wrong?
The 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say… â??We to this day donâ??t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. . . "
Ill edit this post with more backing of the report’s faulty manor as this topic interests me.
Examples of Falsehoods in the report:
The Report’s Notes state: “the interior core of the [Twin Towers] was a hollow steel shaft, in which the elevators and stairwells were grouped.” In fact, the core structures were composed of bundles of steel columns numbering 47 and having outside dimensions, in most cases, of 36 by 16 inches and 54 by 22 inches.
The Report states: “The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States – and using them as guided missiles – was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11.” (The Report repeats the assertion three times.) Yet media reports, such as the USA Today article entitled “NORAD had drills of jets as weapons” describe pre-9/11 NORAD drills involving hijacked jetliners crashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
It is also interesting to note immediately following the attacks many Saudi royalty were flown out of the country with an FBI escort.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Therizza wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
What the fuck? Tell me how the kingdom of smurf isn’t the strong hold. What the fuck kind of illogical bastard taught you that thinking? The burden of proof for INVADING A NATION is on YOU, not me. Illogical, irrational…
[/quote]
Again I find myself asking, where you shaken as a baby?[/quote]
derorum is a fucking tool. /end[/quote]
Let him go. You can’t argue with someone who acts as though he’s high on meth. The guy chose the right avatar, I will say that.[/quote]
Yes, ok. Since i cannot prove that Afghanistan is not the terrorist strong hold it proves that it must be just that. I apologize for trying to ask for logic and FACTS and for disturbing the group think here. [/quote]
Well, yes, to a certain extent you are “disturbing the group think here.” You just waltzed in and started bashing cymbals together indiscriminately. You’re arguing for a flat earth.[/quote]
Haha, I will say you are witty but that is all. Your not making an argument rather you are attempting to dismiss any facts i state. Why not address them and refute them if you are so clearly right. After all im arguing a flat Earth(ironic as im not as much arguing any specific point, rather, I’m asking for facts and logic to be interjected into your disturbing acceptance in the lack of any logic).
Another fact that always disturbed me, while I’m throwing these off of my chest, is Steel’s melting temperature. It is ~1500 C for those who didn’t know. The odd part is that jet fuel, in its best conditions in Earth’s atmosphere, can only burn at ~ 800 C.
http://911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_1.htm
Brilliantly written article that I must insist everybody read before further arguing this. I wouldn’t say i agree with it all, but i for one would like to read every perspective and research all the facts before forming conclusions and basing opinions.
Side Note: I think the wit in the title “Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!” outdoes even your cymbal smashing line, pushharder.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
Haha, I will say you are witty but that is all. Your not making an argument rather you are attempting to dismiss any facts i state. Why not address them and refute them if you are so clearly right. After all im arguing a flat Earth(ironic as im not as much arguing any specific point, rather, I’m asking for facts and logic to be interjected into your disturbing acceptance in the lack of any logic).[/quote]
Start a new thread. “More 9-11 Conspiracy!”
Who knows? After that you might also gain some traction with:
“UFOs, I See Them All the Time”
“Mormon Sea Serpents Found in Great Salt Lake”
“Nitric Oxide PROVEN to Build Muscle”
[/quote]
Haha your a character pushharder. Your Wit knows no bounds. However from an intellectual standpoint this is incredibly weak. Relying on humor in the lack of any argument, while possibly funny, is more so telling of your speaking about something which you have not researched with as much pride as you put in your humor.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
I would laugh if it wasn’t so sad people believed this. I’m honestly saddened to my heart that people really believe the bullshit you just said.
[/quote]
Do tell how Afghanistan was not the strong hold? And do tell me how they will end their holy war when we leave.[/quote]
Please tell me how their holy war will end with us staying…grabbing popcorn…this should be good.
[quote]Deorum wrote:
Another fact that always disturbed me, while I’m throwing these off of my chest, is Steel’s melting temperature. It is ~1500 C for those who didn’t know. The odd part is that jet fuel, in its best conditions in Earth’s atmosphere, can only burn at ~ 800 C.
http://911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_1.htm
Brilliantly written article that I must insist everybody read before further arguing this. I wouldn’t say i agree with it all, but i for one would like to read every perspective and research all the facts before forming conclusions and basing opinions.
Side Note: I think the wit in the title “Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!” outdoes even your cymbal smashing line, pushharder. [/quote]
“Using jet fuel to melt steel…” Stopped reading here. I can’t be bothered, when an article starts off so incredibly wrong. NIST’s collapse explanation doesn’t involve “melted steel.” So, it’s arguing against a claim which doesn’t exist. And, if the author couldn’t even be bothered to at least read some sort of summary of NIST’s report…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
Another fact that always disturbed me, while I’m throwing these off of my chest, is Steel’s melting temperature. It is ~1500 C for those who didn’t know. The odd part is that jet fuel, in its best conditions in Earth’s atmosphere, can only burn at ~ 800 C.
http://911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_1.htm
Brilliantly written article that I must insist everybody read before further arguing this. I wouldn’t say i agree with it all, but i for one would like to read every perspective and research all the facts before forming conclusions and basing opinions.
Side Note: I think the wit in the title “Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!” outdoes even your cymbal smashing line, pushharder. [/quote]
“Using jet fuel to melt steel…” Stopped reading here. I can’t be bothered, when an article starts off so incredibly wrong. NIST’s collapse explanation doesn’t involve “melted steel.” So, it’s arguing against a claim which doesn’t exist. And, if the author couldn’t even be bothered to at least read some sort of summary of NIST’s report…
[/quote]
Ah i left out part 2. Still lets not split hairs and fall back on semantics. As i recall the report said the towers collapsed due to the weakening of the steel in the fire. Read both articles first. Your issue(which by the way was an intelligent one) is addressed.
http://www.911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_2.htm
Also consider when this article was published, October 21, 2001. I’m willing to overlook editing flaws in order to read such an interesting article.
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
Another fact that always disturbed me, while I’m throwing these off of my chest, is Steel’s melting temperature. It is ~1500 C for those who didn’t know. The odd part is that jet fuel, in its best conditions in Earth’s atmosphere, can only burn at ~ 800 C.
http://911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_1.htm
Brilliantly written article that I must insist everybody read before further arguing this. I wouldn’t say i agree with it all, but i for one would like to read every perspective and research all the facts before forming conclusions and basing opinions.
Side Note: I think the wit in the title “Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!” outdoes even your cymbal smashing line, pushharder. [/quote]
“Using jet fuel to melt steel…” Stopped reading here. I can’t be bothered, when an article starts off so incredibly wrong. NIST’s collapse explanation doesn’t involve “melted steel.” So, it’s arguing against a claim which doesn’t exist. And, if the author couldn’t even be bothered to at least read some sort of summary of NIST’s report…
[/quote]
Ah i left out part 2. Still lets not split hairs and fall back on semantics. As i recall the report said the towers collapsed due to the weakening of the steel in the fire. Read both articles first. Your issue(which by the way was an intelligent one) is addressed.
http://www.911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_2.htm
Also consider when this article was published, October 21, 2001. I’m willing to overlook editing flaws in order to read such an interesting article.
[/quote]
This is ridiculous. So now the story is, “well, it didn’t get hot enough to cause steel to bend like licorice.” You can view photos of support beams deforming over time. Floors sagging over time. Buckling of beams inwards at the collapse zone until, finally, failing at the impact zone.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]storey420 wrote:
…Please tell me how their holy war will end with us staying…grabbing popcorn…this should be good.[/quote]
Ahhh… I see…the holy war must end for there to be success in Afghanistan? If it can’t we must beat our swords into plowshares? Now?[/quote]
This is great. You never really answer questions do you? Haha your are indeed very witty though. To respond, if there is a “holy war” against us, leaving without ending that war would be self evident of defeat. Like i said your funny but your arguments are disturbingly illogical.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Deorum wrote:
Another fact that always disturbed me, while I’m throwing these off of my chest, is Steel’s melting temperature. It is ~1500 C for those who didn’t know. The odd part is that jet fuel, in its best conditions in Earth’s atmosphere, can only burn at ~ 800 C.
http://911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_1.htm
Brilliantly written article that I must insist everybody read before further arguing this. I wouldn’t say i agree with it all, but i for one would like to read every perspective and research all the facts before forming conclusions and basing opinions.
Side Note: I think the wit in the title “Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!” outdoes even your cymbal smashing line, pushharder. [/quote]
“Using jet fuel to melt steel…” Stopped reading here. I can’t be bothered, when an article starts off so incredibly wrong. NIST’s collapse explanation doesn’t involve “melted steel.” So, it’s arguing against a claim which doesn’t exist. And, if the author couldn’t even be bothered to at least read some sort of summary of NIST’s report…
[/quote]
Ah i left out part 2. Still lets not split hairs and fall back on semantics. As i recall the report said the towers collapsed due to the weakening of the steel in the fire. Read both articles first. Your issue(which by the way was an intelligent one) is addressed.
http://www.911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_2.htm
Also consider when this article was published, October 21, 2001. I’m willing to overlook editing flaws in order to read such an interesting article.
[/quote]
This is ridiculous. So now the story is, “well, it didn’t get hot enough to cause steel to bend like licorice.” You can view photos of support beams deforming over time. Floors sagging over time. Buckling of beams inwards at the collapse zone until, finally, failing at the impact zone.[/quote]
No… no i don’t believe it did get hot enough for a collapse at the impact zone. That is the point here. You still did not read the entire article? Everything your saying is addressed.
[quote]John S. wrote:
With the pull out date set, all Al Qaeda has to do is lay low and they will win.
All the soldiers that have died did so for nothing. [/quote]
What does a U.S. “win” in Afghanistan look like? What outcome, in your opinion, could we achieve that would allow the troops to come home victorious? What does “defeating Al Qaeda” mean, really, in the context of Afghanistan? Is killing Bin Laden enough now? Something more?
I think that these are legitimate and important questions that I have not seen any good answer to. I just spent a couple weeks with a good buddy on leave from Afghanistan, and he didn’t seem very optimistic about the possibility of any sort of sustained military victory, nor was he really clear on the goals of this or the previous administration. I was all for sending in the SEALS to kill Bin Laden, but an occupation? Afghanistan is a tough place to occupy, just ask Alexander the Great, Victorian Great Britain, and the Soviets, none of which were military pushovers.