you couldn't be more wrong scott.
everyone and his brother knows saddam had, and used, WMD, even against his own people.
the real question is "what did iraq have to do with 9/11", not if saddam had WMD.
Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?
- Thread starter scott3x
- Start date
- Status
everyone and his brother knows saddam had, and used, WMD, even against his own people.
the real question is "what did iraq have to do with 9/11", not if saddam had WMD.
He -did not- even have chemical weapons leading up to the second Gulf War. He -had- some chemical weapons. Notice that it's past tense. He didn't even have that after the 1991 war with the U.S. and their following efforts to get rid of them all; they were quite effective.
leopold99 said:
Both questions are relevant. The WMD issue is quite relevant, as we are currently dealing with someone of the mass media and it's well known that the mass media bought the WMD issue hook, line and sinker, just as they essentially bought the official 9/11 story. They were wrong about the WMD and they're wrong about 9/11; the problem is that some things just take a little longer to realize then others.
There's more connections between Iraq and 9/11 then you may realize. Take a look at this excerpt from The Christian Science Monitor's The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq:
Buildup in the Gulf from the March 14, 2003 edition
In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
Here's an excerpt from The Washington Post's Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship article:
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 18, 2004; Page A09
President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week's finding of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.
"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.
The finding of the commission's staff led Bush's Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), to escalate his accusations that Bush deceived both the Senate and the American public about the rationale for war in Iraq. "The president owes the American people a fundamental explanation about why he rushed to war for a purpose that it now turns out is not supported by the facts," Kerry told reporters at the Detroit airport. "That is the finding of this commission."
The panel's staff reported on Wednesday that there were contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."
The article goes on and is quite educational as to how deceptive the Bush administration was concerning both Iraq and its wish to connect it to 9/11.
Scott should worry about his own country where a drug war is killing more people than die in Iraq.
.
mac copied my Fall of Physics here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2146840&postcount=1306
I don't recall seeing your brilliant mathematical criticism. Would you mind providing a link to it?
Do you need to move the issue from the physics you can't handle to the psychology that you can pretend to handle?
You can have professional psychological opinions? My my, I'm impressed. But can you do that on a subject involving PHYSICS if you don't know the physics? I have been thinking about what this 9/11 psychosis says about all of the psychologists and psychiatrists in the United States. If it is truly impossible for an airliner to bring down 400,000 tons of skyscraper in less than two hours then doesn't that mean that all of the psychiatrists that think it is possible are out of touch with reality? Are they INSANE?
Am I supposed to post in the physics forum to prove I am smart or should I concentrate on a problem that I consider interesting and of some consequence. The WTC towers were skyscrapers. The Empire State Building, a famous skyscraper, was completed 70 years before the World Trade Center was destroyed. The ESB was completed before the atomic bomb, before the electronic computer, before the transistor. The discovery of the neutron that made the atomic bomb possible happened the year after the ESB was completed. Skyscrapers cannot be very complicated physics. So this says interesting things about the people in the physics zone that don't bring up the conservation of momentum in relation to the WTC.
I have never even gone into the physics forum. (until today after I started writing this, LOL) I think in terms of the problem first and physics in relation to the problem. That does bring up an interesting thought though. Maybe I should post my last video there just to see what happens. What do you bet some moderator throws it out? :roflmao:
The real psychological question is, "Why aren't all of the physics people climbing all over the WTC problem?" Don't they have any curiosity? Wouldn't they have to notice that the information needed to solve it was missing? That is the difference between reality and a problem in a physics book. The book has to give you all of the information to solve it. The worst it can do is throw in irrelevant but distracting information. But in the real world you must understand the problem and then go after the relevant information.
Another interesting aspect of 9/11 Psychosis.
Could it be that schools psychologically condition even most of the smart kids to be subservient to AUTHORITY? It becomes a habit after 16+ years in school. They know what they are not supposed to stick their noses into.
psik
PS - Of course that does raise the question, "If this is such stupid bullshit, why are YOU here?" Oh yeah, psychological research.
I dont know but when an investigation is conducted at crime scenes they dont ask 'where are the physicists'. You should have went to school and became an investigator or something similar.
I was born and raised in Canada, not in Mexico. Yes, I recently lived there for 4 years, but that's behind me now. It was my father who was born and raised in Mexico and he once again resides there. -He- has certainly put in time in trying to make things better in Mexico. Ever heard of the Tlatelolco Massacre? In case you haven't:
The Tlatelolco Massacre, also known as The Night of Tlatelolco (from a book title by the Mexican writer Elena Poniatowska), took place during the afternoon and night of October 2, 1968, in the Plaza de las Tres Culturas in the Tlatelolco section of Mexico City. It happened ten days before the 1968 Summer Olympics celebrations in Mexico City, when the military and armed men shot student demonstrators. The death toll remains controversial: official government estimates place the deathtoll at 30, while some estimates place it in the thousands. Most sources, however, report between 200 and 300 deaths.
My father was a young student when it occurred and (fortunately) managed to get out of there before the shooting started. He played a large role in creating a cultural center to commemorate this tragic event. Here's a link speaking of his role, but you'd have to be able to read spanish (He's Oscar Guzmán):
http://www.la-verdad.com.mx/principal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4366&Itemid=168
There is a lot of evidence of official deception that day, as witnessed by the official death toll vs. the reality, for starters. But there's more to it then that; cops posing as students with certain elements to differentiate them from the real students, for instance.. in essence, a mini 9/11. That day, although the students were the ones killed, they were also the ones blamed for it all. Quite a feat, but people were more trusting in their government back then. Same thing concerning the JFK assasination, although now even the government admits that there's no way Oswald could have acted alone; they still haven't gotten to the point of realizing or admitting that Oswald didn't do it at all, but in time perhaps.
You brought up Mexico, so I brought in a mexican conspiracy and its coverup. The JFK assassination was also a conspiracy, that even the government now admits (it admits that Oswald couldn't have acted alone), but it's still wrong on the details and the extent of it. 9/11 is obviously a conspiracy, although the government and mainstream media would generally like us to believe that only foreigners were involved. I think it's instructional to realize that conspiracies and their coverups have gone on for quite some time.
yes i brought up the murders and kidnappings happening every day in your country and that it is safer or at least as safe in Iraq. The only reason is because you support dictators.
As far as JFK and 911, these are conspiracy theories and they are conspiracy theories because there is no proof to make the conspiracies factual. Of course Oswald acted alone, or he may have had an accomplice but even that is doubtful.
1- While I am a duel citizen, I repeat that I was born and raised in Canada, not Mexico and thus essentially consider my country to be Canada.
2- I know it's gotten fairly bad in Mexico, and I have some theories as to why. , but I disagree with your assertion that it is as bad or or worse then Iraq. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
John99 said:
No, I don't. Where on earth did you get that idea?
John99 said:
In actual fact, both are acknowledged conspiracies, even by the government. Here's wiki's intro to the definition of the term:
A conspiracy theory is a theory that explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by a usually powerful cabal.
While there may be more debate as to how powerful the cabal was in the case of JFK assasination, there is no question that the people behind 9/11 had to be quite powerful indeed to pull off such an act. The real issue, then, simply becomes one of who did it? Was it -truly- a bunch of arabs with poor flying skills and buildings that collapsed like a house of cards, or was it something else? This is where the disagreements begin.
John99 said:
John, even the -government- now admits that one person alone couldn't have done it. Get with the times
Last edited:
I suggest you watch Oliver Stone's JFK movie for a couple good reasons. In any case, the fact that the government now believes that one man couldn't have done it is not in dispute. From Jim Marrs' book Crossfire, one of the 2 books that Oliver Stone's movie was based on, page 91:
The House Select Committee on Assasinations in 1979 concluded that President Kennedy was "probably assassinated as the result of a conspiracy." However, they maintained that Lee Harvey Oswald was the actual killer and that another gunman- whose presence was established by two separate scientific tests based on a Dallas police recording of the gunfire in Dealey Plaza- escaped and remains unidentified.
This finding was a milestone to the many Americans who had come to disbelieve the lone-assassin theory of the Warren Commission.
Typically, however, this reversal of official American history was still not enough for the mother of the accused assassin, Marguerite Oswald. She told newsmen:
The committee members have made a first step in the right direction. It's up to us to do the rest... I hope and know the future will vindicate my son entirely. It took us 15 years to come this far. It may take another 15 years or longer. I probably won't be around, but the world will know that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of the charges against him.
This finding was a milestone to the many Americans who had come to disbelieve the lone-assassin theory of the Warren Commission.
Typically, however, this reversal of official American history was still not enough for the mother of the accused assassin, Marguerite Oswald. She told newsmen:
The committee members have made a first step in the right direction. It's up to us to do the rest... I hope and know the future will vindicate my son entirely. It took us 15 years to come this far. It may take another 15 years or longer. I probably won't be around, but the world will know that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of the charges against him.
Of course i have seen the movie, read books, watched many documentaries on the subject.
Dont get wrapped up in the word conspiracy, all it mean is to conspire. Two homeless people can conspire.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conspire
Dont get wrapped up in the word conspiracy, all it mean is to conspire. Two homeless people can conspire.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conspire
Well apparently you hadn't learned that the government had changed its mind on the lone assassin theory, so I guess you didn't read Crossfire. Still, I'm glad that you've taken an interest in it.
John99 said:
I agree. It's just that some people want to believe that certain events that clearly -were- conspiracies aren't just because they believe the government wasn't involved.
i dont know what you mean by that.
the supreme court isn't "the government" scott.
- Status