Do you really think that soldiers are just pawns in a chess table?
Only there to die for a bigger cause?
They're not there to die. Indeed the safety of the soldiers must be a primary requirement in every mission. If that's compromised then the commander (or whatever, never learned the military grades :tilt will face a judgement.
By the way, military forces can make a lot of productive work in case of natural disasters, and, sadly, here at Spain we know it very well for the Prestige petrolship disaster .
Ah - but it's easier for people who have no evidence, no scientific background and a lot of time on their hands to debate mysteries with mysterious claims based on further mysteries and citing mysterious sources of mystery. The irony is that the very same people will fall in line for the cliche and freak out generically against religion for it doing just the same.
That's just silly modern thinking. If safety of the soldiers was that important, why have soldiers? Some people are going to have to learn that soldiers have volunteered their lives for the cause. By all means try and reduce wrecklessness on the part of the mission commander, and try not to send them out with defective equipment (which is a different topic), but they are there to fight to the death if needs be.
The military only really gets involved in environmental disasters because governments haven't put in place proper measures to deal with them. Soldiers are trained to be covert, throw grenades, and shoot weapons, not to mop up oil. The fact that untrained (in environmental terms) squaddies are better at sorting out this problem is a rather sad reflection of the abilities of the so called environemental organisations who waste so much energy bleating on about why we shouldn't use tissues, and then hide under a desk when something important happens.
Soldiers belong in war zones (even in a 'peacekeeping' role). Mentalists belong in oil slicks (hold them under for 10 minutes and the BIG problem goes away ).
Then what's the difference between an army you describe and a bunch of kamikazes or immolating-terrorist?
One thing is soldiers volunteering their lives (in the meaning they know they'll risk them for sure) and another (very different) is that governments can then use those lives whatever they like to .
Agree, but, you know, sometimes shit happens and then someone have to fix things
In such situations (big disasters) everyone is helpful, don't mind if medic, soldier, student, whatever... But (and now think as a military chief) you have a whole team of people trained at obeying (that's their primary training if you ask me). Won't you use it in case of emergency at your country if they are doing nothing specific?
I used to believe in god, but I don't now simply because there is no evidence of god - or even the remotest suspicion of there being a god, its all down to faith not evidence.
I used to believe that the towers were brought down by terrorists, but now I believe that at least the official line is a pack of lies, and that is down to evidence not faith.
Judging from the actual evidence it seems that it's more down to faith of there being evidence. So back to square one.
We love our stories us humans - we surely do.
Anyhow - not to piss on anyone's fire, but since my keyboard warrior license needs renewing I'll have to pass on this one and wait for the encore in a month's time.
Exactly! This is why I think it really IS human nature to want to believe in things for which there is a lack of evidence. So many people who vow that they reject religion in favour of science are caught believing the global warming prophets who predict armageddon and declare that humans are directly responsible. It's a faith without proof, or at least with as much counter-proof. How strong is that pull to religion!
I don't know if there is a conspiracy behind 9/11 or not, but because I cannot say there is not doesn't mean I automatically believe there is. Nor the other way around. I'm agnostic, all over again.. I suspect that the conspiracy will never be proven either way. I therefore place no faith in it.
Yep that was me, and as I said if we ignore entirely everything else in the film, it still remains to be explained the impact of flight 77 into the Pentagon - as in the official account is total bullshit.
Look - we are talking about a massive government defense building here, there must be an official camera watching every square inch of the building 24/7.
So far all we have seen five still shots of the supposed impact of flight 77, which actually show nothing at all except for the size of the explosion.
So if the US government had nothing to hide where is all this footage from all of these cameras?, where is the independent camera confiscated footage?.
All they have to do is to show, something (anything) of the plane actually impacting the Pentagon - as with the twins, and a lot of the conspiracy will go away.
You look at the footage on Loose change about this one point and a blind chimp can see that it is impossible for the official line to be true.
Whatever it was that hit the building it was not a twin engined passenger plane.
Wow 5 pages already ZZZZzzzz I skimmed through the first page and gave up. If people are going to be ignorant and believe some whacked out theory be my guest, BTW you see that shiny new button on the other side of cliff? Yeah that one. Could you go get it for me please? Oh don't worry you can walk on air, there is an invisible force at work and you will be safe....
Think about it a second, take a bit plastic, some form of hard plastic that is bendable by hand, bend it in half, bend it in half the other way, repeat quickly until the plastic breaks and feel the break edge.
When metal bends a by-product of this is heat. I am not saying if it's enough to melt metal, but there will be heat readily available when tons of concrete are mixed in with steel and they fall many stories.
And he wasn't refering to firefighters as there hadn't been any in the building since 11.30 am.
Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."
The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."
And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."
But I guess if you really want to ignore the evidence why should you pay any attention to eyewitness testimony from trained professional firefighters, to scientific analysis and a statement from the building owner.
I've even said when the charges were laid, there's clear evidence of this too.
Probably the biggest crime in American history, a farcical enquiry, and people still won't look at the facts.
As my first post said -
" I'm sure that the truth will eventually come out, unfortunately however it will probably take many more years.
Till then I'm sure the sheeple will happily swallow the official pack of lies.
Doesn't "secondary explosion" refer to the 2nd tower being hit? How do you know you're not following an out of context carrot? Who do you trust? The conspiracy theorists? Why?
The firefighters describe the collapsing towers as like a demolition job. Any building that collapses vertically can be described that way. The windows probably popped out because of the pressure of air inside each floor being forced out, as the floor was being collapsed. The air had to go somewhere, and the windows were still intact, unlike in most controlled demolition buildings.
It's not evidence, just because the firefighters use a similie to describe what they saw. We all use similies when describing things. If I said that I saw a car crash and the car collapsed like it was made of paper, do you assume that I'm saying that the car WAS made of paper?
You SO want there to be a conspiracy, don't you? You'll take the flimsiest piece of a hint and state it as a fact.
[edit] No smoke or fire.. this is being stated as a fact, by one of your videos, because a fireman on the 74th floor of one of the buildings says it. But you know that it's not true. There was smoke billowing out of both of the buildings. I saw it for myself, with my own eyes. Who believes there was no fire??
[edit] I've just watched to the end of that last video. You have to be kidding, falling for that conspiracy crap! Citing the fact that they subcontracted (or laughably, "subtracted", in that clip!!) the company Controlled Demolitions inc as evidence that it was a controlled demolition is utterly laughable. Controlled Demolitions inc has expertise AND an infrastructure (trucks, contractors) not just in demolitions but also in rubble and hazardous material removal and disposal. Hiring them to clear the Plaza makes perfect sense, and lends NOTHING to the conspiracy theory AT ALL! The mere fact that the theorists EVEN CITE this should make anyone suspicious of their assertions!!
Lastly, because this is just too stupid to pursue any further, the theorists seem to be attempting to make something of the fact that one of the firemen/demolition guys, never found anything bigger than a partial keypad for a phone as evidence of something suspicious. Let me ask.. WTF was everybody sitting at, at work that day? What were they sitting ON? This is NOT EVIDENCE!! For crying out loud! LOL!!
Three steel framed buildings collapse for no clear reason, 4000 people die, the enquiry was a farce, a large amount of evidence was ignored.
I guess that's just normal.
The enquiry is a bit of a pointer though, you'd think that at least that would be thorough but it was as if they didn't want to know what had happened.
A 747 manages to dissapear into a 20' hole in the pentagon and leave no wreckage or engines.
WTF!? Did you miss the bit where 2 planes hit 2 skyscrapers, which then fell down spreading debris onto buildings in the surrounding area!? What the hell!?
No, just because I can walk through the holes in the conspiracy theories does not mean that I accept the "official versions". I don't accept EITHER, because they BOTH lack.
World is full of close minded people, they live in their happy little world and are prepaired to reject anything that will challenge their close minded views. It is easier to tell your self "no it really happened like that" than to actually question it. If people questioned and actually thought about things more often world wouldn't be such a shit hole and governments wouldn't be able to force feed you with shit all the time.
I think it would be obvious to a monkey that the pentagon crash was not caused by a plane. As for the twin towers, it seriously raises few interesting points and makes it actually sound that it could have happened like that. I wouldn't put it past the US government to attempt such things to get its way in the world.
It will be interesting what will come out of all this in the years to come.
Wait a minute SamH. While its true that there's just one official version, there are plenty of conspiracy theories. Just because you don't agree with one, doesnt mean all the others are false.
Just inform yourself, there are actually people who know more about civil engeneering than you (unless u have a PhD on civil engineering) that agree that it was staged. Those arguments you just refuted are pretty weak and they're not the ones that are shakings things up.
It wasn't a 747 - it was meant to be something smaller (although nowhere near as small as the frigging tiny whole in the Pentagon makes out).
I'm suprised that no-one mentioned the Pentagon attack - no fuel was found, the frame showing the plane hit the building is missing from the gate security camera and the footage from on top of a hotel was confiscated by the FBI and never seen again. Lots of Eye-Witness reports say that the plane was like a small Lear-Jet, as does the person who saw the video footage before it was confiscated. Theres also no wings at the crash site, and no holes in the Pentagon where the wings should have gone. Also, theres NO marks on the ground fromt he plane, and iirc the bloke who taught the guy how to fly said there was no way he could hovered above the ground at about 10 feet for such a distance.
And yes, the pressure would have exploded the glass - I remember reading something about the Pentagon having stonger-than-steel windows after some embassy was bombed and people getting cut up by flying glass but that in tests the bomb damage was less severe if the glass went than if it stayed.
will face a judgement.
.
).
