9/11

[geordiecolin]

I cant find her name, so I must be missing something here. Can you provide me with it? And even if there is a name, it doesnt really prove anything. But I would like to cross reference it.

I already explained why I think its fake. I cannot find any information on the internet about a CIA asset making such claims. This video has some truther looking at some type of video footage saying that the plane doesnt exist and its made up footage. And all the videos have been tampered with. They suggest that a plane hitting that building wouldnt go through it or into it but splattered and crushed.

If you want to address anything other than your video, then lets go ahead. But that video is just so full of made up stuff I dont even want to bother with it..like at all. And I dont want to go through it anymore. its easily the worst truther video ive ever seen lol

You have a right to your opinion like anyone does. Whether I disagree with it or not, if this is how you truly feel and believe, Thats your right.

Excuse me but you have already concluded that the lady is an actress so I presume that without anything to reference you again jumped to a conclusion without having any foundation for to do so.
At last you have made a specific reference to an item addressed in one of the videos. The planes going into those buildings. Do you really think it is possible for those planes to fly through those buildings in their entirety? Even the wings and tail without any of it falling to the ground? Do you really think it possible for such poor pilots to fly with such accuracy as to hit those targets. The Pentagon Pilot has to have been a genius to have performed that stunt

 

[lockinlove]

Excuse me but you have already concluded that the lady is an actress so I presume that without anything to reference you again jumped to a conclusion without having any foundation for to do so.
At last you have made a specific reference to an item addressed in one of the videos. The planes going into those buildings. Do you really think it is possible for those planes to fly through those buildings in their entirety? Even the wings and tail without any of it falling to the ground? Do you really think it possible for such poor pilots to fly with such accuracy as to hit those targets. The Pentagon Pilot has to have been a genius to have performed that stunt

My foundation was researching it. When you use google and research CIA and 9/11 claims or CIA asset and 9/11 and other search terms and not one single thing comes up with this lady, thats when I make the assumption she is an actress.

Do you really believe there were no planes and its all just made up and all the news agency and camera's and cell phones and eye witness accounts is all just one big lie?

Do you really believe a plane of that size would just crush like a pop can on the building?

 

[paul7388]

I dont really buy that. I truly feel america is trying everything possible to avoid war. You have to remember that if the USA attacks NK, NK launches missiles into South Korean cities populated with millions of people. I would say thats the biggest factor.

The US has already showed they dont respect or care what China thinks and again China has already stated they wont back NK. People act like the states should be scared of China, why is that exactly? The united states military is much stronger and advanced than China and has many more powerful allies. I dont think they are worried or intimidated. I bet you if the USA attacks NK, China will do nothing and neither will Russia aside from strengthen their borders. They might squak in the media but thats about all.

The USA does respect what China says. And to be fair i do not see many of these Allies that would come rushing to help USA if China stepped in if USA attacked NK.

China has never said they would not back North Korea . If North Korea attacks first then they may go well you asked for it we are not getting involved. But if any country strikes NK first i hardly think China will just go oh well does not concern us.

Regardless who has the strongest Military Trump as daft as he can be will not risk any sort of war with China. The Chinese army is still the largest in the world and a War between China and USA would be end of world as we know it.

Sorry but only way Trump will attack NK is if NK strikes first. But like i said if China was not their then NK would have been hit long ago

 

[geordiecolin]

My foundation was researching it. When you use google and research CIA and 9/11 claims or CIA asset and 9/11 and other search terms and not one single thing comes up with this lady, thats when I make the assumption she is an actress.

Do you really believe there were no planes and its all just made up and all the news agency and camera's and cell phones and eye witness accounts is all just one big lie?

Do you really believe a plane of that size would just crush like a pop can on the building?

You answered my question with a question instead of answering mine. I shall provide you with her name in due course but I am multi tasking here atm

I do believe that there where planes hijacked,yes. I do not believe that a plane can fly into any of those buildings in the fashion that they did. I also believe it is probable that phone calls where made from those planes. Eye witnesses gave a very broad spectrum of accounts.

 

[lockinlove]

The USA does respect what China says. And to be fair i do not see many of these Allies that would come rushing to help USA if China stepped in if USA attacked NK.

China has never said they would not back North Korea . If North Korea attacks first then they may go well you asked for it we are not getting involved. But if any country strikes NK first i hardly think China will just go oh well does not concern us.

Regardless who has the strongest Military Trump as daft as he can be will not risk any sort of war with China. The Chinese army is still the largest in the world and a War between China and USA would be end of world as we know it.

Sorry but only way Trump will attack NK is if NK strikes first. But like i said if China was not their then NK would have been hit long ago

Better read up on your history and how the whole ally thing works.

China has said it wont back NK if it attacks first. But even if the americans do attack I dont think China gets involved because they know what would happen. It would mean war and one they would lose.

I dont agree with your doom and gloom end of the world stuff either. And China might have the most ground personal but thats not what wins wars these days.

its probably a little outdated because I know China now has one aircraft carrier but its close enough plus I can think we can agree that the USA owns China in terms of experience

 

[lockinlove]

You answered my question with a question instead of answering mine. I shall provide you with her name in due course but I am multi tasking here atm

I do believe that there where planes hijacked,yes. I do not believe that a plane can fly into any of those buildings in the fashion that they did. I also believe it is probable that phone calls where made from those planes. Eye witnesses gave a very broad spectrum of accounts.

I think its obvious where I stand. There was live newstations that filmed this happening...people recording it on their phones (which was actually the first year phones were able to do this).......

But Im done with this im really not going to argue with someone who thinks almost the entire thing is a hoax.

 

[geordiecolin]

The USA does respect what China says. And to be fair i do not see many of these Allies that would come rushing to help USA if China stepped in if USA attacked NK.

China has never said they would not back North Korea . If North Korea attacks first then they may go well you asked for it we are not getting involved. But if any country strikes NK first i hardly think China will just go oh well does not concern us.

Regardless who has the strongest Military Trump as daft as he can be will not risk any sort of war with China. The Chinese army is still the largest in the world and a War between China and USA would be end of world as we know it.

Sorry but only way Trump will attack NK is if NK strikes first. But like i said if China was not their then NK would have been hit long ago

If I recall correctly a few months ago Trump held meetings with the Chinese and he came away stating that it was a great success? If I recall correctly trade deals where discussed alongside the issue of NK and I concluded ( Maybe wrongly) that Trump made promises on trade that would more than compensate China should America attack NK or if the UN implimented harder hitting sanctions on NK which would impact the Chinese economy?

 

[geordiecolin]

I think its obvious where I stand. There was live newstations that filmed this happening...

But Im done with this im really not going to argue with someone who thinks the entire thing is a hoax.

You did not read my last post to you properly. I do not think that it was all a hoax. It is not obvious what you think because your mostly generalising

 

[lockinlove]

You did not read my last post to you properly. I do not think that it was all a hoax. It is not obvious what you think because your mostly generalising

There is tonnes of real live footage that has not been altered all over youtube. From strangers and news sources to tourists. The planes drove into the WTC exactly how it is. Nothing has been altered, there is no conspiracy. Planes could easily fly into buildings and not crush like pop cans. Do you realize that video is saying the planes should have been crushed into the building? Do you realize they are saying the planes didnt even hit the world trade center but then retract.

 

[geordiecolin]

There is tonnes of real live footage that has not been altered all over youtube. From strangers and news sources to tourists. The planes drove into the WTC exactly how it is. Nothing has been altered, there is no conspiracy. Planes could easily fly into buildings and not crush like pop cans. Do you realize that video is saying the planes should have been crushed into the building? Do you realize they are saying the planes didnt even hit the world trade center but then retract.

You are presuming that I believe every single argument that is presented by every single conspiracy video. I don't. But Newton's laws did not take the day off on 9/11

 

[lockinlove]

You are presuming that I believe every single argument that is presented by every single conspiracy video. I don't. But Newton's laws did not take the day off on 9/11

Im not presuming anything. You are the one that said it

I do not believe that a plane can fly into any of those buildings in the fashion that they did.

Yes they can. Even a rookie pilot can aim a plane into the middle of a large building. There is no Newtons laws or laws of physics when it comes to that. They flew into the world trade center and it collapsed because the steal frame weakened because it was 900 degrees and at 500 degrees steal begins to weaken and bend. The way the building was designed it fell exactly like they are built to. And if it was from strategically placed explosives. Professional engineers state it takes 10 seconds for a building to completely collapse. This took 25 seconds and there was still structure standing much longer. Which would be impossible if explosives were placed.

 

[slotplayer]

My foundation was researching it. When you use google and research CIA and 9/11 claims or CIA asset and 9/11 and other search terms and not one single thing comes up with this lady, thats when I make the assumption she is an actress.

Do you really believe there were no planes and its all just made up and all the news agency and camera's and cell phones and eye witness accounts is all just one big lie?

Do you really believe a plane of that size would just crush like a pop can on the building?

Google Susan Lindauer and Senator Mark Dayton for that matter

 

[geordiecolin]

Im not presuming anything. You are the one that said it



Yes they can. Even a rookie pilot can aim a plane into the middle of a large building. There is no Newtons laws or laws of physics when it comes to that. They flew into the world trade center and it collapsed because the steal frame weakened because it was 900 degrees and at 500 degrees steal begins to weaken and bend. The way the building was designed it fell exactly like they are built to. And if it was from strategically placed explosives. Professional engineers state it takes 10 seconds for a building to completely collapse. This took 25 seconds and there was still structure standing much longer. Which would be impossible if explosives were placed.

Do you realise how flimsy the wings are or the tail? Do you realise how thin the body of an airliner is? Not once prior to 9/11 or since 9/11 has a building with such a structure collapsed after a fire yet it happened three times in one day. One of those buildings was not even hit my a plane or was subjected to airline fuel.
As for an amature pilot flying a plane into the Pentagon goes. There are very many highly skilled pilots who argue that there was no way he could have done it. As for the impact on the Pentagon goes,nothing makes sense

 

[geordiecolin]

Google Susan Lindauer and Senator Mark Dayton for that matter

Cheers Slotplayer

 

[slotplayer]

Well CNN has been promo'ing inside NK Special airing

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[ternur]

Can you explain where this opinion comes from? Insufficient justifications.

One example would be the invasion of Iraq 2003.

I'm not going to go into

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

, since that part relates to accordance with U.S. law. My interests have more to do with international law and legal theory.

The

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

forms the foundation of international law in regards to war (UN charter art. 2.4 and art 51).

I support the view, that

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

did not authorise military action, although the U.S. government claimed so. The U.S. government's interpretation has been heavily debated on both sides of the argument.

The U.S. government relied on their assertion, that the invasion was lawful because it was authorised (in 1990) by the security council (resolution 678 and others). This assertion is open to, and has been, criticised.

The U.S. government did not assert that the invasion of Iraq was justified under international law under due to "right of preemptive self-defence" (see e.g.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

). The report (among others), asserts a right under international law for the U.S. to use military force preemptively against the threat posed by "rogue states" possessing WMD.

In short, (IMO) the invasion of Iraq, and the legal basis for it, is open to debate. One could argue under just war theory that the U.S. "had a right to go to war", but my opinion is that arguments supporting those views are not as valid as those opposing them. I strongly believe, that any military action (other than clear self defence) which lacks an explicit security council resolution to go to war, is reprehensible.

 

[geordiecolin]

One example would be the invasion of Iraq 2003.

I'm not going to go into

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

, since that part relates to accordance with U.S. law. My interests have more to do with international law and legal theory.

The

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

forms the foundation of international law in regards to war (UN charter art. 2.4 and art 51).

I support the view, that

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

did not authorise military action, although the U.S. government claimed so. The U.S. government's interpretation has been heavily debated on both sides of the argument.

The U.S. government relied on their assertion, that the invasion was lawful because it was authorised (in 1990) by the security council (resolution 678 and others). This assertion is open to, and has been, criticised.

The U.S. government did not assert that the invasion of Iraq was justified under international law under due to "right of preemptive self-defence" (see e.g.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

). The report (among others), asserts a right under international law for the U.S. to use military force preemptively against the threat posed by "rogue states" possessing WMD.

In short, (IMO) the invasion of Iraq, and the legal basis for it, is open to debate. One could argue under just war theory that the U.S. "had a right to go to war", but my opinion is that arguments supporting those views are not as valid as those opposing them. I strongly believe, that any military action (other than clear self defence) which lacks an explicit security council resolution to go to war, is reprehensible.

Agreed.
In fact Iraq where aware of the threat of US invasion and they bent over backwards to appease the USA with commissions for business that any other Country would have snapped up if offered.
In short,America and the UK where committed to invading Iraq long before it happened and despite any credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction. It was policy to meet the Americans own ends

 

[lockinlove]

One example would be the invasion of Iraq 2003.

I'm not going to go into

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

, since that part relates to accordance with U.S. law. My interests have more to do with international law and legal theory.

The

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

forms the foundation of international law in regards to war (UN charter art. 2.4 and art 51).

I support the view, that

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

did not authorise military action, although the U.S. government claimed so. The U.S. government's interpretation has been heavily debated on both sides of the argument.

The U.S. government relied on their assertion, that the invasion was lawful because it was authorised (in 1990) by the security council (resolution 678 and others). This assertion is open to, and has been, criticised.

The U.S. government did not assert that the invasion of Iraq was justified under international law under due to "right of preemptive self-defence" (see e.g.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

). The report (among others), asserts a right under international law for the U.S. to use military force preemptively against the threat posed by "rogue states" possessing WMD.

In short, (IMO) the invasion of Iraq, and the legal basis for it, is open to debate. One could argue under just war theory that the U.S. "had a right to go to war", but my opinion is that arguments supporting those views are not as valid as those opposing them. I strongly believe, that any military action (other than clear self defence) which lacks an explicit security council resolution to go to war, is reprehensible.

Disagree.

When a leader of a country gasses their own people with anthrax, threatens numerous other countries with mass destruction, claims to the world it has those weapons and will use them, publicly threatens the USA and all its people of death, they deserve what they get.

Lets look at some of the public threats Iraq made.

It is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything...The United States must get a taste of its own poison

If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?

Iraqis should intensify struggle and jihad in all fields and by all means

After the Khobar towers bombing "The U.S. should send more coffins to Saudi Arabia, because no one can guess what the future has in store"

One chemical weapon fired in a moment of despair could cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

Our striking arm will reach America, Britain and Saudi Arabia before they know what hit them.

Does America realize the meaning of every Iraqi becoming a missile that can cross to countries and cities?

What is required now is to deal strong blows to U.S. and British interests. These blows should be strong enough to make them feel that their interests are indeed threatened not only by words but also in deeds

America will not be excluded from the operations and explosions of the Arab and Muslim mujahidin and all the honest strugglers in the world.

We will chase Americans to every corner at all times. No high tower of steel will protect them against the fire of truth.

But anyways, you only quoted one and probably the most controversial one.

So that makes them war mongrels that they took a dictator at his word?

Google Susan Lindauer and Senator Mark Dayton for that matter

Thanks.

So after researching it she is an anti war activist. Yeah great source.

She was also found guilty of accepting $10,000 US from Iraq spy agencies. She denied this claim but said "I just took a trip to Bagdad is all"

She was also unable to stand trial and released because of mental issues.

 

[slotplayer]

Thanks.

So after researching it she is an anti war activist. Yeah great source.

She was also found guilty of accepting $10,000 US from Iraq spy agencies. She denied this claim but said "I just took a trip to Bagdad is all"

She was also unable to stand trial and released because of mental issues.

I knew in 5 seconds after going to (I think it was 1:36 in) that she was perhaps unstable or a little off, which prompted me to get her name. Surely others did?

 

[ternur]

Disagree.

When a leader of a country gasses their own people with anthrax, threatens numerous other countries with mass destruction, claims to the world it has those weapons and will use them, publicly threatens the USA and all its people of death, they deserve what they get.

Saddam made a lot of threats, but it's open to a debate if he really was an actual threat to the U.S. The one thing which is clear, is that the threats were inflated to serve the government's policies.

At first, the 9/11 were framed as attacks, and the needed response to them were described in legal and law enforcement terms, i.e. calling the attacks a "crime" and emphasizing the U.S.’ resolve to bring those responsible to "justice".

But that rhetorical framework changed pretty fast to a outright war rherotic. The goal then was not anymore to "bring terrorists to justice".

The Bush administration succeeded in framing the conflict as an extension of the war on terror, which was a response to 9/11. They shaped the public opinion perfectly.

Like Bush said: "Make no mistake about it, we are at war." Even Bush himself

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

his rherotic at the time.

Bush 2004:

Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons, I believe we were right to go into Iraq. America is safer today because we did. We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capacity of producing weapons of mass destruction, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them.

Massumi [Massumi, Brian. "The political ontology of threat." The affect theory reader (2010): 52-70.] said it better than I can:

Bush did what he did because Saddam could have done what he didn’t do. Bush’s argument doesn’t really do justice to the logic of pre-emption. Saddam didn’t actually even have the ‘capacity’, and that poses no problem for pre-emptive logic which is based on a double conditional.

The original justifications given for the Iraq war lost much of their force after the invasion. WMDs mass destruction had not been found. No significant prewar link between Hussein and international terrorism had not been discovered. Then the U.S. government's remaining justification for the war was that Hussein was a tyrant and a dictator who deserved to be overthrown. <— Now the argument changed to humanitarian intervention. It can be argued, that this was a side benefit of the war and not the prime (original) justification for the invasion.