I have to say one thing, you are a uniter Otacon, you have managed to bering the people on all sides of issues in unity about the 'moonbat' level of your posts. That takes some doing, because some of the people on this board couldn't come to the agreement that water was wet, if you had a gun to their heads.
Though I can't believe that I am going to do this, I am going to be the idiot to respond to your post:
OtacontheOtaku wrote:It's funny how the human mind works. When someone fails to comprehend something, their first reaction is to make fun of it, Psychology 101.
When someone asks you what you think of their new tuxedo and you look over and they are in a clown suit, the natural reaction is to mock them and inform then that they are dressed like a clown and not James Bond.
OtacontheOtaku wrote:It's also funny how in the face of an irrevocable truth people will go into such a deep set state of denial. The fact of the matter is, most of you lack an understanding of the government. Adolph Hitler burned down the Reichstag building and used that as an excuse to implement Martial Law in Germany, and by calling his enemies "terrorists", he invaded Poland.
He didn't use the fire in the Reichstag as a pretext for invading Poland, he used the supposed attack on a German 'listening post', Tecnically he didn't call the people attacking that post terrorists, a better translation of his comments was 'bandits' The people he blamed for the fire in the Reichstag he refered to as 'Communists and other reactionaries', not 'terrorists' (Translations of his speeches are available)
OtacontheOtaku wrote:If there's another "terrorist" attack in America, Bush would implement Martial Law and we'd go on to invade Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc... whatever is on the government's hit list. It would be identical to what Hitler did.
If there an attack on another American city, Martial Law MIGHT be declared in THAT city, but I doubt it. By all rights, New York should have been placed under Marital Law after 9/11, but it was decided against because the New York Emergency Services (Police, Fire,Admin) had the situation under control well enough that ML wasnt required. As to the other, we do not have the military resources to invade Syria, Iran OR North Korea at this time... we just don't have the bodies to put on the line. We may make these countries THINK that we may take some sort of military action, but invasion is out of the question.
OtacontheOtaku wrote:For anyone who doesn't know, it was recently revealed that Pearl Harbor had been completely and totally instrumentalized by the United States Government. Visit this site (or the Library of Congress, don't really care)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lieofthecentury.html , there you can see actual documents showing the United States is more than willing to sacrifice human life for a war, and 9/11 was no different.
This old 'Urban Legend' has been running around for 50 years, it was total crap 50 years ago and it is total crap now. Trust me when I tell you, if we had wanted to still get attacked and get in the war, we would have told Pearl Harbor to be 'on alert' (Which happens all the time in the military) before it happened. We STILL would have lost ships, we STILL would have lost men, it still would have been a sneak attack, but we would have taken more of them with us and had many more resources to fight the rest of the War with.
OtacontheOtaku wrote:Anyone who knows anything about architecture knows that when the towers fell, they couldn't have imploded like they did. No building in HISTORY has ever fallen like that.
So you are an architect? And no building has ever fallen like that because no other building in the world has ever been constucted like the WTC.
OtacontheOtaku wrote:Skyscrapers have been bombed, burned, and slammed with airplanes, and the Twin Towers were the first in history to ever fall from these circumstances. It's hard to believe your government, who you think is looking out for your best interests would do something like this, but that's what the Germans were saying during World War II.
The only recorded incident of a large plane impacting a skyscraper was a B-17 bomber impacting the Empire State Building (Which was built in the old 'stone piled on stone' method) and the amount of fuel and the temperature it burned was no where near the temperature that a modern jet burns at.
OtacontheOtaku wrote:Even more damning is when you go back and look at the videos, you can see demolition charges going off clear below the impact level of the building. To further this arguement, the building's owner Larry Silverstein ordered that WTC-7 building be pulled. When though, was the building actually rigged for demolition? Besides the fact that debris and fire from the tower did no where near enough damage to the building to cause it to be structurally unsound in any way whatsoever (and don't try and give me that BS "But the fires were so hot", because the Woodsworth in Madrid, Spain burned for almost a week at temperatures that greatly surpassed that of what was even in the Twin Towers let alone Building 7). It just doesn't make any kind of sense that a burning building had been completely rigged for demolition mere hours after two of the America's biggest landmarks had been destroyed. So, what's the only logical conclusion? The conclusion is that the Towers and Building 7 had been rigged with DEMOLITION CHARGES. Why would they? As a pretext to invade Iraq.
I watched the towers go down, I saw concrete buckle.. not explosions. I have seen both and believe me when I say that I saw NOTHING that looked like an explosive go off. Building seven was demolished because its FOUNDATION was damaged. When the tonnage of a building comes crashing to earth at that velocity, it can cause radial damage in an area around its footprint.
OtacontheOtaku wrote:Why would Larry Silverstein allow his buildings to be destoryed? Because four months earlier he took out a 3.5 BILLION dollar insurance policy on the WTC. This is all public knowledge.
He took out the policy because he had just aquired the lease on the Building in July of that year. You wouldn't expect him to take out an insurance policy on a building he didn't own, just as you have to understand that he was REQUIRED to take out insurance (As ALL building owners/leasers are required to when they sign the papers) on the WTC.
I can't believe that I just did that... my grandmother used to tell me :
Never argue with a crazy man, people might not be able to tell the difference.
I should know better.
