Quote: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.
Why thank you, I appreciate the compliment.
Quote:Though I can't believe that I am going to do this, I am going to be the idiot to respond to your post:
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.
Okay, I'm gonna admit, even I laughed at that one, very well played.
Quote: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)
Actually, that's a complete and total mistranslation what you read. I actually HAVE listened to several of his speeches and in almost all transcripts I've read he uses the phrase "schreckensherrschaft", this a term not used to refer to bandits, but a term used to refer to a reign of terror from a certain group or terrorism itself. Also, the listening post wasn't the pretext for invading, it was to incite the sentiment of war throughout the nation. In an official dossier on the reasons for going to war issued to the public, the Nazi party specified that acts such as the attack on the Reichstag building are unforgiveable and that perpetrators of such terrorism (again schreckensherrschaft) should be brought to justice and punished with their lives. (Though as a side note, Hitler would sometimes go lighter on the topic and use gedungene, which could be translated as "bandits", but since nothing was stolen from the building, a far more accurate translation is terrorists, and if you're wondering, yes I am in fact a descendent in a long line of Germans and am quite proficient in the language.)
Quote: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.
The whole reason Martial Law was never implemented throughout the country (it was implemented in Florida 3 days prior to 9/11 by the way... hmm... funny, same state the planes show a point of origin), was that the third plane (right, I say third because the Pentagon was NOT hit by a plane, and anyone who thinks that it was hasn't done enough reasearch on the topic), didn't hit it's target, the United States Capital building. Had that building been hit, our Senate would've been crippled, and it would've been nationwide Martial Law and quick and swift vengence on the "terrorists" who commited such an atrocity. In relation to your statement about not having the man-power. That's absurd... absolutely and completely absurd. If we brought back the draft, a manned invasion into any Middle Eastern country would be a cake-walk (and with the Senate incapacitated, that would have been very easy in Martial Law).
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.
Quote: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.
Well, I left my quote up there that time to illustrate that you obviously didn't visit that link, or cross reference it. Due to the Freedom of Information Act, the official plans detailing the events of Pearl Harbor were released to the public. Had you actually read the several pages that link entails, you would have been able to read all the details about the fact that the Japanese military was provoked into the attack, the fact that the base WAS on alert, and how all radio equipment from that day was ordered to be destoryed. It's not an "urban legend" not matter how bad you wish it was, the US government doesn't give a damn about you, your children, your friends, or anything else except it's only ideals. It's hard to even think that something, that you wish with all your being had your best interests at heart, would do something like that, but sometimes, the truth just hurts.
Quote: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.
As a matter of fact, I've spent the last 3 years of life studying architecture, and you're right, no other building in world has been constructed like the WTC, those two buildings were in fact some of the most well built structures in the world, far better than other buildings which have not fallen from far less.
Quote: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.
So you're saying jet fuel has somehow magically changed at what temperature it burns throughout the ages? That statement is ludicrous. Jet fuel hasn't changed at the temperature it burns at all. The fuel from a B-17 bomber is aproximately 19976 gallons. The fuel capacity for a Boeing 747 is apx. 48445 gallons. This does not mean an alteration of the temperature at which it burned, but rather only a slightly larger initial explosion, which mind you was far from enough to take out any of the building's reinforced supports, enhancing how much BS it is that the fires in any way were in relation to bringing down the towers, you can go here to listen to the complete radio communications between a group of firefighters at the WTC :
http://www.rense.com/general39/points.htm These tapes completely invalidate most of the 9/11 "official stories" you hear.
Quote: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.
Well my friend, you clearly have not watched these tapes since the day of the attack cause you overlooked some KEY details on those tapes. Here you can view the tapes along with some nice analysis of what's happening in each tape:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html
See if you still think the same after watching those.
(Also, FYI, the foundation of the building fundamentally couldn't have been damaged in any kind of severity, as you yourself stated the WTC is like no other building before, one key reason is it's unique foundation. You see, concrete doesn't buckle anymore, it is supported through the steel structure of the buidling. The steel would have had to buckle for the concrete to have, which is obviously impossible when you take into account the fact that jet fuel burns at nowhere near as long or the temperature, as per necessary for the steel to have melted. Back to the foundation arguement, you say it damaged the building's footprint, but if that had been so, then the building wouldn't have come crashing straight down but leaned one way as it was crashing, which neither building did. Both towers fell straight down, STRAIGHT DOWN, that is impossible without a controlled demolition.)
Quote: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.
You're right, he was required to take out an inurance policy, but no business owner in New York holds a 3.5 billion dollar policy on their centers, NOT ONE. The sheer audacity of this man to take out such a huge sum is reason enough for ample suspicion. It would also be vital to note that he had building 7 pulled (a demolition term for brought down with demo charges) but when I ask you did they find the time to so accurately place those demo charges, in the same day, in mere hours after the incident, they couldn't have, even the most experienced of demo teams would've taken at least 8 hours to rig that entire building, and that's making several mistakes along the way. The building was pulled that afternoon.
Quote: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.
Hm, that's funny, cause mine used to tell me the pot shouldn't call the kettle black
Also, please actually take the time to visit the links this time around =_=;
(and here is where those documents proving Pearl Harbor was completely orchaestrated by the United States Government
http://whatreallyhappened.com/McCollum/index.html
There it is IN PRINT my friend, so there you can see it with your own eyes. Also, I take it you've never heard of Operation Northwoods:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Northwoods.html )
