• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Directed Energy Weapons ??

bynmdsue said:
You haven't read it,have you?
Click to expand...

It appears that he is being told what to think about the PNAC and accepts their interpretation without reading it himself, no questions asked.

And he thinks WE are the sheep...:boggled:
 
twinstead said:
It appears that he is being told what to think about the PNAC and accepts their interpretation without reading it himself, no questions asked.

And he thinks WE are the sheep...:boggled:
Click to expand...

At least he doesn't use the words "propitious to policy" when referencing the PNAC document.
 
HereticHulk said:
So how many delusional CTers have you guys converted here? Some smart mofo's in this place! Presumptuous, but very intelligent! I'm just looking for some truth! And the government's story does not hold water in my opinion.
Click to expand...


I strongly doubt that anybody here believes that you have any interest in the truth. There is no such animal as "the government's story."



HereticHulk said:
Does anyone here feel that out government had any hand in it?
Click to expand...



That belief is absurd. Crimes usually have motives.



HereticHulk said:
We've killed many US soldiers and (estimated) 1M civilians in Iraq based on lies thus far, what makes you think the 9/11 story is any different? There is no way that we would be over in Iraq and Afghanistan and raddling swords w/ Iran if 9/11 didn't happen.
Click to expand...


Your estimate of Iraqi civilian deaths has been exposed as wildly implausible. No "lies" got us involved in the Middle East.


HereticHulk said:
This was all laid out in the PNAC manifesto and it all seems to be playing out in real life.
Click to expand...


Why not actually attempt to read the PNAC paper? I understand that I'm making a, heh-heh, heretical suggestion, but you'll find that nobody was proposing to conquer the world. Really.



HereticHulk said:
Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen to get us into WWII. Before Pearl Harbor the majority of the American Public wanted no part in that war. The rest is history. 9/11 just seemed too convenient to be any thing but staged.
Click to expand...


Pearl Harbor was not allowed to happen. That is the verdict of historians who have studied the event. If we had been aware that a sneak attack was in the works, don't you think we might have alerted our forces and prevented the destruction of much of the Pacific fleet? We could have fought back effectively and still have preserved an excuse to go to war with Japan. Incidentally, Hitler really did want to conquer the world. Would letting him achieve his aim have been a good idea? How did we trick him into declaring war on us when his pact with Japan did not require him to do so?

HereticHulk said:
Someone humor me and tell me what the problem with the ae911 truth people.
Click to expand...


They are frauds and charlatans who display contempt for reason and evidence. They spit on the graves of the jihadists' victims to hawk their worthless DVDs. They are cowardly liars who flee from opportunities to defend the preposterous nonsense they promote. They betray the principles of their professions and lack even a shred of common decency.

Other than that, I guess they're okay.
 
from PNAC:

[What we require is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Click to expand...

ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for the U.S. military:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs”;
Click to expand...

this excerpt below is key!
Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor
Click to expand...

considering the Pearl Harbor attack was provoked by our foreign policies with Japan, leaving Japan 2 choices, dishonor themselves and surrender or attack us.

facts of Pearl Harbor have recently been sufficiently exposed by books from Robert Stinnett & George Victor (respectively) for anyone who cares to transcend the myth.


http://www.amazon.com/Day-Deceit-Truth-About-Harbor/dp/0743201299/ref=sr_1_1/002-3608237-7496023?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189217578&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Pearl-Harbor-Myth-Unthinkable-Controversies/dp/1597970425/lewrockwell/

FDR knew that the American public and Congress would not support participation in WW2.

history repeats!
 
DGM said:
Oh no not the "lost money" again.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj1rT4bszWg

On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," he said.

He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat.

"In fact, it could be said it's a matter of life and death," he said.

Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11-- the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.

Just last week President Bush announced, "my 2003 budget calls for more than $48 billion in new defense spending."

More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

"We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

Minnery, a former Marine turned whistle-blower, is risking his job by speaking out for the first time about the millions he noticed were missing from one defense agency's balance sheets. Minnery tried to follow the money trail, even crisscrossing the country looking for records.

"The director looked at me and said 'Why do you care about this stuff?' It took me aback, you know? My supervisor asking me why I care about doing a good job," said Minnery.

He was reassigned and says officials then covered up the problem by just writing it off.

"They have to cover it up," he said. "That's where the corruption comes in. They have to cover up the fact that they can't do the job."

The Pentagon's Inspector General "partially substantiated" several of Minnery's allegations but could not prove officials tried "to manipulate the financial statements."

Twenty years ago, Department of Defense Analyst Franklin C. Spinney made headlines exposing what he calls the "accounting games." He's still there, and although he does not speak for the Pentagon, he believes the problem has gotten worse.

"Those numbers are pie in the sky. The books are cooked routinely year after year," he said.

Another critic of Pentagon waste, Retired Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, commanded the Navy's 2nd Fleet the first time Donald Rumsfeld served as Defense Secretary, in 1976.

In his opinion, "With good financial oversight we could find $48 billion in loose change in that building, without having to hit the taxpayers."
Click to expand...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

so, where did money go? what was it used for?
 
HereticHulk said:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

so, where did money go? what was it used for?
Click to expand...

It didn't go anywhere, they just couldn't track it. And it was initially "lost" by the clinton administration
it's clear that the efforts to tie this in to 9/11 have major shortcomings. There's no clear reason given why the Bush adminstration would need to go to such efforts to conceal the problem, for instance. They didn't, either, and it was covered on several occasions before 9/11, so the fact that Rumsfeld mentioned the $2.3 trillion again on 9/10 seems to have no special importance. While the Pentagon attack did have an effect on the production of some DoD financial statements, it's not clear how significant this was, and another report suggests the DoD is reducing the “missing” amounts by taking steps to improve its accounting procedures. They still don't look too impressive to us -- $700 billion without proper documentation is a lot of money -- but it's hard to see how any of this constitutes a motive for the 9/11 attacks.
Click to expand...
 
HereticHulk said:
from PNAC:

history repeats!
Click to expand...

So, what you are saying is that it is YOUR interpretation of the PNAC that is correct, right?

Perhaps then you could explain how 911 has brought about ANY of the objectives in the PNAC?

You can name just one; it's ok.
 
HereticHulk said:
Pictures of dustification and if this isn't a pyroclastic flow, what is?
http://static.scribd.com/docs/4vmze1swjhwq1.swf

Also, if the floor joist were heated and being pulled in from the sagging and pulling the facade inwards to initiate the collapse, why do we see parts of the facade (falling?) up and outwards. which would imply an explosion?
Click to expand...

And of course your qualifications to make such a broad statement are soon to follow, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom