I-Mockery Forum - Reply to Topic

Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options Automatically parse links in text

Jul 6th, 2003 07:37 PM

Zero Signal

http://www.webster.sk.ca/GREENWICH/HIRO2BMB.HTM

THE JAPANESE SURRENDER
PRIOR TO THE DROPPING OF THE A-BOMBS

Really, it was also too late to use it against Japan, too. Already the Japanese were looking for terms of surrender, but these approaches for peace from Japan, not made public, even to members of the Manhattan Project, were ignored. The U.S. wanted no terms, no conditions; not even the safety of the Emperor could be guaranteed (although that request was granted, after the two atom bombs were dropped). Japan had to surrender immediately and unconditionally - the U.S. knowing full well that Japan could never go for that. (Add'l evidence, in square brackets, added 1999):
[That there really were surrender overtures by the Japanese was confirmed by a man who ought to know, CIA chief Allen Dulles. In an interview with Clifford Evans (1/19/63 (NY) WOR-TV), Dulles said: "I had been in touch with certain Japanese.... They...were ready to surrender provided the Emperor could be saved so as to have unity in Japan. I took that word to Secretary (of State) Stimson at Potsdam July 20, 1945...."
[Just weeks later, August 6 and August 9, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed.]
The cover story for the public - and for dissenting scientists of the Franck Report - was that "a tremendous shock" was needed to end the war in Asia. But it had actually ended for all intents and purposes, considering the even greater decimation of Tokyo already from conventional bombing. In addition, most of Japan's navy had been destroyed, all its Axis allies were defeated, and its hold on the Pacific had been broken. For Truman, the real issue was that only a show of actual destruction from the bomb's use would serve to warn the USSR of the new formidable military power of the U.S. No harmless academic "demonstration" far from life would do. The Franck report was dismissed in just 4 days. A real city would be made a target.
[Additional, added in 1999: Dr. Joseph Rotblat, 1996 Nobel prize winner, was worried then that Germany would develop an atom bomb first, but after Germany's defeat, he no longer saw the need to work on the bomb, not even as a "deterrent." The original assurances given to the scientists, including Rotblat, to keep the scientists working on the horrendous bomb, was that its development would be a "deterrent" against its ever actually being dropped.
[But, as the deterrent idea began to lose credibility with Rotblat and others, General Groves, military administrator of the project, told Rotblat the bomb had to be used "to subdue the Russians." (From: Rotblat on CBC, 8/7/96)
[Groves did not inform the members of the Manhattan Project that Japan was suing for surrender.
[Another scientist, Hans Bethe, was given a similar message from Edward Teller, a leading project scientist. For this USSR-oriented goal, no mere "demonstration" would do. A real city -- indeed, two cities -- would have to be destroyed.]
The U.S. Congress (which is supposed to run the show) had been kept in total ignorance of the Manhattan Project, even though the War Department, by trying to disguise it in various budgets, spent $2 billion on it. (Indeed, few had any grasp of the whole of the project they were working on. Many working on it were ex-cons, murderers on the "lam " and they were told their criminal files would be burned if they 'played ball' with the project and Col. Paul Tibbet, who later piloted the bomber that flew the mission over Hiroshima.)
As time wore on, Congress grew aggressive and suspicious. What's it all for? came the demands. On August 6th and 9th, as Einstein bitterly noted then, Truman showed Congress that it got its money's worth; At the expense of nearly a quarter-million lives (including U.S. prisoners of war in Japanese target areas), Truman's overkill took the Congressional heat off himself.

TARGETING INSTANT HOLOCAUST

On the list of possible targets were Kokura, Hiroshima, Niigata and Kyoto. The documents read that Hiroshima "has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focusing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed."
All targets on the list I were then "reserved," and no conventional bombing was to be permitted there. The desire was that there be little or no prior bomb damage. For example, the damage already done to Tokyo by regular bombing would detract from the "spectacular" effect and measurement of the bomb's true power. Tokyo was thus excluded from the target list..
Other targets were debated, without conscience, on how "flat" they were so as to show the full ability of the bomb's blast to spread through a city of residential houses!!
Planners were finally "rewarded," as on August 6 Tibbet reported "success in all respects," after bombing Hiroshima.
What happened after was unbelievable, unearthly and for most of us today, unimaginable. This is based on official health & statistical reports analyzing the event:
In a microsecond, huge stone pillars were rammed deep into the ground. For those distant enough not to be vaporized by the 50 million degree core temperature, eyes were liquefied, pouring out of sockets; clothing was fused to skin, which hung in runny tatters and shreds. Trapped people were burning alive and many were covered from head to foot, stuck with splintered glass which the shock wave fired like a whirlwind of needle-shaped bullets through the air. Others, blinded by the flash, staggered into jagged debris. Children cried and whimpered, completely lost. Others wandered like a funeral procession of the living dead, while the mushroom cloud overhead blotted out the sun and brought on night. 180 of 200 doctors in Hiroshima were killed. Only 130 nurses were left from 1,800. 3 of 55 hospitals were all that remained, and 70,000 water-main breaks hampered the few remaining (16) fire trucks.
It should be pointed out that a Cruise missile will carry fifteen times the power of the Hiroshima death.
The barbaric and fascist regime of the Japanese military government and Emperor deserved any fate. But it was their oppressed subjects who paid, at U.S. hands, for their overlords' brutality. The documents all show the reasons for the bomb's's use weren't military, nor to "save lives," but political.

HUMAN GUINEA PIGS

There were only two bombs available for the Project: "Little Boy," a uranium bomb dropped on Hiroshima (and almost lost when the U.S.S. Indianapolis was knocked out of the war just after delivering it to the Mariana Islands), and "Fat Man," a plutonium bomb, dropped on Nagasaki later.
Two types of prototype test bombs: Two cities bombed to "test" them.
Between bombs, a U.S. demand to surrender ("unconditionally" as always) came as if to appear that Truman was interested in saving lives.
But in the three days interim, not even a full report of the impact of this strange new bomb could be fully digested in Japan. The government in Tokyo, unwarned, had not seen the blast and could not react in three days and Truman knew it. (The Manhattan Project gave itself a full 4 days to reject the Franck Report.) Truman "made the record;' and then ordered bomb number two dropped.
The test of the Plutonium type bomb obliterated 50,000 more people in Nagasaki on August 9,1945.
[Additonal: added 1999: Only three days after the bombings, it was impossible for the Japanese government in Tokyo to know or digest what happened at Hiroshima.
[Imagine, if you had never even conceived in your mind the power of an atomic bomb, and suddenly all communications, travel simply end. Just total silence comes from a nearby city.
[How could you know that the cause of it was the utter destruction of the city? Who would tell you? Walking stragglers and a few drivers, with limited ability to know what strange horrendous new vision they had even seen (survivors would have to be fairly distant in order to survive), would take hours, perhaps days to reach a phone or nearby city, or Tokyo. Few would have believed their rantings.
[Even an official call from the USA's leaders to the government sitting in Tokyo that one of their cities was destroyed would be greeted with disbelief at first, as a strange trick or bluff. The Japanese would necessarily have taken time, likely days, just to check it out.
[But the scant 3 days allowed Truman to demand total unconditional immediate surrender on August 7th; and then, without waiting a reasonable time for the Japanese to regroup, meet, and to conference among their staff in order to draft a reply, Truman would claim he had an excuse to test the second bomb on Nagasaki.
[After that 2nd bomb killed hundreds of thousands more defenceless men, women and children, the U.S. demand for unconditional surrender (clearly designed to be ignored or rejected anyway) was no longer necessary to demand. Now it was OK for the U.S. to give a guarantee for the Emperor's safety!]
Truman had also been afraid that many might think the first bomb was a fluke "firestorm" such as had melted in one night hundreds of thousands of people huddled in Dresden's underground, Germany, from conventional bombs. While a "demonstration" of the bomb for international observers would have solved that problem, Truman wanted the world to believe the U.S. nuclear arsenal was actually larger than it was, that there were many bombs - as it was, there were only two bombs produced, both dropped...and the arms race began.

Jul 6th, 2003 07:28 PM

Zebra 3

As strange as this may sound allied forces were expecting/hoping that the Japanese would respect the Geneva Convention because the did ratify the 1907 Hague Convention.

Jul 6th, 2003 07:21 PM

Zero Signal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter Simard

Does this mean that no ratification of the Geneva Convention gives license to commit unspeakable cruelties against POWs?

Wow, talk about a predictable answer. In short, no. However it DOES mean that you cannot accuse the Japanese of "total disregard for the Geneva Convention when it came to POWs" IF THEY HAD NOT EVEN SIGNED INTO THEM.

It also means that you have not done your "share of reading on the subject".

Jul 6th, 2003 07:05 PM

El Blanco

The first thing I learned while getting my degree in history, is that there are no easy answers. So, you can be wrong and right at the same time, unless you make big, brash statements of absolutes.

Jul 6th, 2003 06:55 PM

Zebra 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Blanco

Simple. I'm right. Or atleast, I don't go making half cocked statements based soley on emotion and 9th grade lunchroom discussions.

- So now you're simply admitting there's a possibility that you're wrong afterall.

Jul 6th, 2003 06:10 PM

El Blanco

Quote:

And I like to add that no level headed military historian today believes in that estimate, but more in the 350,000 U.S. casualty rate

Which is still 50,000-150,000 more causalties than the Japanese actually suffered due to the A-Bombs. Looks like Truman was right.

Quote:

...And El Blanco, why don't you shut the fuck up.

Simple. I'm right. Or atleast, I don't go making half cocked statements based soley on emotion and 9th grade lunchroom discussions.

Jul 6th, 2003 05:13 PM

Zebra 3

Does this mean that no ratification of the Geneva Convention gives license to commit unspeakable cruelties against POWs?

Jul 6th, 2003 04:07 PM

Zero Signal

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter Simard

I'm also aware of the atrocities that the Japanese army did against the civilian population of China, the senseless killings of British and Canadian wounded in the local hospitals, and Japanese total disregard for the Geneva Convention when it came to POWs. But all this doesn't qualify as your standard state-sponsered terrorism.

Uh, Japan did not ratify the Geneva Conventions until 1953, chief.

Jul 6th, 2003 03:41 PM

Zebra 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

No, it was me, and I did do my share of reading on the subject. The one million U.S. casualty estimate originates from President Truman, the one that gave the OK on the bombing missions. And I like to add that no level headed military historian today believes in that estimate, but more in the 350,000 U.S. casualty rate (the same amount of Purple Hearts that was ordered in anticipation of a invasion of main-land Japan.)

I'm also aware of the atrocities that the Japanese army did against the civilian population of China, the senseless killings of British and Canadian wounded in the local hospitals, and Japanese total disregard for the Geneva Convention when it came to POWs. But all this doesn't qualify as your standard state-sponsered terrorism.

...And El Blanco, why don't you shut the fuck up.

Jul 6th, 2003 01:38 PM

VinceZeb

I guess it was ranxer that said that the govt committed terrorism with the nukes... well, apparently you have not read a history book or seen anything about the war.

Japan of the 1940s was like the Islamist of today in the fact that they were totally dedicated to the cause. They would have fought us until the last man, woman, and child. If we would have went into a land battle, there would have been probably a million deaths of U.S. soliders (something a few of you probably would have liked...).

When we nuked the first two cities, the emperor had a tape made to play on the Japanese public radio that said that it was time to surrender. There was a revolt by one of the lower generals, i believe (forgive my lack of names, becuase I saw this on the history channel and read it in a book a while back), who wanted to intercept the message, and then give one of his own for all of Japan to fight till the END. If they would have not surrenered, we were prepared to turn Toyko into radioactive glass. Lucky for us that the Japanese Emperor decided that the lives of his people were too valuable to keep fighting a war he knew that he could now never have the ability to win.

And speaking of govt sponsored terrorism, i guess the Boton Death march (i probably spelled that way wrong) that the Japanese had while slaughtering the Chinese innocents left and right doesnt count for much, huh? You don't hear much of Japanese autrocities during WWII because the liberals couldn't compare them to the conservatives of today.

Couple million japanese lives vs at least a million american and then many many more: If that is the case, I'm going with less sushi eaters.

Jul 6th, 2003 11:36 AM

El Blanco

I never said ariline terror was unheard of, I said using them as missiles was never done before against us.

And where is your proof that these drills were specifically for airplanes hitting the building?

All you have are a bunch of questions you don't know the answer to that can be perfectly logical, but, you already have people convicted. Are you ironic or a hypocrite?

Quote:

the greatest government sponsered terror attacks ever were done during WWII by the U.S. government by using WMDs (2 atomic bombs) against the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, August 1945

Ya, except no, they weren't. There are a couple threads that prove you totally and unequivicaly (sp?) wrong.

Jul 6th, 2003 08:58 AM

Immortal Goat

I just don't think I could ever vote for a person that looks like a three-year-old that is playing airplane.

Jul 6th, 2003 01:33 AM

Zebra 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by ranxer

and blanco says this has never happened before? why was the G8 summit in genoa surrounded by anti aircraft guns to take out hijacked planes a couple months before 9-11? hijacked planes have been used before, in 74 there were 3 planes used as weapons.. even the pentagon had drills for the very same attack a month or two before 9-11. the administration has totally lied about these attacks being unprecedented. but again we won't get adequate investigation for a long time.

The 9/11 attacks were the biggest non-government sponsered terror attacks ever. However, the greatest government sponsered terror attacks ever were done during WWII by the U.S. government by using WMDs (2 atomic bombs) against the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, August 1945. Now thats your classic Operation: Shock & Awe.

Jul 5th, 2003 04:36 PM

The One and Only...

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Yes. They don't have to know he's a marine, they have these things called clothes you can buy in stores

If you're going to make that argument, they're could have been a marine or FBI agent on board. We just didn't know about it.

Your point about the numbers of known terrorists going on board is null. Had they known they were terrorists, they would never have let him on board in the first place.

Jul 5th, 2003 04:15 PM

ranxer

as mary schiavo(former Inspector General of the Dept. of Transportation 1990-1996) reports :
http://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/aviati...ADAFspeech.htm

Quote:

Many aviation industries are using the spin that this horrible terrorism was unimaginable and unforeseeable. Yet from 1993 to 1997 (more recent data are not available at this time) worldwide there were 87 hijackings, 7 commandeerings, 5 bombings or shootings, 50 attacks at airports, and 16 shootings at aircraft in just 5 years. The notion that these hijackings and terrorism were an unforseen and unforeseeable risk is an airline public relations management myth. A look at the facts dispels that corporate spin. Terrorist attacks against U.S. aircraft on U.S. soil date as early as November 1955 when United Airlines Flight 629 left Denver with the mother of Jack Graham on board. Graham was an American, a domestic terrorist threat. He had placed a bomb in his mother's suitcase to collect her insurance policy. He could not . . . she had never signed the policy. Today, 46 years later, we still have less than a 10% chance of the airline screening her luggage. Senator Hollings says its 2-3%.

Thirty-three years after the first such attack on U.S. aviation, terrorists used the same old tried and true method . . . a bomb in a suitcase . . . to bring down PanAm 103. Not only was such a risk foreseeable, but a danger the airlines had a legal obligation to protect against. That airline's security was deemed by the courts to be wantonly negligent, and the airline was subjected to exemplary damages to punish its lax and careless security and to deter it and others from such behavior in the future.

But then, Osama Bin Laden has previously resorted to this method as well. He planned to bring down 12 U.S. airliners within 48 hours over the Pacific in 1995. He did a test run on a Philippine jetliner in 1994, and killed a passenger and injured several others, but the plane managed to land. He would have to try something different the next time around. He did, but he followed the example of several previous terrorist attacks. Documents seized in that investigation revealed they intended to crash a plane into the CIA building near Washington, D.C.

this kind of background to the lies the administration told goes on and on..

blanco:

Quote:

Just because a bunch of people marched single file out of the Pentagon doesn't mean this was expected.

the drill was specifically for a plane crashing into the pentagon.. before the attacks.. and just after the attacks we heard the whitehouse say that these kinds of attacks are unheard of, unthinkable and completely a surprise!

..all i'm saying is that this is just another simple case of them being full of shit and blatantly lieing.. why would they lie if they had nothing to hide?!

Jul 5th, 2003 01:29 PM

VinceZeb

I have no problems with profiling whatsoever. Liberals can make as many comic strips in the freebie newspapers all they want, but it doesnt change the fact that if someone outside the norm is in a situation where something illegal may be going down, it is a good idea to keep one eye on him. If I stroll down to East St. Louis, Compton, inner city Detroit, etc. the cops would have every right to think I just may be someone trying to score drugs.

Jul 5th, 2003 01:15 PM

El Blanco

Israel has 1 international ariport and are very lax about laws concerning profiling. That makes it a lot easier for them than us.

Jul 5th, 2003 01:01 PM

VinceZeb

Concerning the armed personell on airplanes: I don't know if anyone has brought it up, but Israel has had them for a while now and no one hijacks thier planes.

Jul 5th, 2003 01:00 PM

El Blanco

Quote:

and blanco says this has never happened before? why was the G8 summit in genoa surrounded by anti aircraft guns to take out hijacked planes a couple months before 9-11?

Precaution. Just because we weren't ready for it doesn't mean it hadn't been considered. But, it didn't happen to us, and we really did( and still do) have this idea that "oh, that sort of thing can't happen here".

Quote:

in 74 there were 3 planes used as weapons

Not against the United States. And do you have some background on said attacks?

Quote:

even the pentagon had drills for the very same attack a month or two before 9-11.

Yes, as I'm sure that it is completly unreasonable to think the Pentagon might be a target. Why drill for it?

ICBM attacks with WMD have never happened, but people still prepared and schools did the drills. Most of that would have been useless, mostly because there is no way people would follow the plan.

Just because a bunch of people marched single file out of the Pentagon doesn't mean this was expected.

Jul 5th, 2003 12:34 PM

ranxer

black boxes and rigged explosions aside.. there's a lot of information that hasnt been looked at and that leads one to think there was plenty of people with foreknowledge.. insider trading of airline stocks, the vacancies of certian offices days before the attacks.. very specific hijacking warnings from europe.. observations of alqaeda agents in flight training etc.. the problem is that we arent going to get an independant investigation of 9-11 for a long time.

I really think that that the major reasons the attack was allowed to happen was (1)this problem of the big oil in the whitehouse and backers of the administration had a cold war with the taliban over oil pipeline contracts, the taliban wasnt playing ball with big oil, they got uppity and we needed an excuse to attack.. most of the terrorists were from saudi arabia? oops that didnt seem to matter!

2) an attack on american soil gives bush and the corporate crimminal regime all kinds of power to make an end run around democratic processes. and enable something like homeland security and the unpatriot act, crippling our constitutional rights and setting up a legal dictatorship. this also allows corporate government a new level of secrecy by non-disclosure protections because of national security excuses.
3) attack on american soil puts a monster financial repumping of the 'defence' industry and all the coruption that goes with that..

and blanco says this has never happened before? why was the G8 summit in genoa surrounded by anti aircraft guns to take out hijacked planes a couple months before 9-11? hijacked planes have been used before, in 74 there were 3 planes used as weapons.. even the pentagon had drills for the very same attack a month or two before 9-11. the administration has totally lied about these attacks being unprecedented. but again we won't get adequate investigation for a long time.

and i think that if we had gore in office.. we wouldn't have had the attacks because it took cheney, rumsfeld, wolfo, and others that bush brought in to keep security and need to know suficiently stifled to let the terrorists thru.. gore just didnt have those kinds of people to bring in to the white house.

all the 9-11 stuff aside.. i still don't know what the fuck to do about the coming election.. i'm thinking about campaining to show that campaigning at this point is participating in a FARCE on the american people.

Jul 4th, 2003 11:51 PM

Zebra 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zero Signal

Random thoughts:

The designer of the WTC buildings said himself in an interview a few years before in died not long ago that the buildings were designed to withstand airplanes hitting them, as well as temperatures exceeding that of the burning jet fuel.

Buildings ONLY collapse as perfectly as they did when orchestrated to do so; ie. professionally rigged with precision explosives.

I heard the engineer for the WTC in a 1970s documentary myself, and he stated then that the buildings were capable to withstand an impact by the biggest commercial airplane of the day, but since then airplanes got even bigger, and are able to carry more fuel. A combination of a bigger impact and most importantly a longer burn brought down the two towers.

Quote:

Each plane had 2 black boxes on them (actuall they are orange, but whatever) that are designed to withstand, among other things, temperatures in excess of 2000°C (the jet fuel was burning at about 1800-2000°C), 30 days completely submerged in sea water and an excessive about of G forces. Yet, the government claims that each and every one was destroyed, yet somehow, many of the terrorists' passports (made of paper) survived? What kind of bullshit is that that they are spoonfeeding the American public, and indeed, the rest of the world (as a sympathy crutch).

The answer is simple: weight.

Jul 4th, 2003 11:41 PM

kahljorn

"Oh yeah. Everyone will feel normal if a marines on board"
Yes. They don't have to know he's a marine, they have these things called clothes you can buy in stores

Think the marine would be out numbered, put three or four. No big deal(they could've gotten guns on board too, cabin pressure being fucked? Screw the semantics, the idea was to discuss there were things to do against four men armed with box cutters, like a bigger knife. Or a blow dart, or fucking breaking their necks or a claymore), but you're right, there's a chance they didn't know which flight it would be on. There was, however, an indication that they did know do to the fact that they were known terrorists, they were probably flagged when they took the ticket, three or four known terrorists getting on the same flight? Well then.

I agree about the symbolism thing, though. I thought that in the very begining when it happened, that with that not only did the terrorists show the american people what can happen.. but more importantly they showed other countries and governments that America can be touched, and MOST IMPORTANTLY gave other terrorist factions the balls to move as well. I had thought there could possibly be an influx of terrorist attacks in the near future.

At one point I thought Bush let it happen, or possibly *arranged* it to happen. For alot of odd reasons. The first reason was because after the World Trade Center got destroyed, there was a drop in gas and oil prices, why? Isn't that strange that prices would *drop* after the WORLD TRADE CENTER was destroyed. Plus the fact we now see Bush going to Iraq, if Bush had known that attacking the World Trade center would barely hurt the economy, bombing it wouldn't have had too many loses(besides the lives that were lost). The benefit? He rallied the people up enough to attack Iraq, to remove Saddam, and to go search for Terrorists. Once we capture Iraq, we'll have cheaper oil.

"It wasn't ignored. It was filed away with every other of the thousands of reports and leads. they do the best they can, but a bloated beuracracy has trouble moving fast."
A wonderful thing this day in age, do you know what it is? Do you? They are called Computers. When someone in America who has a warrant gets on an airplane, there's a very large chance they will know about it. When four or five known terrorists are on the same airplane who had recent reports about learning how to fly them get on the same plane. Well, they just ignore that. What are the chances that a terrorist gathering would involce terrorist activities.
Maybe it was coincidence? And while sipping coffee on board they were like, "Hey what's up Habib, I saw abdhul earlier. All of us should hi-jack this plane and fly it into the WTC, look I have some box cutters here," "OKAY GUY".

Jul 4th, 2003 11:14 PM

Drew Katsikas

Quote:

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Yeah, just call me Thamor, Max.

I read it. I had to push myself to keep my attention to the article, but I read it.

Vinth, you just adimitted your idiocy. You have ADD and you're a grown man. I can imagine you now.

"There is no longer any serious doubt that Bush administration officials deceived us into war. The key question now is why so many influential people are in denial, unwilling to admit the obvious...But even people who aren't partisan Republicans shy away from confronting the administration's dishonest case for war, because they don't want to face the implications... ":

'Ok, I think understand this, it was posted by ranxer, so it's obviously hippie bullshit. Ok they mentioned republicans. Oh damn! They said shy away from, they're insulting us! I can't wait to bash this article with no idea of what it is trying to convery! Perhaps I should try to tough it out and read the whole thing. Ok, fuck, what does implications mean? Who cares? I can stilll read it, I think. Oh wow, looks like a little bird just flew by and my attention is gone. Oh well, I'll still trash on the post having not completed reading it.'

Jul 4th, 2003 09:22 PM

Zero Signal

Quote:

My dad lived in one of the supports for 20 years, so I think he would know how strong they were.

Quote:

Oh, and they were supposed to withstand planes hitting them at about 100 mph. What were those two planes doing? 180?

UFOs travel faster than 100mph, moron. How else do you think they get back to their home galaxy? That would take WAY too long at just 100mph. duh.

Quote:

Prove it. I want a link because this is the first I'm hearing of it and I've heard plenty of conspiracy theories. And it better be someone other than David Icke.

David Icke was on The View the other day and he said that you were conspiring against the hard working Americans of the 21st century because you are mad at the government for giving up on the cheese making.

Quote:

Because there are 4 major airports in the NYC area. It is perfectly reasonable to expect a plane with mechanical trouble to try and make one of them. And what exactly do you know of FAA regulations regarding planes that break communication?

There is an airport in downtown Manhatten. Yeah, that must be new then. Right. Airplanes don't hover, which can only mean that anti-gravity repulsors were in effect for the downtown region at about 86°F. Approximately.

Quote:

I believe one was found, but I will have to look it up.

Yeah, look it up in your Funk and Wagnalls and then smoke it, turdburglar. I don't see how you can believe what is shown on the radio and played on Must See TV and that MTV where-is-my-digdiggity-dignity gone to; perhaps this is just one example of clear Jell-O in the toilet. No plastic wrap, please.

Quote:

And its not as bad as the bullshit you are trying to feed us.

If you are feeding on bullshit then you have issues that are beyond the scope of this thread. Please talk to your doctor about possible side effects from taking bullshit in doses over the perscribed amount; ie. toaster muffins are not necessarily blueberry, but may taste just the same.

Jul 4th, 2003 08:57 PM

El Blanco

Quote:

The designer of the WTC buildings said himself in an interview a few years before in died not long ago that the buildings were designed to withstand airplanes hitting them, as well as temperatures exceeding that of the burning jet fuel.

My dad was actually in the construction of the WTC and he said they skimped on reinforcing the girders (there is your government efficency again). So, they may have been designed to do so, but not built that way.

Oh, and they were supposed to withstand planes hitting them at about 100 mph. What were those two planes doing? 180?

Quote:

Buildings ONLY collapse as perfectly as they did when orchestrated to do so; ie. professionally rigged with precision explosives.

Several eyewitness reports from the second tower of consistently timed explosions in the first tower AFTER the impact of the first plane.

Prove it. I want a link because this is the first I'm hearing of it and I've heard plenty of conspiracy theories. And it better be someone other than David Icke.

Quote:

Contact is lost with the planes, and yet, they can see the planes altering their course using a monitoring system that shows their exact location on a map (this system was also demonstrated on MSNBC). Why did no one get a clue that the planes were heading directly for download Manhatten? Hello?

Quote:

Each plane had 2 black boxes on them (actuall they are orange, but whatever) that are designed to withstand, among other things, temperatures in excess of 2000°C (the jet fuel was burning at about 1800-2000°C), 30 days completely submerged in sea water and an excessive about of G forces. Yet, the government claims that each and every one was destroyed, yet somehow, many of the terrorists' passports (made of paper) survived? What kind of bullshit is that that they are spoonfeeding the American public, and indeed, the rest of the world (as a sympathy crutch).

I believe one was found, but I will have to look it up.

And its not as bad as the bullshit you are trying to feed us.

This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

About Us |

Store |

Advertising |

Contact

Features

Shorts

Editorials

Games

Comics

Blogs

Forum

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts vB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off