Finder, before you are flamed, I would assume that by "a good one to hit," you intended to mean that it would have been a logical target to hit, from the perspective of someone mounting an attack against the United States — correct?
The flight that got slammed into the pentagon.
- Thread starter Sublime
- Start date
of course. A military target is a fare target. These are people are live by the sword.
Now the people in the plane... No way... Those were innocent people. I still can't believe a so called moslim could ignore the koran like that.
Now the people in the plane... No way... Those were innocent people. I still can't believe a so called moslim could ignore the koran like that.
I agree; I would argue that anyone who commits an act of terrorism is inherently un-Muslim, and contrary to the principles and endeavours of the Qur'an — this could, in fact, be said for any faith; no modern faith advocates for such acts.
Well it dictates right in the Koran, easy to read how to run a war. And it says the murdering of Woman and children are wrong, even harming them in any way!
RE: The flight that got s
Hate to say it but the US is the only country to call terrorist’s attacks an act of war. For most other countries they are criminal acts. The important thing is you can’t go to war with a criminal organisation. War is a political act and as such, it needs a legitimate political opponent. Bush legitimised Al queada by declaring war on terrorism. Then again it means that the powers that be can keep the American public in a war mentality for as long as they want. Which is every politicians dream.
As for the rest of what was said both the allies and the axis during the second world war attacked soft targets such as cities to break enemy moral using the terror generated by bombing attacks. A couple of examples Cologne, Coventry, London ect.
Also take the American bombing raids of the 80's and 90's on different middle eastern cities. Were they terrorist attacks by the definitions given here or were they a legitimate political response?
Who here believes America is in a state of war? (Outside of Iraq that is.)
Is Bush a war time president?
If Bush is war time president doesn’t that mean that every president elected from now on will be a war president with all the powers that go with it?
Hate to say it but the US is the only country to call terrorist’s attacks an act of war. For most other countries they are criminal acts. The important thing is you can’t go to war with a criminal organisation. War is a political act and as such, it needs a legitimate political opponent. Bush legitimised Al queada by declaring war on terrorism. Then again it means that the powers that be can keep the American public in a war mentality for as long as they want. Which is every politicians dream.
As for the rest of what was said both the allies and the axis during the second world war attacked soft targets such as cities to break enemy moral using the terror generated by bombing attacks. A couple of examples Cologne, Coventry, London ect.
Also take the American bombing raids of the 80's and 90's on different middle eastern cities. Were they terrorist attacks by the definitions given here or were they a legitimate political response?
Who here believes America is in a state of war? (Outside of Iraq that is.)
Is Bush a war time president?
If Bush is war time president doesn’t that mean that every president elected from now on will be a war president with all the powers that go with it?
RE: The flight that got s
Bush invented Alqueda, Bush is a terrorist time President, they havn,t actually elected a president, the position in the Offal Oriface is bought by the rich elites. We are all in a state of perpetual war it,s a consumer product.
Bush invented Alqueda, Bush is a terrorist time President, they havn,t actually elected a president, the position in the Offal Oriface is bought by the rich elites. We are all in a state of perpetual war it,s a consumer product.
RE: The flight that got s
Bush invented Alqueda, Bush is a terrorist time President, they havn,t actually elected a president, the position in the Offal Oriface is bought by the rich elites. We are all in a state of perpetual war, it,s a consumer product.
Bush invented Alqueda, Bush is a terrorist time President, they havn,t actually elected a president, the position in the Offal Oriface is bought by the rich elites. We are all in a state of perpetual war, it,s a consumer product.
RE: The flight that got s
Alqueda is an invention of the elites, Bush is a terrorist time President, they havn,t actually elected a president, the position in the Offal Oriface is bought by the rich elites. We are all in a state of perpetual war, it,s a consumer product.
Terrorism benefits the rich,just follow the money.
Alqueda is an invention of the elites, Bush is a terrorist time President, they havn,t actually elected a president, the position in the Offal Oriface is bought by the rich elites. We are all in a state of perpetual war, it,s a consumer product.
Terrorism benefits the rich,just follow the money.
Re: RE: The flight that got s
(Emphasis mine) That's a good point - you can only really declare war on a sovereign nation, not a band of criminals or terrorists. I think the 'war on terror' is not a real war, that's why al Queda prisoners aren't worthy of protection under the Geneva convention. It wasn't so much a declaration of war as it was a declaration that they were going to be hunted down and killed as they should.
jeckgo said:
(Emphasis mine) That's a good point - you can only really declare war on a sovereign nation, not a band of criminals or terrorists. I think the 'war on terror' is not a real war, that's why al Queda prisoners aren't worthy of protection under the Geneva convention. It wasn't so much a declaration of war as it was a declaration that they were going to be hunted down and killed as they should.
Re: RE: The flight that got slammed into the pentagon.
Actually, that wasn't what I was trying to get at with the question I posed. Of course he had ties to terrorism, but why? How would that serve him? I think he may have been more of a sympathizer in order to save his own ass more than anything. Just my humble opinion though.
darkbeaver said:Said1 said:
He was a master tactician of the art, but he,s involved in this court thingy and he ain,t got the time anymore. So he had very strong ties to terrorism. Your question is a good example of the problem with declaring a war on terrorism it,s a tactic not people, anyone who scares the shit out of someone else is a terrorist, Uncle Sam been doing it to me for years but nobody cares.
PS; I know you know all this but I have to make my quota.
Actually, that wasn't what I was trying to get at with the question I posed. Of course he had ties to terrorism, but why? How would that serve him? I think he may have been more of a sympathizer in order to save his own ass more than anything. Just my humble opinion though.
Re: RE: The flight that got slammed into the pentagon.
I still don,t think you get what I,m saying about terrorism, it is used by all political leaders, terrorism motivates people with fear, fear is the most often used political tool, it operates on a sliding scale, all the way from fear of taxes to fear of death and war, in that sence all modern politics are designed arround fear issues because it,s the cheapest easiest method to move the masses, look how easy it has been to portray western bombing and death squads as liberation and democracy and everyone elses bombing and death squads as terrorism when in fact the acts are eaqul in every respect except scale, when these methods are used by our side they are considered benevolent when the same methods are used by the other side they are considered evil. Terrorism is a tactic. Consider the terror that the Iranian people must feel right now with the worlds greatest practicioners of terror threatening to destroy them despite all that they the Iranians have done in the last ten years to build better ties with the west, every attempt the Iranians have made at cooperation with the west have been spurned and ignored, the simple fact is that Uncle Sam must have control and will except noyhing less than Irans capitulation and subserviance to American military and economic dominance.Terrorism is the ultimate marketing tool. :lol:
Said1 said:darkbeaver said:Said1 said:
He was a master tactician of the art, but he,s involved in this court thingy and he ain,t got the time anymore. So he had very strong ties to terrorism. Your question is a good example of the problem with declaring a war on terrorism it,s a tactic not people, anyone who scares the shit out of someone else is a terrorist, Uncle Sam been doing it to me for years but nobody cares.
PS; I know you know all this but I have to make my quota.
Actually, that wasn't what I was trying to get at with the question I posed. Of course he had ties to terrorism, but why? How would that serve him? I think he may have been more of a sympathizer in order to save his own ass more than anything. Just my humble opinion though.
I still don,t think you get what I,m saying about terrorism, it is used by all political leaders, terrorism motivates people with fear, fear is the most often used political tool, it operates on a sliding scale, all the way from fear of taxes to fear of death and war, in that sence all modern politics are designed arround fear issues because it,s the cheapest easiest method to move the masses, look how easy it has been to portray western bombing and death squads as liberation and democracy and everyone elses bombing and death squads as terrorism when in fact the acts are eaqul in every respect except scale, when these methods are used by our side they are considered benevolent when the same methods are used by the other side they are considered evil. Terrorism is a tactic. Consider the terror that the Iranian people must feel right now with the worlds greatest practicioners of terror threatening to destroy them despite all that they the Iranians have done in the last ten years to build better ties with the west, every attempt the Iranians have made at cooperation with the west have been spurned and ignored, the simple fact is that Uncle Sam must have control and will except noyhing less than Irans capitulation and subserviance to American military and economic dominance.Terrorism is the ultimate marketing tool. :lol:
Re: RE: The flight that got slammed into the pentagon.
I get your point, I didn't address it because that wasn't what I wanted to discuss.
As for the Iranians, like I said, they're probably just pissed about India, psyched and are probably headed the way of North Korea with their new Kim like leader..
darkbeaver said:
I get your point, I didn't address it because that wasn't what I wanted to discuss.
As for the Iranians, like I said, they're probably just pissed about India, psyched and are probably headed the way of North Korea with their new Kim like leader..
Re: RE: The flight that got s
Hhhmmm...these must all be part of some conspiracy, I wonder if Elvis is involved.....are you serious Joey??? I suppose these are fake???
Flight 77 in the Pentagon
There may not be many pictures of flight 93 in Pittsburgh, so then all of these people are in on the conspiracy as well???[sarcasm]We are all lying, really[/sarcasm]....
As for those planes going into the towers, well they must be part of this conspiracy theory as well, actually they are still there, but are hidden behind a huge holograph of just air/space???
JoeyB said:
Hhhmmm...these must all be part of some conspiracy, I wonder if Elvis is involved.....are you serious Joey??? I suppose these are fake???
Flight 77 in the Pentagon
There may not be many pictures of flight 93 in Pittsburgh, so then all of these people are in on the conspiracy as well???[sarcasm]We are all lying, really[/sarcasm]....
As for those planes going into the towers, well they must be part of this conspiracy theory as well, actually they are still there, but are hidden behind a huge holograph of just air/space???
Joey
I have been asking the same questions for several years. I have done as much searching as I can and like you, I have found no evidence of a plane ever going into the pentagon...
I do recall the news media making a big deal out of the lack of evidence - but only for a very short time (perhaps a 2 day period). And then - nothing. No one is asking questions. I know there was evidence from WTC - and I know planes attacked there (I lost my Aunt in the WTC) but theres absolutly nothing from the Pentagon. There was evidence from WTC but as you stated nothing at the Pentagon. Im not a big conspiracy fan but I do wonder. One would think that a full scale investigation would have been launched and answers forthcoming on the Pentagon strike - just because it's central to the USA security....
I have been asking the same questions for several years. I have done as much searching as I can and like you, I have found no evidence of a plane ever going into the pentagon...
I do recall the news media making a big deal out of the lack of evidence - but only for a very short time (perhaps a 2 day period). And then - nothing. No one is asking questions. I know there was evidence from WTC - and I know planes attacked there (I lost my Aunt in the WTC) but theres absolutly nothing from the Pentagon. There was evidence from WTC but as you stated nothing at the Pentagon. Im not a big conspiracy fan but I do wonder. One would think that a full scale investigation would have been launched and answers forthcoming on the Pentagon strike - just because it's central to the USA security....
RE: The flight that got s
well everyone here thinks it's bullshit, but noone can prove a plane crash. Bomb, perhaps but no plane, and eyewitnesses (few) have 'recounted' testimony.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I was just implying Mike Moore would do well to get his hands on some footage. (if there is any) and start bowling for columbine... or the golfing for the pentagon as it might very well be.
well everyone here thinks it's bullshit, but noone can prove a plane crash. Bomb, perhaps but no plane, and eyewitnesses (few) have 'recounted' testimony.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I was just implying Mike Moore would do well to get his hands on some footage. (if there is any) and start bowling for columbine... or the golfing for the pentagon as it might very well be.
Re: RE: The flight that got s
There was also the phone call from the plane made by Barbara Olson wife of former US Solicitor General Ted Olsen, she was on the phone with her husband giving him details of what was going on mins before the plane hit the Pentagon.
Flight 93 was the plane that hit the field in Pennsylvania, when it hit the field it also disinigrated into a million pieces as it was going at speeds from 400 to 600mph before it hit the ground. There are stories of it being shot down etc, but it was the passengers who forced the Hijackers to crash it into the field before reaching it's intended target in Washington, D.C this is from the recordings of the voice recorder nside the cockpit.
If you still have questions try watching "National Geographic's Inside 9/11" if you can as it does answer all the conspiracy theory questions.
There is proof, there was a row of street lights knocked down by the planes wings leading towards where the Pentagon was hit. There is the speed the plane when it hit the Pentagon which was automatically sliced into a million piece as the Pentagon was a very strong structure. There is the material of the plane and heat of the Fire feeding off office furniture etc which disinigrates most of it. It comes down to physics the speed of the plane and the material of which it was made, the structure of the Pentagon and the temperature of the Fire.JoeyB said:
There was also the phone call from the plane made by Barbara Olson wife of former US Solicitor General Ted Olsen, she was on the phone with her husband giving him details of what was going on mins before the plane hit the Pentagon.
Flight 93 was the plane that hit the field in Pennsylvania, when it hit the field it also disinigrated into a million pieces as it was going at speeds from 400 to 600mph before it hit the ground. There are stories of it being shot down etc, but it was the passengers who forced the Hijackers to crash it into the field before reaching it's intended target in Washington, D.C this is from the recordings of the voice recorder nside the cockpit.
If you still have questions try watching "National Geographic's Inside 9/11" if you can as it does answer all the conspiracy theory questions.
