Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doug R who wrote (203232)	9/17/2006 7:04:33 AM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi DougR; Re: "After you tackle that short list of 9/11 omissions and distortions that are a massive problem for the "official" fable, there's the task of actually showing the "official" fable has any credence. Without, of course, using the "official" fable itself as evidence. We wouldn't want circular arguments now, would we?" I've picked apart the "dust" theory. If you want to pick apart the "official" theory that's okay with me. The WTC was engineered to be built as cheaply as possible with the worst possible grades of building material, subject to the requirement that it be safe and meet codes. That's what pretty much all buildings are built to. But it's only when the engineers have lots of resources that they can design so close to the edge. And with a design that doesn't have a hell of a lot of engineering margin, it's hard to tell what causes a collapse because so much stuff is fairly close to the breaking point. Re: "Find some independent corroboration on a par with the seismic evidence being corroborated by eyewitness reports." We can talk about that later. First you have to respond intelligently to my comments on why turning 600,000 tons of concrete into 60 micron dust 1100 feet in the air is ridiculous. I calculated how deeply that would have buried New York in my previous post; now it's your turn. Re: "You probably still believe saddam was involved with 9/11 or that zarqawi had one leg or that WMDs were North, East, West and South of Bagdhad and Tikrit...somewhat. ..." If you actually pulled your head out and paid attention to your surroundings, you'd know that I've been arguing against the Iraq war on this thread since long before it started. I mean really, I wrote here that I thought that Saddam had no WMDs before the war. Hawkmoon regularly calls me a traitor and I have to put up the same class of BS from you too? But from the other side? Here, some history lessons: Bilow, January 23, 2003 But if we do have a war, I'm on record as saying that the conquering will be quick, but the problems will be in the occupation. Message 18483438 Message 18483345 Message 18487736 Message 18503193 February 8, 2003: No, the worst scenario in Iraq is a continuing guerilla war, with a constant dribble of US casualties. Message 18556175 And there are wars that cannot be won no matter what strategy is used. Message 18584406 Message 18584458 Message 18587149 February 16, 2003: "Re: "Does Iraq have WMD or not?" My guess is that they do not, but I don't know for sure. Message 18587191 Nadine Carroll, in response: I guess you believe that Powell faked all those intercepts where Iraqi officers asked each other if they "evacuated" all the weapons that the inspectors weren't supposed to find. Didn't they mention something about "nerve gas"? And I guess the Iraqis are 100% credible when they claim they destroyed everything they had in 1998 without a record, and nevermind the chemicals they've been importing since. So, do you believe in Tinkerbell too, Carl? Bilow, in response: But all this shows is that Iraqi officers talk about nerve gas. This is hardly a surprise, the country used them during the Iran war. The subject coming up in conversation does not prove that Iraq has them now. I write regularly about WMDs on SI, but I don't have any ... With an intelligence organization as large as the United States possesses, it would be a bloody miracle if there wasn't somebody in there that was convinced that the Iraqis have WMDs. But people make mistakes. ... The above is why nations shouldn't go to war on thinly proved pretexts. War is a bell that cannot be unrung, so it should not be sounded except when under certainty. ... The whole concept makes me laugh, since I know how big weapons factories typically are. It takes 10 tons of chemical weapons to kill a single soldier in combat (as of the Iran / Iraq war), so the concept that you're going to manufacture significant amounts of weapons in the back of a truck is ludicrous. Weapons factories are huge enterprises. Only assassins (or terrorists) can make weapons in the back of a truck, and there are plenty of weapons that are not WMDs that are just great at assassination. Message 18593817 So no, I'm not one of those fools who believes everything that the Bush administration (or anyone else) says. But I'm also not one of those fools who thinks that everything said by the Bush administration (or anyone else) says. I am very careful in what I allow myself to believe. Re: "Or that the air around the WTC site was safe to breathe in the weeks afterward." I agree with you here. I doubt that it was safe, though I admit that I haven't looked much at the issue. But I saw the smoke, and smoke is not good for you. Re: "... while NO Arab names were on the flight manifests of ANY of the flights and ALL the names are accounted for as regular passengers." And now you've drifted off into lala land again. I guess the conversations that doomed passengers had on their cell phones doesn't mean much. -- Carl