9/11 debunking accomplished

maxamus1

maxamus1

Well-Known Member
RickWhite said:
But why did we need a "reason" to invade Iraq when we already had so many?

First and foremost, the US has been at war with Iraq since the 1991 Gulf war. Since then, a ceasefire was declared but Iraq constantly violated the terms of the ceasefire. See this from Wikipedia:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1]
Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."

It should also be noted that Iraq regularly fired upon our aircraft while they patrolled the no fly zone. Every incident was a violation of the ceasefire, an act of war and all the reason we needed to resume bombing. Bush in fact, only went to the UN and to Congress as a matter of diplomacy and support. Legally, he didn't need any more reason or even the permission of Congress.

As you can see, Bush didn't need 911 to bomb Iraq, all he needed to do was to cite their actions and their violation of the UN resolutions. Furthermore, Bush never even tried to tie Iraq to 911. The only link between the two is the indirect support for terrorism that Iraq gave openly and unabashedly.

Blame for 911 always was placed on Bin Laden and al-queda. It was the anti-Bush people that tried to make 911 the reason for resuming the war with Iraq. Bush only claimed that they were a dangerous, destabilizing regime that was developing WMD and supporting terrorism.
Click to expand...


i will come back to this one. i could say a couple of things now but i will wait till i do some research.
 
doobnVA

doobnVA

Well-Known Member
Tuesday, June 15, 2004 Posted: 6:06 PM EDT (2206 GMT)



RELATED
• Cheney claimsties between Saddam, al Qaeda




YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Iraq
September 11 attacks
George W. Bush
Saddam Hussein
or Create your own
Manage alerts | What is this?


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush repeated his administration's claim that Iraq was in league with al Qaeda under Saddam Hussein's rule, saying Tuesday that fugitive Islamic militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ties Saddam to the terrorist network
"Zarqawi's the best evidence of a connection to al Qaeda affiliates and al Qaeda," Bush told reporters at the White House. "He's the person who's still killing."
U.S. intelligence officials have said al Qaeda had some links to Iraq dating back to the early 1990s, but the nature and extent of those contacts is a matter of dispute.



Bush has tried to portray the war in Iraq as the "central front" in the war on terrorism that began with al Qaeda's September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.
In September, after Cheney asserted that Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11," Bush acknowledged there was no evidence that Saddam's government was connected to those attacks.
 
maxamus1

maxamus1

Well-Known Member
CrackerJax said:
Yah, that'd be nice.
Click to expand...

dude you cant win in the other thread. every time some one brings something open mined to the table or proof showing in our favor. all you can write is no proof. you talk about us being sarcastic look in the mirror. you are small minded. you believes everything told to you by main stream. why don't you do some research on both sides and come up with your own conclusion.
 
IAm5toned

IAm5toned

Well-Known Member
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_kSq663m0G8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_kSq663m0G8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
 
maxamus1

maxamus1

Well-Known Member
CrackerJax said:
I just figured you wouldn't keep posting without following through first.
Click to expand...

first i must apologise for the above statement it was childish and rude. so sorry for writing it. second when i have come to a conclusion, i fell will have a sound rebuttal to his post i will address his post.
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
Iam5toned.... :lol: Notice how the film only is rated 3 stars? :lol:

Truthers run around beating down the ratings of any vid which exposes their flawed reasoning..... now that IS scientific analysis...is it not?? :lol:
 
maxamus1

maxamus1

Well-Known Member
RickWhite said:
But why did we need a "reason" to invade Iraq when we already had so many?



not as many as you claim.



First and foremost, the US has been at war with Iraq since the 1991 Gulf war. Since then, a ceasefire was declared but Iraq constantly violated the terms of the ceasefire. See this from Wikipedia:

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284). [1]
Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensate Kuwait for the widespread looting conducted by its troops during the 1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."



this also from wikipedia (
During the Presidency of Saddam Hussein, the nation of Iraq used, possessed, and made efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Hussein was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War. It is also known that in the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program.
After the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi WMD and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi cooperation and obstruction.[1] In response to diminishing Iraqi cooperation with UNSCOM, the United States called for withdrawal of all UN and IAEA inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox. The United States and the UK asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he was clandestinely procuring and producing more. Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted from November 2002 until March 2003,[2] under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Saddam give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections.[3]
By March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[4] The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.[5][6][7] Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,[8] President Bush asserted peaceful measures couldn't disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War,[9] despite multiple dissenting opinions[10] and questions of integrity[11][12][13] about the underlying intelligence.[14] Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted.[15] President Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq,[16] while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq".[17])




It should also be noted that Iraq regularly fired upon our aircraft while they patrolled the no fly zone. Every incident was a violation of the ceasefire, an act of war and all the reason we needed to resume bombing. Bush in fact, only went to the UN and to Congress as a matter of diplomacy and support. Legally, he didn't need any more reason or even the permission of Congress.


if you could give a resource i would appreciate it.





As you can see, Bush didn't need 911 to bomb Iraq, all he needed to do was to cite their actions and their violation of the UN resolutions. Furthermore, Bush never even tried to tie Iraq to 911. The only link between the two is the indirect support for terrorism that Iraq gave openly and unabashedly.



this is a post from guardian.co.uk ( Leading Democrats yesterday reacted angrily to President George Bush's address to the nation, accusing him of "exploiting the sacred ground" of September 11 by attempting to link the Iraq war with the terrorist attacks.
In his prime-time speech at Fort Bragg military base, the president mentioned September 11 five times in 30 minutes as he argued that withdrawal from Iraq would leave the US open to more terrorist attacks.) here is more if you would like to read it. Bush 'exploited 9/11' in Iraq plea at guardian.co.uk



Blame for 911 always was placed on Bin Laden and al-queda. It was the anti-Bush people that tried to make 911 the reason for resuming the war with Iraq. Bush only claimed that they were a dangerous, destabilizing regime that was developing WMD and supporting terrorism.
Click to expand...

wich he was wrong about they found no wmd's. did they have them before probably but not when he accused them.
 
maxamus1

maxamus1

Well-Known Member
IAm5toned said:
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_kSq663m0G8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_kSq663m0G8&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
Click to expand...


again very good vid..... but again adds more to my side of the story. if 1/3 of the face and 25% depth is missing from ten stories. the building would have started to lean to that side. so when the building would have fell it would have fell at an angle and not straight down.
 
IAm5toned

IAm5toned

Well-Known Member
I know.
But you know what they say-
Analysis is dictated buy ones own perspective :lol:


maxamus.... ive been in high rise construction for the better part of 15 years man... im not insulting you, please dont take it personally. its very easy to be mislead when you miss the basic facts. like the laws of gravity
 
maxamus1

maxamus1

Well-Known Member
ok please explain to me how it would not lean. from the look in the vid it looked like the corner was gone right? now i have done framing for the most of ahh 12 years and i have seen some crazy crap happen. but to my point i have seen what happens when a support gives way. or a corner gets taken out. it never drops straight down.
 
IAm5toned

IAm5toned

Well-Known Member
steel frame or stick frame? because wood behaves very differently than than a steel and masonry structure.
in a wood frame multi story structure ( or even a steel stud frame) the lateral supports (joists) are stronger than the vertical supports (studs in load bearing walls)
so if u remove a load bearing wall or corner, the structure will lean in the direction that has been removed during collapse.

in a multi story high rise, the vertical support columns between floors transfer the weight to beams that in turn transfer the weight to the internal or external steel frame.
remove some columns, and the weight is immediatly transfered to the remaining columns on that floor.
remove columns or damage columns on more than one floor and you have columns on several floors that are bearing more weight than designed for
add heat to weaken the steel frame, and you have a truss failure. once that happens, there is a small scale collapse localized to the area the truss is bearing
it is the concussion of that local collapse which triggers the failure of more columns.... once enough columns give way, one floor collapses. this is a bad thing because all the weight above that floor travels the 9-15 ft before impacting the floor below it. this allows millions of tons of material with millions of jules of potential energy to accelerate, and them ram the floor below it. it is an unstoppable chain reaction, once one floor collapses every floor below it will go, one floor at a time, with increasing force and velocity, untill the entire structure is wiped out. it happens very quickly... less than 60 seconds from truss failure to floor collapse to building gone.. its why the buildings look like they speed up as they fall

its like playing jenga.
ugh i have a bad habit of hitting post instead of go advanced...lol
 
CrackerJax

CrackerJax

New Member
The largest load bearing beams are in the center of the building. When they went.... everything went. There were so many engineers on the scene that day, and not one of them jumped up and shouted, that didn't fall right.

Only the hindsighters WITH AN AGENDA thought something was amiss...later on.

The facts are the "truthers" have an agenda.... a political agenda. This is ALWAYS an indication that science is being twisted. ALWAYS.....
 
IAm5toned

IAm5toned

Well-Known Member
that and the fact that it is easier to blame something you dont understand on something you already have a mistrust of.

like a little kid saying his big brother stole his toy when he forgot where he put it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top