Spare Parts
For non-modeling topics and those without a home elsewhere.
Sources: Al-Qaida head bin Laden dead
retiredbee2
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Member Since: May 04, 2008
entire network: 757 Posts
KitMaker Network: 180 Posts
Posted: Friday, May 13, 2011 - 02:43 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

so who caused 9/11?

Whew I better not touch that one.

I don't mind touching it...................to believers, I would say Satan caused it. Non believers would come up with a thousand different opinions and argue about it, but to believers it boils down to basically one thing.
Delbert
#073
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Member Since: October 05, 2002
entire network: 2,659 Posts
KitMaker Network: 865 Posts
Posted: Friday, May 13, 2011 - 03:17 PM UTC
I'll just toss this one out among you... something I read on the net and found interesting

Question:

Should the U.S. use its military and financial power to act as the world's policeman?

YES... says.. this.

1. Unstable regions can be havens for terrorists.

2. Nations cannot grow and develop with constant threat of warlords and terrorists trying to gain power.

3. Humanitarian aid often cannot reach its intended recipients.

4. Genocide and atrocities can be avoided or lessened.

5. Militant ideologies could expand without us, threatening the lives and resources of democratic countries.

6. Living with oppression and a constant state of terror throughout an entire population is worse than the risk of a few deaths.

7. It could eventually lead to a united, stable world.

8. We can protect U.S. interests (trading partners, military allies, countries with needed resources, etc.).

9. No other country in the world has the power to play this role.



NO says this


1. It could increase an already growing anti-American sentiment around the world.

2. We could make many wrong decisions (e.g. when we armed & financed Saddam Hussein).

3. U.S. soldiers would be put in harm's way.

4. Civilians would be killed on many of the missions.

5. Much of a country could be destroyed in a liberation attempt.

6. The financial cost of being a world policeman is extremely high.

7. People from other countries have different cultures & values; thus, we must respect the rights of those citizens to determine their own government.


I think this makes a good subject for debate...

play nice now..


one other thing to think on about the debate between Isolationism policy and intervention policy..

Nov 1941 60% of the U.S. public didn't want to enter into a European war,
Jan 1942 70% of the U.S. public was in favor of U.S. entry to war..

why.. Dec 7, 1941

lukiftian
Visit this Community
British Columbia, Canada
Member Since: March 12, 2010
entire network: 791 Posts
KitMaker Network: 198 Posts
Posted: Friday, May 13, 2011 - 03:25 PM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

so who caused 9/11?

Whew I better not touch that one.

I don't mind touching it...................to believers, I would say Satan caused it. Non believers would come up with a thousand different opinions and argue about it, but to believers it boils down to basically one thing.



Well, it just so happens that I have Satan here on the red Hellfire phone, and he said he was on vacation with Saddam Hussein in South Park that day, details were not disclosed but apart from being disgusting neither apparently was involved in the plot.

I'd say it was Moloch, not Satan.

An interesting day, my 39th birthday. One of the most interesting things I recall was Larry Silverstein saying he'd have to 'pull' the burning WTC7. How does one 'pull' a building, exactly? Doesn't take about a week and expertly laid explosives? But no matter, because for no apparent reason it fell down on its own that very day! into it's own footprint! at the speed of gravity! That was obliging of it, considering it hadn't even been hit by an airplane.

Here's a question for you all, have any of you ever tried to do this in Microsoft Flight Simulator? I mean, fly a 767 into the WTC at 500mph? Trust me on this one, I have and it's HARD. Granted a 767 is easy to fly, but it's hard enough trying to hit a target that size with an F-16, let alone a boat that big. That's really sweet flying when you think about it (considering these guys were not fighter pilots but amateurs supposedly trained on single engine Cessnas) , because you have to set up that 200ft window from what? 20, 30 miles away? On the other hand the WTC , indeed anything, is easy to hit if you're on autopilot, especially if the autopilot has a signal to lock onto.

It's almost as if the aircraft behaved like drones. Not trying to be conspiracy theorist here, but trying to explain what I saw.

Ask yourself, where would these so-called terrorists obtain this sort of technology. Who is really really good at this technology who specializes in it, I'm not saying countries so much as corporations, but countries as well.

I'm certain those of you who served at one time in the military or worked in the defence industry reading this probably have several company names and at least 2 countries off the top of your head capable of this.
retiredbee2
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Member Since: May 04, 2008
entire network: 757 Posts
KitMaker Network: 180 Posts
Posted: Friday, May 13, 2011 - 04:46 PM UTC
Kevin, thats quite an opinion. That whole explanation sounds more like science fiction than my explanation. My guess is that you are well into Srar Treck and other digitally produced yarns and action movies. By the way Elvis is still alive and working for the CIA in deep cover. I played one of his records backwards and it said so. ......as for Satan being the force behind evil and God being the force behind good is a matter of faith. You don't have to believe it. I certainly will not try to force it on you or convince you. In fact this will be my last post on this matter.
lukiftian
Visit this Community
British Columbia, Canada
Member Since: March 12, 2010
entire network: 791 Posts
KitMaker Network: 198 Posts
Posted: Friday, May 13, 2011 - 05:13 PM UTC
I'm not explaining anything, simply asking questions and quoting high school physics, as well as my own recall of the day which isn't failing yet. Everything I've otherwise said is conjecture, but it's not based on science fiction, it's based on technology that's been around for fifteen to twenty years, maybe longer, although drone technology has certainly improved in the last ten to fifteen.

Don't believe me, ask someone in the aerospace industry if the technology exists to fly a jumbo jet into a building by remote control. If they change the subject, you'll know the answer is yes.

Frankly Alfred, falling back on religious beliefs when dealing with questions of technology is so sixteenth century. Get into the 21st, OK?

Actually, the last film I watched was The Bridge at Remagen, but the one before that was Even Cowgirls Get the Blues. I think you'd like that one. The one before that was The Tin Drum. The one before that was The Night Porter. The one before that was The Darjeeling Limited. And so on...

I do have some Star Trek films, but the gem in my collection is the Animated Series from 1973.

I believe you're making an error when you compare the 9-11 narrative to TV. It wasn't TV, it was theatre. Like all theatre, you see the props but try to look beyond them to follow the narrative because that's where the core enjoyment of any work of art lies. And yet, there are the special effects that might cause one to ask, how did they pull it off? One would think that's what anyone used to putting parts together to create a whole would do (like a model kit, for example), and yet we train ourselves not to be distracted by this because it detracts from our enjoyment of the narrative.
lukiftian
Visit this Community
British Columbia, Canada
Member Since: March 12, 2010
entire network: 791 Posts
KitMaker Network: 198 Posts
Posted: Friday, May 13, 2011 - 05:54 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I'll just toss this one out among you... something I read on the net and found interesting

Question:

Should the U.S. use its military and financial power to act as the world's policeman?

YES... says.. this.

1. Unstable regions can be havens for terrorists.

2. Nations cannot grow and develop with constant threat of warlords and terrorists trying to gain power.

3. Humanitarian aid often cannot reach its intended recipients.

4. Genocide and atrocities can be avoided or lessened.

5. Militant ideologies could expand without us, threatening the lives and resources of democratic countries.

6. Living with oppression and a constant state of terror throughout an entire population is worse than the risk of a few deaths.

7. It could eventually lead to a united, stable world.

8. We can protect U.S. interests (trading partners, military allies, countries with needed resources, etc.).

9. No other country in the world has the power to play this role.



NO says this


1. It could increase an already growing anti-American sentiment around the world.

2. We could make many wrong decisions (e.g. when we armed & financed Saddam Hussein).

3. U.S. soldiers would be put in harm's way.

4. Civilians would be killed on many of the missions.

5. Much of a country could be destroyed in a liberation attempt.

6. The financial cost of being a world policeman is extremely high.

7. People from other countries have different cultures & values; thus, we must respect the rights of those citizens to determine their own government.


I think this makes a good subject for debate...

play nice now..


one other thing to think on about the debate between Isolationism policy and intervention policy..

Nov 1941 60% of the U.S. public didn't want to enter into a European war,
Jan 1942 70% of the U.S. public was in favor of U.S. entry to war..

why.. Dec 7, 1941




These are interesting talking points to explain and and elaborate upon the official US narrative, but this has no real effect in the rest of the world except where the bombs are being dropped, compounds are being raided in contravention of international law, and alleged remains are being buried at sea. To put it politely Delbert, some of it is laughable, and much of it is overbearing, arrogant, and insulting.

Just my .02 CAD, worth slightly more than yours today I think.


Moreover at 14000000000000 dollars in debt (really, it's much more) what 'financial power'? Aren't you guys broke yet?

btw FDR let the US get attacked at Pearl Harbor as a pretext to get America into WWII. The reason for this was twofold, the first was that the Germans were working on an atomic bomb and the Allies knew it, the second was that even at that point the British knew that even if the Americans didn't enter the war the Russians would eventually win, and that meant that the Russians might not only control all of (devastated) Europe and possibly England, they'd have German nuclear weapons technology as well, and be in a position to challenge the US for global hegemony. WWII was the war that set two potential enemies working together, and by doing so set back WWWIII by decades. It was a brilliant strategic move on the part of FDR. It might have seemed like an atrocity by the Japanese, and although 2000 sailors died it should be remembered that most of the ships in Pearl Harbor were second line or obsolete, in fact I recall a couple were about to be decommissioned. The state of the art ships (as well as the carriers) were out at sea.
retiredbee2
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Member Since: May 04, 2008
entire network: 757 Posts
KitMaker Network: 180 Posts
Posted: Saturday, May 14, 2011 - 03:25 AM UTC
Kevin, As I said , I wont elaborate on any connections to religion . Just because the scenario of aircraft guided into WTC is possible doesn't mean that it happened that way. As for FDR knowing about the attack on Pearl Harbor.................I have thought that possible as well but the world may never know if it is true or happened that way either. With a little imagination, a conspiracy theory could be made up on just about anything that happens from why your neighbors dog bit you to why haven't they come up with a cure for cancer. ................Sorry , if I tickled a nerve on your choice of movies. Personally I like stuff from action to family stuff, but never could get dragged in to science fiction too much. Going back to Bin Ladin, I for one am glad that he is out of the loop, what I think motivated him is another story................best regards..........Al............................................BTW, One of my favorite movies of all is the original "When the Earth Stood Still"
lukiftian
Visit this Community
British Columbia, Canada
Member Since: March 12, 2010
entire network: 791 Posts
KitMaker Network: 198 Posts
Posted: Saturday, May 14, 2011 - 10:45 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Kevin, As I said , I wont elaborate on any connections to religion . Just because the scenario of aircraft guided into WTC is possible doesn't mean that it happened that way. As for FDR knowing about the attack on Pearl Harbor.................I have thought that possible as well but the world may never know if it is true or happened that way either. With a little imagination, a conspiracy theory could be made up on just about anything that happens from why your neighbors dog bit you to why haven't they come up with a cure for cancer. ................Sorry , if I tickled a nerve on your choice of movies. Personally I like stuff from action to family stuff, but never could get dragged in to science fiction too much. Going back to Bin Ladin, I for one am glad that he is out of the loop, what I think motivated him is another story................best regards..........Al............................................BTW, One of my favorite movies of all is the original "When the Earth Stood Still"


I did say that what I was saying was conjecture, but it's reasonable conjecture based on Occam's Razor, not some wild-eyed speculation.
If that's the case as you put it, then I guess one could say that nothing is true, nothing is real because nothing can truly be proven, especially if special interests don't want it proven. Unfortunately, that throws science and mathematics into the dumpster, and we're back in the middle ages again. Back in the day they called 'conspiracy theorists' as you like to call them by another word-- heretics.
I know that religious fundamentalists are comfortable in that scenario, you aren't one of those, are you Alfred?
As far as 'When the Earth Stood Still' I have a spot for 'Old Stone Face's' version too (that's Keanu Reeves). Own them both.
retiredbee2
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Member Since: May 04, 2008
entire network: 757 Posts
KitMaker Network: 180 Posts
Posted: Saturday, May 14, 2011 - 11:18 AM UTC
I will send you a PM................ Al