The Student Room Group

Bin Laden told followers not to 'waste [their] effort' attacking the UK

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Algorithm69
Nothing you have said is correct. The fact that you're an 'aspiring architect' is irrelevant. You don't know ****. What is also irrelevant is the fact that you've produced one engineer (or two or three or even ten) who disagree with the official report. That happens in every discipline. I can find a few scientists who disagree with evolution. No one cares. That's not how science works, it's not how any respected discipline works. Find me a peer-reviewed article from a respectable journal and we'll talk. Because I have one that says your story is full of ****:

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

And no, Steven E. Jones' paper does not count. Bentham is not a respected journal.



MIT post, well that video i posted is made by a STRUCTURAL ENGINEER from MIT. that report is from 2001, further research has been done.

also, http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/bazant_jem/bazant_zhou.html


But I know you're a wasted effort. You don't care about the truth. You don't care about the facts. You're a conspiracy theorist. You views depend on ignoring the substantial body of evidence that disagrees with your views, connecting tenuous links that are painful to see, dismissing the official story because you have an irrational hatred of America. This is why people can't help but insult you. You're on the wrong side of retarded and it shows. I expect nothing less from somebody who believes that a chariot wheel found on the bottom of a river, by a known fraudster and charlatan no less, is proof of the Exodus. Nothing you have said in this thread (or anywhere, actually) is true, no matter how often you keep saying it. You truly deserve your 5 neg points


once again, resorting to ad hominem.

Ad hominem attacks are ultimately self-defeating. They are equivalent to admitting that you have lost the argument.

i got those gems because people like you cant handle the truth nor debate me, therefore they insult me and neg me instead.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by King-Panther
the first gulf war was over oil as well, iraq took over kuwait thus would have had control of 50% of the oil in the middle east.

you have no issue with the million civilians that have died in the iraq war?

it would be disrespectful, so what is causing the death of well over a million people in iraq and afghanistan?

there are smart people born everyday. they've not even spent a trillion on the war in iraq, but 40% of their trillion dollar economy depends on oil.



no, they invaded after he switched from the petro dollar system to the euro.. he had no WMD's and also, the US fought to keep him in power after the first war.



Afghanistan Oil Pipeline

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_Oil_Pipeline

this pipeline is worth trillions to the US, the afghanis rejected the proposal, thus leading to only one solution for the US, war.

its a fact that they don't exist, it even on the BBC documentary! afghanistan is a nice base to invade other countries in the middle east..



i watched enough, they're just sticking to the official report, which ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS can see is not true.


Missing the point again here. The sheer manner of the attack makes all the building reports irrelevant. There's no case study to base anything on, it's all speculation.

The sheer nature of the attack makes it unlikely to be an inside job. Instead of setting off a bomb or staging a shooting attack, they destroyed the icons of their capitalist free market society. Think outside the box here, HOW does it makes sense for the US to do this? Just accept the fact that this was a bunch of evil fanatical terrorists who wanted to leave the ultimate message - 911.

The building reports and attention seeking engineers are totally irrelevant when you look at it from a Game Theory stance. It would have been much more effective to stage an attack on which they could directly blame Iraq and give themselves a clear premise to invade.

However, again, I haven't found any clear figures on how much they made from Iraqi oil, but like I said the war on terror has cost them 4 trillion to date and they've diminished as a financial power since the invasions.
Original post by King-Panther


i got those gems because people like you cant handle the truth nor debate me, therefore they insult me and neg me instead.


I'd say it's because your style is intensely dislikeable. You've got a very aggressive way about you and you seem to hijack threads and spout off unsubstantiated and extremely biased dogma
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Banishingboredom
Missing the point again here. The sheer manner of the attack makes all the building reports irrelevant. There's no case study to base anything on, it's all speculation.


when the building is designed to withstand the impact of multiples planes and falls, makes good grounds for the reports.

thats why they want to do a proper investigation but the government wont allow them to do so, what do they have to hide?

is thats the case, the official report is speculation too.

The sheer nature of the attack makes it unlikely to be an inside job. Instead of setting off a bomb or staging a shooting attack, they destroyed the icons of their capitalist free market society. Think outside the box here, HOW does it makes sense for the US to do this? Just accept the fact that this was a bunch of evil fanatical terrorists who wanted to leave the ultimate message - 911.


the worse the attack, the more need for drastic action. could both wars in iraq and afghanistan be justified through a shoot out? i think you need to face the fact that it was an inside job, the evidence suggests it was, you're in denial.


The building reports and attention seeking engineers are totally irrelevant when you look at it from a Game Theory stance. It would have been much more effective to stage an attack on which they could directly blame Iraq and give themselves a clear premise to invade.


once again, you're attacking the character of the engineers rather than their argument, the only attention they want is to draw attention to this massive lie you've been fed. no, they've blamed ISLAMIC terrorists, thus enabling them to attack any islamic country they want.

However, again, I haven't found any clear figures on how much they made from Iraqi oil, but like I said the war on terror has cost them 4 trillion to date and they've diminished as a financial power since the invasions.


"$747.3 billion -- has been allocated to the war in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion there in 2003"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/14/afghanistan-iraq-usa-costs-idUSN1415708320100114

40% of the 15 trillion US economy depends on oil every year, 40 % of 15 trillion is 6 trililion, so they've made there money back in just over a month and after that its all profit.
Fuel type
2006 US consumption in PWh[19] 2006 World consumption in PWh[20]
Oil 11.71 50.33
Gas 6.50 31.65
Coal 6.60 37.38
Hydroelectric 0.84 8.71
Nuclear 2.41 8.14
Geothermal, wind,
solar, wood, waste 0.95 1.38
Total 29.26 138.41


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States

How about we here it from the goats mouth “Our entire economy depends on the expectation that energy will be plentiful, available, and affordable."

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/security.aspx

There you go, the first link states the US consumes 50% of the worlds oil and the government admit their economy depends on oil. So, if they had no oil, their trains would not run, their cars wouldn't move, their planes wouldn't fly, the country would come to a halt.

"Most of U.S. oil is used for transportation: 72% of it goes directly to gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel. (Gasoline represents 46% all consumption.) Ninety-five percent of America’s modes of transportation—that would be planes, trains, trucks, boats, barges, and automobiles—run off petroleum products. "

http://www.ecoleaf.com/green_energy/petroleumgaspowerplants.html
Original post by Banishingboredom
I'd say it's because your style is intensely dislikeable. You've got a very aggressive way about you and you seem to hijack threats and spout off unsubstantiated and extremely biased dogma


hijack threats?

lets attack my argument rather than me shall we.
Original post by King-Panther
hijack threats?

lets attack my argument rather than me shall we.


Well I suppose we should be grateful that you don't hijack planes.
Original post by Algorithm69
You just completely ignored what I said about peer-review didn't you? Real credible journal you linked me there, Sherlock. I cannot believe you actually read my post, and then tried to debunk a peer-reviewed article with a conspiracy website.


debunk it then. that report is from 2001, all the engineers and architects have read it and are not satisfied.

Oh, and do you have any actual evidence that Jeff King has a degree in structural engineering? From what I've found, he's an electrical engineer. And just one guy. Again, who cares? If he managed to publish his ideas in a peer-reviewed journal (highly unlikely, which is probably why he never has) I'd listen. But that's the thing, conspiracy theorists never seem to want to do that. I wonder why? (psst: because the scientific community would demolish them


i assume he has a degree in that field, all i know he is an engineer. this guy is an architect and specialises in steel structures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssuAMNas1us

you'd listen, yeah im sure you would. im sure there are plenty of journals. really, just like the engineers have demolished the official report?


Quoting a dictionary definition again and again ad nauseum does not make what I said an ad hominem. I have provided evidence completely demolishing your pathetic attempt to cry victory, by claiming one engineer (or two, or three, or ten) makes you right, and therefore concluded you're a retard. My claims about you being a conspiracy theorist, an America-hater, and a Chariot-wheel-proves-Exodus believer are facts. This is not an ad hominem I'm afraid. This is an ad hominem:

"You're an idiot and therefore wrong."

This is not:

"Here is why you're wrong, therefore you're an idiot."

It's bad form, but not an ad hominem
.

no you haven't provided evidence that hasn't been debunked. indeed, Ad hominem attacks are ultimately self-defeating. They are equivalent to admitting that you have lost the argument.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Mr M
Well I suppose we should be grateful that you don't hijack planes.


yeah, ill leave that to the CIA
Original post by Banishingboredom
What conceivable reason could there be for it being an inside job. The "war on terror" has cost the US hundreds of thousands of lives and more than 4 trillion dollars.

There's mounds of video evidence to suggest that Al Qaeda accepted responsibility for it.


I'm not replying to your post because I genuinely believe that that 9/11 was an inside job. However because you asked such an open question I would like to give you a concievable reason best explained in this short explanation of the "GOD" business. A little annoying to point you toward a film (on my part I would rather have solid referencing material). But it's hardly as if I could quote a higher up of American politics as being the one who said it without spouting bull****. That said, maybe someone will cut out the middle-man and start quoting the film as an authority figure on the matter xD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUuBQya7XTY

Either way, instability is the greatest factor in the ability to make money (a stable market is not one with much capitalist oppertunity of buying low, selling high). And the best way to create instability is to wage war. However this would be typically unacceptable to the masses as justifiable logic. So you need to create a desire for the masses to want the war you do. As mentioned in the clip, the three big things are Gun, Oil and Drugs. Now, does war help the gun trade? Incredibly. Have the Americans waged war in one of the richest natural resources of oil? Yes. And the other factor which I am more able to comment on, is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have opened countless new supply lines for heroin. Infact there have been countless scandals that barely got the attention of the public of British soldiers bringing Opium back into the UK by the ton, Ofcourse this was blamed on the "low pay" soldiers recieve. And it is directly responsible (in reality, difficult to prove on paper, but you can see a correlation between the war starting and heroin availability in the UK and America).

And needless to say in recent years the acceptance of drugs as a "social" activity, or even a pass-time for some is noteable in the UK. The benefit for this with governments is that even though it is money made illegally, which they rarely get to see. A large number of drug dealers are materialistic which means the money they make on the black-market becomes legitimate income which benefits the system. The taxes on the cigarettes and alcohol they buy, the rent they pay, Their cars which chew through petrol like kids through smarties. So long as a dealer isn't violent it is rare that the police force will pick a bone with them, and although I do not believe this to be an actual belief of the police force. A system has been built in place that leaves them no choice but to overlook these (and other) crimes, due to manipulated factors of prison availability, CJS, workload/over-reward. And no incentive to tackle what keeps them employed.

Anyway I never intended for this post to be this long haha, mainly just wanted to give you a "rational" reason that a country would attack it's own population under false pretense. Even if (and I can't stress this enough) it is not something I believe myself.

Truthfully I always thought that if it was an inside job, it would be for the benefit of covert warfare. (I'll explain briefly).
After attack on your major city which you planned, and the world's eyes on you. You blame an otherwise non-existant organisation and give it a figure head, labelling them as your enemy. But what happens is, this non-existant organisation starts to exist through the war you started in "retaliation". So you now have "extremists" in another country, wanting to blow themselves up for any reason that could "harm" your country. These extremists are blind and narrow minded, brain-washed even. Which you can manipulate very easily (simply by having spies find and recruit them under the pretense of "death to whatever you're against, in this case America and everyone else") and use them in circumstances where using your own military would violate numerous treaties and ethics, and risk war.
A little under-handed maybe, but when it comes to relationships between countries that don't make the paper. There is a lot of underhand business, and even more from countries that are always in the eye of the global public xD.

I like to think my theory is proven after they killed "Bin-laden" because before the first party popper was even let off, they started talking about "expect retaliation". Which just gives me this inkling that we can pretty much count on retaliation when it benefits the US most. But we'll see, I always hope I'm wrong when my brain thinks like this. =P
Original post by King-Panther
when the building is designed to withstand the impact of multiples planes and falls, makes good grounds for the reports.


thats why they want to do a proper investigation but the government wont allow them to do so, what do they have to hide?

is thats the case, the official report is speculation too.



the worse the attack, the more need for drastic action. could both wars in iraq and afghanistan be justified through a shoot out? i think you need to face the fact that it was an inside job, the evidence suggests it was, you're in denial.




once again, you're attacking the character of the engineers rather than their argument, the only attention they want is to draw attention to this massive lie you've been fed. no, they've blamed ISLAMIC terrorists, thus enabling them to attack any islamic country they want.



"$747.3 billion -- has been allocated to the war in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion there in 2003"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/14/afghanistan-iraq-usa-costs-idUSN1415708320100114

40% of the 15 trillion US economy depends on oil every year, 40 % of 15 trillion is 6 trililion, so they've made there money back in just over a month and after that its all profit.
Fuel type
2006 US consumption in PWh[19] 2006 World consumption in PWh[20]
Oil 11.71 50.33
Gas 6.50 31.65
Coal 6.60 37.38
Hydroelectric 0.84 8.71
Nuclear 2.41 8.14
Geothermal, wind,
solar, wood, waste 0.95 1.38
Total 29.26 138.41


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States

How about we here it from the goats mouth “Our entire economy depends on the expectation that energy will be plentiful, available, and affordable."

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/security.aspx

There you go, the first link states the US consumes 50% of the worlds oil and the government admit their economy depends on oil. So, if they had no oil, their trains would not run, their cars wouldn't move, their planes wouldn't fly, the country would come to a halt.

"Most of U.S. oil is used for transportation: 72% of it goes directly to gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel. (Gasoline represents 46% all consumption.) Ninety-five percent of America’s modes of transportation—that would be planes, trains, trucks, boats, barges, and automobiles—run off petroleum products. "

http://www.ecoleaf.com/green_energy/petroleumgaspowerplants.html



1) What evidence have you possibly got to suggest that the towers were designed to withstand plane attacks? fires, yes. but plane attacks no chance.

2) Again where is the evidence the government won't allow an investigation? Surely they can investigate what they want. The official report cannot be categorical as speculation for painfully obvious reasons.

3) Another person's argument cannot be considered as evidence and that is all you have supported your inside job claim with so far. And I'm not in denial, I'm judging the matter on logical evidence which you seem to be incapable of doing in a number of regards - I've been reading some of your other threads.

4) This allegation that Al Qaeda doesn't exist is just ridiculous. They were well known and notorious well before 9/11. Bin Laden came out and accepted responsibility for the attacks and other Islamic countries supported this and condemned him - even if pakistan secretly sheltered him.

5) the war on terror collectively has cost 4 trillion: http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2011/06/warcosts . that's an awful lot of oil needed to cover those costs not even considering the loss of life. There's much easier sources of oil in the world and us have sizable reserves themselves anyway. Those figures about making *their* money back in just over a month are simply ridiculous. As I understand relatively little of Iraq's oil has been taken anyway: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html

6) I meant to say hijack threads, which you clearly do - this has nothing to do with my original post and I've seen you do it elsewhere.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Floridfist
I'm not replying to your post because I genuinely believe that that 9/11 was an inside job. However because you asked such an open question I would like to give you a concievable reason best explained in this short explanation of the "GOD" business. A little annoying to point you toward a film (on my part I would rather have solid referencing material). But it's hardly as if I could quote a higher up of American politics as being the one who said it without spouting bull****. That said, maybe someone will cut out the middle-man and start quoting the film as an authority figure on the matter xD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUuBQya7XTY

Either way, instability is the greatest factor in the ability to make money (a stable market is not one with much capitalist oppertunity of buying low, selling high). And the best way to create instability is to wage war. However this would be typically unacceptable to the masses as justifiable logic. So you need to create a desire for the masses to want the war you do. As mentioned in the clip, the three big things are Gun, Oil and Drugs. Now, does war help the gun trade? Incredibly. Have the Americans waged war in one of the richest natural resources of oil? Yes. And the other factor which I am more able to comment on, is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have opened countless new supply lines for heroin. Infact there have been countless scandals that barely got the attention of the public of British soldiers bringing Opium back into the UK by the ton, Ofcourse this was blamed on the "low pay" soldiers recieve. And it is directly responsible (in reality, difficult to prove on paper, but you can see a correlation between the war starting and heroin availability in the UK and America).

And needless to say in recent years the acceptance of drugs as a "social" activity, or even a pass-time for some is noteable in the UK. The benefit for this with governments is that even though it is money made illegally, which they rarely get to see. A large number of drug dealers are materialistic which means the money they make on the black-market becomes legitimate income which benefits the system. The taxes on the cigarettes and alcohol they buy, the rent they pay, Their cars which chew through petrol like kids through smarties. So long as a dealer isn't violent it is rare that the police force will pick a bone with them, and although I do not believe this to be an actual belief of the police force. A system has been built in place that leaves them no choice but to overlook these (and other) crimes, due to manipulated factors of prison availability, CJS, workload/over-reward. And no incentive to tackle what keeps them employed.

Anyway I never intended for this post to be this long haha, mainly just wanted to give you a "rational" reason that a country would attack it's own population under false pretense. Even if (and I can't stress this enough) it is not something I believe myself.

Truthfully I always thought that if it was an inside job, it would be for the benefit of covert warfare. (I'll explain briefly).
After attack on your major city which you planned, and the world's eyes on you. You blame an otherwise non-existant organisation and give it a figure head, labelling them as your enemy. But what happens is, this non-existant organisation starts to exist through the war you started in "retaliation". So you now have "extremists" in another country, wanting to blow themselves up for any reason that could "harm" your country. These extremists are blind and narrow minded, brain-washed even. Which you can manipulate very easily (simply by having spies find and recruit them under the pretense of "death to whatever you're against, in this case America and everyone else") and use them in circumstances where using your own military would violate numerous treaties and ethics, and risk war.
A little under-handed maybe, but when it comes to relationships between countries that don't make the paper. There is a lot of underhand business, and even more from countries that are always in the eye of the global public xD.

I like to think my theory is proven after they killed "Bin-laden" because before the first party popper was even let off, they started talking about "expect retaliation". Which just gives me this inkling that we can pretty much count on retaliation when it benefits the US most. But we'll see, I always hope I'm wrong when my brain thinks like this. =P


Ok I respect your opinion and agree with the principles behind the notions you bring up. At least you didn't try and reference it with nonsense. You lost me slightly at the drugs part I'm afraid though.

You're right about volatility in the market, but let's remember the US have had no problems finding wars for themselves in the past without blowing up their own countrymen first. On paper and in an ultra-competitive game theory scenario it's feasible, but in the real world it's just so unlikely, no government would sanction it to create market volatility.
Original post by Algorithm69
You're right, further research has been done. My bad. We now have:


indeed, a lot of articles of both sides.

Spoiler

Original post by Algorithm69
...


Spoiler

Original post by King-Panther
indeed, a lot of articles of both sides.

Spoiler



http://robinbrown.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/double-facepalm1.jpg


Indeed. It's like smashing your head against a brick wall.
Original post by Algorithm69
Indeed. It's like smashing your head against a brick wall.


Arguing with this guy is like playing chess with a pigeon.

You could be the greatest player in the world, but the pigeon will still knock over all the pieces, s**t on the board and strut around triumphantly.
Original post by King-Panther

Spoiler




A laughable attempt with laughable sources. And well done, seeing as how you're so fond of asserting people have commited a logical fallacy, you just made a biggie yourself:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
Original post by Banishingboredom
1) What evidence have you possibly got to suggest that the towers were designed to withstand plane attacks? fires, yes. but plane attacks no chance.


how about the the project manager of the construction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO1JxpVb2eU


2) Again where is the evidence the government won't allow an investigation? Surely they can investigate what they want. The official report cannot be categorical as speculation for painfully obvious reasons.


no, people dont have access to the evidence as it is confidential.

3) Another person's argument cannot be considered as evidence and that is all you have supported your inside job claim with so far. And I'm not in denial, I'm judging the matter on logical evidence which you seem to be incapable of doing in a number of regards - I've been reading some of your other threads.


show me where i do not provide evidence for my claims. attack my argument, not me!

4) This allegation that Al Qaeda doesn't exist is just ridiculous. They were well known and notorious well before 9/11. Bin Laden came out and accepted responsibility for the attacks and other Islamic countries supported this and condemned him - even if pakistan secretly sheltered him.


BBC documentary "power of nightmares" confirms this, watch the first minute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEBQY63skvY

no, nin laden denied this.

"Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks"

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16...ial/index.html

no, im a muslim and we're against the killing of innocent people, i condemn the CIA for carry out those attacks!

5) the war on terror collectively has cost 4 trillion: http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2011/06/warcosts . that's an awful lot of oil needed to cover those costs not even considering the loss of life. There's much easier sources of oil in the world and us have sizable reserves themselves anyway. Those figures about making *their* money back in just over a month are simply ridiculous. As I understand relatively little of Iraq's oil has been taken anyway: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html


the 15 trillion dollar a year economy depends on oil, so they made their money back in 4 months...

whose life, the life of people in the middle east, yeah im sure they care a lot. as long as the elite dont die, the elite wont care. no, the biggest oil reserves in the world are in the middle east. iraq was going to stop trading in dollars, therefore the US would no longer get it for "free" and when other countries buy it, it would no longer benefit them.

6) I meant to say hijack threads, which you clearly do - this has nothing to do with my original post and I've seen you do it elsewhere.


no, your original post was about bin laden, this is still connected to him, i mentioned him earlier on in this post...

spend less time attacking me, more time attacking my argument.
Original post by Algorithm69
A laughable attempt with laughable sources. And well done, seeing as how you're so fond of asserting people have commited a logical fallacy, you just made a biggie yourself:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop


how about you attack the argument. i could say the same about your sources.
Original post by Banishingboredom
Arguing with this guy is like playing chess with a pigeon.

You could be the greatest player in the world, but the pigeon will still knock over all the pieces, s**t on the board and strut around triumphantly.


Ad hominem attacks are ultimately self-defeating. They are equivalent to admitting that you have lost the argument

Quick Reply

Latest