Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Magic_007)
    This is from 2009. Not Sept 23, 2010!
    Sorry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4phN...layer_embedded
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    Sorry. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4phN...layer_embedded
    No problemo. Thankyou.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It was pretty pathetic imo that they walked out. I liked the speech though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Ok lets say you are righhow many people do you think would have to be involved with this operation?

    Im assuming you think it was a controlled demolition aand that it was explosives that brought down the building?
    Every news broadcaster reported secondary and tertiary explosions at all sites. I understand it is very difficult to contemplate that a government would kill its own people, and that there must be people who would know about this and this was the most difficult for me to contemplate but frankly I dont see much more evidence that it was done by al qaeda than the same psychological warfare and patriotic orgy the american media participate in. The fact that they resisted pressure from the victims of this attack to hold an inquiry is quite telling.

    I have delved NOT into the science of it all although many scientists point out that the building could not have collapsed at freefall speeds without explosives - and that traces of explosives where found at the site and heard and seen during the event anyway.

    Some other interesting points are that a german company that was contracted to recover data from hard drives after the attacks suggested that hundreds of millions of pounds were transfered as they may have thought the collapse would destroy the mainframes and therefore any trace of the money.

    Also that one of the planes that crashed that day had been that of a former officer at the pentagon who had left the year before.

    contrary to what the administration said - it was concievable to them that somebody would be interested in crashing their planes on the twin towers as they had held exersizes in prior years covering the same eventuality, even had a manual depicting the towers in cross hairs.

    the owner of the twin towers later talked about taking the decision to 'pull it' referring to wtc7 (the tower that collapsed without being crashed into)

    on that day there had been a major increase on the number put options on shares for american airlines, boeing etc which is basically betting on the fact their stock would fall.

    A neoconservative think tank which involved many from the administration at the time concluded that 'revolutionary change would be slow absent a new pearl harbour.'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Houdizzle)
    Actually the west installed the Shah's regime not the Islamic regime. This was due to the progressive Iranian Prime Minister at the time nationalising the oil which meant seizing it from BP.The Islamic revolution displaced the western backed Shah resulting in the US backing Iraq against the IRI in the Iran/Iraq war and the continuing animosity that we see to this day. (Although unlike the IRI our western governments change regularly and are accountable to the people. (At least when compared to the IRI)



    This makes no sense whatsoever. Ahmadinejad can have all the free speech he wants. That doesn't mean that the UN must provide a platform for him.



    Perhaps you should read the report before calling for another investigation? Then we can debate the parts of it that you find unsatisfactory?

    Rather than just dismissing it out of hand.



    Well judging by your above post it would seem that knowing more than you is not very difficult.
    No I believe he has as equal right to voice his opinions as any other country even if people do not agree with him. We shouldn't have to hear only what they want us to be told. Quite frankly why should america or britain have any platform to speak at the UN when they ignored the UN when embarking an illegal war?

    I wont waste time reading a report that THE PEOPLE WHO WRITE IT ADMITTED THEY WERE LIED TO YOU IDIOT. They write some **** like how an afghan who was described as having 'average to below average piloting skills' took a 330 degree turn with a commercial airliner that those who have piloted it say is impossible. Or stupidity like how they could not recover most black boxes because they were insenerated yet found the passport of mohamad attah loool. There was no reckage consistant with a plane at Pennsylvania - the broadcasters said this.

    While I admire your knowledge or history - I never claimed to know everything, just that the person in question should seek out knowledge before stating an opinion - I have done this and continue to do this.

    Having said that your history lesson is irrelevant as I had meant to say that it is rich for america to criticize iran for its recent election when they themselves install pupet governments and have done so in the past for their own gain - that is not particularly democratic.

    Even if it was not an inside job, why would they have resisted having any report what so ever, even at the request of the family members of the victims for 2 years, and have yet to hold an independent inquiry that has any credibility what so ever?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by β€ÐÏŔ™)
    No I believe he has as equal right to voice his opinions as any other country even if people do not agree with him. We shouldn't have to hear only what they want us to be told. Quite frankly why should america or britain have any platform to speak at the UN when they ignored the UN when embarking an illegal war?
    :facepalm2: The war was not illegal and not being given a platform at the UN doesn't have any effect on Ahmadinejad's freedom of speech.

    I wont waste time reading a report
    Of course you wont. Because you are not interested in reasonable and informed debate. You just want to cause an unlettered, rather shouty argument.

    Thankfully an anonymous internet forum is the only place you can do this.

    that THE PEOPLE WHO WRITE IT ADMITTED THEY WERE LIED TO YOU IDIOT. They write some **** like how an afghan who was described as having 'average to below average piloting skills' took a 330 degree turn with a commercial airliner that those who have piloted it say is impossible. Or stupidity like how they could not recover most black boxes because they were insenerated yet found the passport of mohamad attah loool. There was no reckage consistant with a plane at Pennsylvania - the broadcasters said this.
    I'm not even going to adress this. All and every claim made by those who want more than anything for 9/11 to be an inside job have been utterly refuted on relevant websites and even amateur blogs.

    Intelligent people stopped using the above arguments nine years ago. You're just making yourself look extremely silly. :rofl:

    While I admire your knowledge or history - I never claimed to know everything, just that the person in question should seek out knowledge before stating an opinion - I have done this and continue to do this.
    Well you obviously have'nt bearing in mind you didn't even know the recent history of Iran, and refused to read the 9/11 report because D3Y LIIEDD!!11 (Even though you didn't read it. :rolleyes:)

    [qute]Having said that your history lesson is irrelevant as I had meant to say that it is rich for america to criticize iran for its recent election when they themselves install pupet governments and have done so in the past for their own gain - that is not particularly democratic.[/quote]

    So you are saying that because past US administrations (The members of whom are mostly dead or dying) did a certain thing generations in the future can never intervene again to make it better.

    You know the Roman's invaded Persia a couple of thousand years ago. Does this rule Italy out of any NATO operations in the area? :sherlock:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    It was pretty pathetic imo that they walked out. I liked the speech though.

    That's probably because you lack an education.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Houdizzle)
    That's probably because you lack an education.
    Yes because that makes perfect sense in relation to what I said.

    Well done for owning yourself.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    It was pretty pathetic imo that they walked out.
    I totally agree.

    While I may not agree with what he was saying, I do agree with his right to say it and for him to be offered the same level of respect any speaker in the UN should be afforded.

    Its worries me that representitives of my country will walk out of a speech in the UN that they disagree with rather then show the speaker some common decency plus have the opportunity to challenge the points made once the speech had finished.

    Complete arrogrance shown by those walking out.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Yes because that makes perfect sense in relation to what I said.
    I think this proves my point.

    Well done for owning yourself.

    Objectivist?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Houdizzle)
    I think this proves my point.
    Quite
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EBgqgIWuoc

    There, not hard.
    LMAO It was too hard for some. This is from 2009 not 2010
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone explain what was so wrong with what Ahmadinejad said?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    It's nothing new.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Houdizzle)
    :facepalm2: The war was not illegal and not being given a platform at the UN doesn't have any effect on Ahmadinejad's freedom of speech.



    Of course you wont. Because you are not interested in reasonable and informed debate. You just want to cause an unlettered, rather shouty argument.

    Thankfully an anonymous internet forum is the only place you can do this.



    I'm not even going to adress this. All and every claim made by those who want more than anything for 9/11 to be an inside job have been utterly refuted on relevant websites and even amateur blogs.

    Intelligent people stopped using the above arguments nine years ago. You're just making yourself look extremely silly. :rofl:



    Well you obviously have'nt bearing in mind you didn't even know the recent history of Iran, and refused to read the 9/11 report because D3Y LIIEDD!!11 (Even though you didn't read it. :rolleyes:)

    [qute]Having said that your history lesson is irrelevant as I had meant to say that it is rich for america to criticize iran for its recent election when they themselves install pupet governments and have done so in the past for their own gain - that is not particularly democratic.
    It is interesting how you cut part of my sentence off before claiming that I was not interested in reasoned debate. I have looked for evidence this was done by al qaeda and haven't found much besides a patriotric orgy by the american media, where anyone who questions the official story is a ******** conspiracy theorist.

    Of course it is an illegal war you ******** - the attorney general had this view point up until a visit to the united states. They said he could launch missiles on major cities within 45 minutes, its been how long now? They admitted the evidence was 'sexed up', the weapons inspectors were not given enough time to do their jobs, its a load of ****. Im amazed you think the iraq invasion was legitimate.

    there you have it '9 year old arguments' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdnwLdyfGKQ, get of your high horse.

    That last point you made - america continues to install pupet governments. They have done so in iraq and afghanistan for one, whilst I never hear anyone criticize egypt for its dictatorship, particularly they are pro american. If egypt were to be a democracy the pro american administration of mubbarak would be out in minutes, yet there is a saying in egypt that egyptian elections are the among the best in the world as voters know the results before posting their ballot.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Mike)
    LMAO It was too hard for some. This is from 2009 not 2010
    I copied the wrong link. I already gave him the right one. Is it too hard for you to see other post?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Mike)
    Can someone explain what was so wrong with what Ahmadinejad said?
    Exactly thats what I thought - he said that there are three viewpoints surrounding the event and that it was illogical that the united states never conducted a full and proper independent investigation into the events of that day till this day, yet alone before killing thousands more people in iraq and afghanistan.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    I totally agree.

    While I may not agree with what he was saying, I do agree with his right to say it and for him to be offered the same level of respect any speaker in the UN should be afforded.

    Its worries me that representitives of my country will walk out of a speech in the UN that they disagree with rather then show the speaker some common decency plus have the opportunity to challenge the points made once the speech had finished.

    Complete arrogrance shown by those walking out.
    What exactly did he say was wrong? He said that there are three viewpoints surrounding that even, and that it was illogical that a full and independent investigation into 9/11 never took place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Houdizzle)
    ......
    You said you would not address the claims as I set out because they had been refuted and disproven by even amateur sites. I would be very interested to see this and for the good of the thread, educate us please.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    to say that America purposely inflicted such a horrific tradegy on it's own people is insane.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 26, 2010
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.