This article references an external link -- click here to visit 
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE
|
Would something this terrible be possible?Rate this:
 
Published Wed 05 Sep 2007,
523 Views,
17 Comments
|
armitage_shanks
17 Comments
in any case i dont buy the majority of the claims made, either for lack of evidence, inclusive theories, or because most of it doesn't make sense
that isn't to say that i don't think companies like haliburton didn't profit off of 9-11 or that theres a heck of a lot of information out there that hasn't been made public, and i certainly don't buy everything the government has put out there either (infact i trust them even less)
its hard to know what to believe, but unlike some people, i am open to a variety of possibilities and will not take just one source as absolute truth
Have a nosey at this here video ... took a while to find it cos google video's has removed it a few times.
One of the most interesting bits for me is about 22 mins in.... when it comments on the speed of the buildings collapse downwards. 10 seconds... Watch and see!
Try this version instead
http://video.google.com/v...ocid=-3214024953129565561
how much blood are we going to spill? - way too much :(
As for how much blood is going to be spilt... does anyone here actually think administrations care? Another death in Iraq.... is good news... it can be used to keep people appalled at what is being done to our "good people who are only there to help".
Politics is business and power. While the people wielding these two swords still see a market to be exploited for profit, exploited it will be.
"...but can't help but take exception to death being good news. These are not just numbers or casualties. They are people who love and are loved. There is more at stake here than business.". That's your view as an individual. The fact that you take exception to it does not detract from the fact that it is true from the various administrations points of view. Did you read the context of the statement, or just what you thought you saw?
And as for "Clearly you have not lost someone close to you Alistair. I am happy you have not had to experience it. Perhaps you would have a deeper understanding of my questions after researching that type of loss."... From a personal point of view i find that patronising, condescending and hugely presumptuous... having lost a father and child in the space of the last two years. Or perhaps this is a contextual thing again in which case i was working with the Cheshire regiment and members of the Royal Green Jackets, before you were likely out of school.
This is a discussion. I am being objective. The people who have sent soldiers into the various illegal wars have no interest in their well being, nor the hundreds of civilians who die on a weekly basis, only in what they can gain from it politically and financially. They would claim that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one), while all the time accumulating more for themselves and their own organisations.
I know nothing about you, you know nothing about me. Please... think about that when making such statements.
could easily be misinterpreted, especially by someone who has recently lost someone due to one of the wars going on.
Clearly you have not lost someone close to you Alistair
This isn't really open to misinterpretation. Its rubbish. Because someone has "lost someone" doesn't give them the right to assume about others.
I was polite, and restrained in my reply. I have illustrated that maybe they are not seeing what's there, but are maybe seeing what they want to see in order to then say something that fits in with what they are feeling.
Perhaps he/she will have a deeper understanding of my answers when viewed through eyes free from tears?
I wrote this years ago...
Gone
Gone
All thats left are pictures.
Memories.
Nothing tactile.
Nothing solid.
Nothing to wrap my arms around and hold.
Pictures fade.
Memories too.
Like you did.
Once, life personified.
Vibrant! Effervescing!
Radiant!
Now, just dust.
Consumed by fire,
What joy in its image created,
Death, in its vengeance cremated.
And in its place,
A void.
An abyss.
With me at its centre.
Falling, flailing,
Nothing to cling to,
Just perpetual loss.
No respite.
For when I think of you,
The only descriptive my mind will give,
Is Gone
Yup.. clearly I know nothing of loss
I responded to your statements, and yes I can read, because of what I thought you were saying. I did not accuse you of having no feelings or knowing nothing of loss. What I said was that your statements (in context with what you wrote) gave me the impression that this was impersonal for you and in your opinion amounted to business, money, power, and nothing more. This was not an attack. I admit I am overly sensitive to these types of things and there is a lot of room for me to misunderstand, and clearly I am having trouble expressing exactly what I mean. I have since re read what you wrote and have to admit that I am still seeing the wording as being interpreted in a way you obviously did not mean.
I am sorry for your loss, and if you re read what I wrote, I was glad if you did not have to endure this type of loss, not being condescending. The way you worded it sounded like you had not. I was obviously wrong, however, I was not judging you, and since it came across that way, I am sorry. That was not my intent. I was Not accusing you of anything. This is something that no one should have to go through. I am sorry for your loss, truly. I did not mean to offend you.
I am aware that this was not "my" post to start with, and I was not trying to take it over. Just adding my thoughts. In the future I will try to be more sensitive to others. But I am still going to say what I think. That is who I am, and that will not change. I will try to be more clear and not come across as confrontational. It was not my intent, and I will try in the future to be more clear.
Thank you. For saying what you think. I'd have it no other way. Even if it does spark an "ouch".
I was not being angry, merely objective. And indeed objecting only to the line "Clearly you have not lost someone close to you Alistair." I actually tried to send you a link to the copy of an online book after having read of your loss but unfortunately it seems i have to be "friends" with someone before I can mail them internally.
As for being more sensitive... I am guilty of times of saying exactly what I am thinking. Sometimes that can cause a few raised eyebrows. Its me. Its who I am. That too can be seen as confrontational. I tend not to let emotions get in the way of facts. What I feel about something, bares no relevance most of the time to the actually of life. I analyse things and then comment via that analysis rather than what i feel emotionally on a subject. Maybe its a defence mechanism, to remain disconnected? All I know is it works for me.
And for the topic, or rather the Iraq situation which is a direct result of it, I say again that the more deaths their are out in these places, the easier it becomes for the authorities to say "See... look at the lawlessness... we are needed". The individuals who have to carry these losses are just disregarded. They are not important in their scheme of things.
And the actual topic... again i urge people to watch the video i list on the second reply post i listed.
Hey you know AdGuy always gets the last word! ;)