Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sir Knight said:
Iraq should have been taken care of when we were over there the first time, when we were at the door. I can't explain why we didn't take care of it then, a lot less people would have died.
Click to expand...


The UNSC mandate didn't extend to invading Iraq and forcing a regime change. IMHO this was the UN's fatal mistake.

-Andrew
 
Gravy said:
Yes you have. You said you received the first patent on software, and you said you were leaving this board for good.
Click to expand...


Can you get double jeopardy on a lie? Because I think he has said he was leaving numerous times...

-Andrew
 
Sir Knight said:
You should really check out the CIA find out what they are capable of.
Click to expand...
Since they are not capable of silencing the intrepid Sir Knight who possesses so much knowledge that is dangerous to them, I'm not at all impressed by their ablities.
 
Well in a way, a strange way, I feel officially initiated now. Apparently someone over at libertyforum.org was annoyed enough at my blogpost debunking Uncle Fetzers 15 points, that they decided to not only post it there, and try to tear it to shreads, but they then posted on my blog, demeaning my debating skills, while still presenting very little evidence.

If you wanna debate with these guys, they seem to be more knoweldgable than the LC bunch.

the guy who posted ot the blog was named "Baiken", and he quotes himself and Rajter alot.

take a look:

my article posted on libertyforum.org

Check out my original BRIEF Debunking of the 15 points
 
Gravy said:
Since they are not capable of silencing the intrepid Sir Knight who possesses so much knowledge that is dangerous to them, I'm not at all impressed by their ablities.
Click to expand...

Well if I was anyone else I would be dead several times, but then again I refer you to my previous posts where I have clearly stated, THEY MAKE MISTAKES and ARE NOT GOD.

I just don't go down easily not that they haven't tried. I have plenty of documentation on that. And for the RECORD, I have said/stated that I have evidence of attempts on my life, I NEVER said they the CIA was directly responsible for that, what I did say was the CIA help set me up.
Maybe if it was the CIA that tried to kill me maybe I might not be posting, but then again I am not absolutely sure WHO tried to kill me every time but I know that my life has had several attempts on it, and I do know who tried to kill me on one occsion. The problems here is that you guys ADD to what I have said, and mix it around and then accuse me of things I didn't say but what you have said or made up/misconstrued etc.

And I have never said I was impressed by them either, just they are capable of more than you give them credit for.
 
It is funny, as I read all those who posted at the libertforum site to debunk my debunking, the only one to make any headway was randfreedom, who mainly attacted by debating skills (not my strong point), but did little to attack my debunking. All and all, given what a neophyte I am at this, I didnt fair too badly over there...randfreedom is the same guy who posted at my blog, with the same post you can find on the libertyforum.org site.
 
Sir Knight said:
Maybe if it was the CIA that tried to kill me maybe I might not be posting, but then again I am not absolutely sure WHO tried to kill me every time but I know that my life has had several attempts on it, and I do know who tried to kill me on one occsion.
Click to expand...
Here's something you can answer without revealing any state secrets. How many attempts on your life have there been, and what did they consist of?

This is just out of curiosity. I'd prefer that you stuck to issues directly related to 9/11. Are you going to read my long post and the information in the links I provided?
 
gumboot said:
Can you get double jeopardy on a lie? Because I think he has said he was leaving numerous times...

-Andrew
Click to expand...

Opps, I did leave but didn't you read the post where I said I was asked to come back NICELY? And I can change my mind, but maybe you do not believe in either free thinking, free speech or right to change my mind? I did not lie, I did leave, and it was almost for good. But my decision was based on a bad reaction to BS from people like you, but it turned out there were others that compensated for the likes of you. Otherwise I wouldn't have come back.

Like they say, you have to kiss a lot of toads before you get a prince. Well you are NOT the Prince. LOL
 
Sir Knight said:
Well if I was anyone else I would be dead several times, but then again I refer you to my previous posts where I have clearly stated, THEY MAKE MISTAKES and ARE NOT GOD.

I just don't go down easily not that they haven't tried. I have plenty of documentation on that. And for the RECORD, I have said/stated that I have evidence of attempts on my life, I NEVER said they the CIA was directly responsible for that, what I did say was the CIA help set me up.
Maybe if it was the CIA that tried to kill me maybe I might not be posting, but then again I am not absolutely sure WHO tried to kill me every time but I know that my life has had several attempts on it, and I do know who tried to kill me on one occsion. The problems here is that you guys ADD to what I have said, and mix it around and then accuse me of things I didn't say but what you have said or made up/misconstrued etc.

And I have never said I was impressed by them either, just they are capable of more than you give them credit for.
Click to expand...

Sir Knight, why won't you decimate us and post the evidence? If "they" haven't killed you yet, I doubt they would if "they" ever saw your post.

"They" seem to be stupid assassins if they can get your doctor and your mechanic, but not you.

Scare quotes are fun. :)
 
Gravy said:
Here's something you can answer without revealing any state secrets. How many attempts on your life have there been, and what did they consist of?

This is just out of curiosity. I'd prefer that you stuck to issues directly related to 9/11. Are you going to read my long post and the information in the links I provided?
Click to expand...

Fair enough, ok, 1. poisoning 2. Car set to blow up (this one was quite interesting and it was setup to look like an accident and it had worked it wouldn't have left any evidence. Depending on your point of view, mine is that I was fortunate the plan didn't work 3. Different Car tampered with to disable the air bag and there was a micro switch set underneath the dash that had disabled the rear brake lights so it wouldn't show on the dash they were not working. The last was involving two attempts on me, one was to maybe kill me with a rear end collision with no airbag, and if that didn't do the job, I was going to be charged with causing the accident in an attempt to do insurance fraud. Neither of them worked due to I found the problem due to constant checking of the cars on a weekly basis and when it did happen someone was nice enough to inform me the tail lights were not working without plowing into the car. Upon checking things out everything appeared to be ok but not working, it took an electrical expert to find what they had done. To break into the wiring in a manner to not show something on the dash was not a simple job. the little micro switch was put there to pick the right timing.

Those three I can state clearly because I have full docmentation on. there were others that appeared to be just accidental things but if you put all details together they were not accidental things. So since I don't have clear convincing evidence in my possession of those attempts I will not really go into details about them, but another 3 times would be accurate anyway.

As for your lengthy post, I was considering it, just not got to it yet.

Are you asking nicely? Or do you care? Just wondering.
 
gumboot said:
I think it might be a bit of both. From the interviews I have read/seen with former/escaped Iraqi scientists who worked on the program, I think it's probably likely that Saddam genuinely thought he did have a viable WMD program still, and was using it to keep Iran down. The scientists, meanwhile, had experienced some thorough education in what disappointing Saddam led to, so they kept up the bluff.

Of course this is only a few testimonies of what was going on, and they are speculating on what Saddam knew.



To be honest I think the greatest damage done by the whole affair is the United Nations. I think in the 10 years of sanctions and games with weapons inspectors that totally failed in their primary duties, and a unilateral invasion by the USA was simply the final nail in the UN coffin. The current hilarity with assembling a UN force for Lebanon may very well be the grave to toss the coffin into.



-Andrew
Click to expand...

I could not agree more, The UN may do some good, but when it comes to stooping bad things from happening their track record seems pretty abysmal. Where were UN troops in Lebanon before the current crisis, and they did nothing, so now they are send more over to do less then nothing. The UN should have an effective military stance or just admit that they are just a place for hot air to escape.
 
Pardalis said:
Yeah, but that would make you the princess.
Click to expand...


No that would make me someone who knows what a figure of speech is and makes you someone who doesn't know what a figure of speech is.

And to save time and effort I will reply to the other guy, oh yes I can do many different things, please refer to my other posts, you claim now that all I do is insult people. I was just mearly stating a FIGURE OF SPEECH FACT.

But you can call me Betty........ LOL
 
Last edited:
Sir Knight, I've started a new thread here for further discussion of your claims. Thanks for filling me on the murder attempts.
 
gumboot said:
To be honest I think the greatest damage done by the whole affair is the United Nations. I think in the 10 years of sanctions and games with weapons inspectors that totally failed in their primary duties, and a unilateral invasion by the USA was simply the final nail in the UN coffin. The current hilarity with assembling a UN force for Lebanon may very well be the grave to toss the coffin into.
Click to expand...

gumboot said:
The UNSC mandate didn't extend to invading Iraq and forcing a regime change. IMHO this was the UN's fatal mistake.
Click to expand...

SRW said:
I could not agree more, The UN may do some good, but when it comes to stooping bad things from happening their track record seems pretty abysmal. Where were UN troops in Lebanon before the current crisis, and they did nothing, so now they are send more over to do less then nothing. The UN should have an effective military stance or just admit that they are just a place for hot air to escape.
Click to expand...

I suppose this is not the place to discuss politics, but I can't resist reacting to these statements...
Has it, at any time, occurred to any of you across the big pond that the ineffectiveness of the UN may have everything to do with US foreign policy?

Suggesting that the unilateral US invasion was the final solution to ineffective UN games is simply breathtaking. A brilliant situation over there now, we all agree.
And then criticising the UN in its dealing with Lebanon... where the US, as Israel's main ally, could have been very effective in preventing that crisis, but didn't do much... and still isn't doing much... yes, breathtaking again.
 
hahaha man....I just read a few post by SKnight.....

Its a bit late, but I been away for a week, welcome mate...
 
Sir Knight said:
I just don't go down easily not that they haven't tried. I have plenty of documentation on that. And for the RECORD, I have said/stated that I have evidence of attempts on my life, I NEVER said they the CIA was directly responsible for that, what I did say was the CIA help set me up.
Maybe if it was the CIA that tried to kill me maybe I might not be posting, but then again I am not absolutely sure WHO tried to kill me every time but I know that my life has had several attempts on it, and I do know who tried to kill me on one occsion. The problems here is that you guys ADD to what I have said, and mix it around and then accuse me of things I didn't say but what you have said or made up/misconstrued etc.
Click to expand...

As much as I am replying and spamming a bit here in the last minute...why on earth are you posting on the net if your under such threatening circumstance. Im pretty sure anyone who wanted you 'dead' especially with a lot of resources such as the CIA would have no problem in making you invisible. Look how many unsolved murders there are. And your telling me/us that they are going to poison you or blow up your car etc and make it obvious your murdered.

* slaps head *

If you want a serious discussion, please go on, however save the James Bond crusader crap for somewhere else.

My two cents.

Cheers
 
brumsen said:
Has it, at any time, occurred to any of you across the big pond that the ineffectiveness of the UN may have everything to do with US foreign policy?
Click to expand...

I think it has had some impact at times, simply because the foreign policy of ALL permanent security council members has an influence. But I don't think US foreign policy, in particular, has been a significant influence in the UN's overall failures.


brumsen said:
Suggesting that the unilateral US invasion was the final solution to ineffective UN games is simply breathtaking. A brilliant situation over there now, we all agree.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. I said it was the final nail in the UN coffin. Do you understand what this means? What I am saying is the primary member of the UN acted outside the UN, in direct conflict to the UN, because the UN would not act. And the UN did NOTHING about the US's actions.

Thus the last shreds of UN credibility were destroyed.


brumsen said:
And then criticising the UN in its dealing with Lebanon... where the US, as Israel's main ally, could have been very effective in preventing that crisis, but didn't do much... and still isn't doing much... yes, breathtaking again.
Click to expand...

You may recall that Lebanon told the US to F*off. It is hard to come to a diplomatic solution when one side refuse to talk to you. And it may just be the US felt Israel was justified in its actions, as, quite frankly, I do. They invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter. It is their right.

By "not doing much" I assume you mean "giving over $200 million in aid"

The US aren't providing troops to the UN force, but neither is anyone else, in the latest UN disaster. The US will not provide soldiers to a UN force. Having almost lost one of our own soldiers in this latest conflict thanks to the UN, I don't blame them.

But yet... we are getting political... :o

-Andrew
 
Class said:
Sir Knight, why won't you decimate us and post the evidence? If "they" haven't killed you yet, I doubt they would if "they" ever saw your post.

"They" seem to be stupid assassins if they can get your doctor and your mechanic, but not you.


Well I would like to take some credit here if I may, if you could allow me some lattitude here. I should be dead several times over but I am pretty good at playing chess here. I tend to side step some things that maybe others wouldn't have. So some of my suviveability has to do with ME and not just them being stupid. I wouldn't call them stupid at all. Also since I have compiled a lot of evidence I have given it to certain people I can trust and have put some of it out to lawyers and others. so if anything should happen to me now they really have to make it look good, really good, but again I don't make myself an easy target and I am more careful than you can realize VERY.

And all I said was they just up and were gone, I never said I believed they were killed. I think they were transplanted somewhere, not necessarily in the ground. They must have some relocation program for witnesses they don't want around without killing them or so I sure hope. I never said I know everything, I just have certain proof of a conspiracy.

Decimate you? I dont think that would be possible over this medium, I really don't because you can't even get what I have stated here which is far from complicated and the evidence and such I have is lengthy, detailed and takes a while to put all the pieces together but they lock together quite nicely in a nice tight little package. It is easier for me since I have lived it and bear the marks of it but for someone coming in from the outside once I show some of it, it can make them a believer to an extent but to REALLY be blown away it would take a while for it all to soak in. It isn't one document or a recording to makes it all make sense. Well to be honest even after you put it all together you see what it is, but I don't think insanity will ever make complete total sense. It is like finally finding and tracking down a mass murderer and proving he is the man. That doesn't mean you will ever understand why he did what he did. Only he might truly know and then he might not even undestand why he did what he did. Liars and crooks I really cannot understand, my mind don't quite work that way, but that doesn't mean I can't prove they are liars or crooks does it? Besides no matter what I put up on here certain people would just say "THEY WOULDN'T DO THAT, THAT CAN'T HAPPEN, WE LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES". You see I have heard that all before and it was before I even got on here. Even when people see all I have and admits to it, they just DO NOT want to believe it as it totally unbelieveable. But see that is the way I see it myself, I didn't believe it could happen to me here in the land of the free and the brave. I had civil rights or so I thought, well I found out you have what they want you to have, when they want you to have them. And yes I was accused of being some sort of a Terrorist and there was no evidence of such, NONE WHAT SO EVER.

That has cost me more than words could ever express.

And posting on line here or not doesn't have anything to do with my life, it would have to do with showing all of my hand. They don't know all I have not really. They know of some of what I have that I know but they don't know all I have and who has copies of it. So that helps me somewhat in many respects, as I said befoe I am not stupid. And broadcasting everything online would be showing my hand and would give them time to prepare or falsify things. When I catch people I like catching them with their pants down (a figure of speech please......) Don't make enuendos about that and I am asking please........

One thing I do know for sure, absolutely without question and that is that SOME of the people involved do not want me alive, for as along as I am alive there are possiblities of police, government people, and supposedly civilians going to prison but then again maybe not, if their connections hold up, but they should go to prision is my point. I am not sure it is up for a vote here on whether I live or die, but I do not feel safe.

So take it for what it is worth. If you can read all my posts and can't see or sense any truth in them, I would say you have no intuition what so ever. There are a few on here that sensed it right away. I am sincere.

SK
Click to expand...
 
Class said:
Sir Knight, why won't you decimate us and post the evidence? If "they" haven't killed you yet, I doubt they would if "they" ever saw your post.

"They" seem to be stupid assassins if they can get your doctor and your mechanic, but not you.


Well I would like to take some credit here if I may, if you could allow me some lattitude here. I should be dead several times over but I am pretty good at playing chess here. I tend to side step some things that maybe others wouldn't have. So some of my suviveability has to do with ME and not just them being stupid. I wouldn't call them stupid at all. Also since I have compiled a lot of evidence I have given it to certain people I can trust and have put some of it out to lawyers and others. so if anything should happen to me now they really have to make it look good, really good, but again I don't make myself an easy target and I am more careful than you can realize VERY.

And all I said was they just up and were gone, I never said I believed they were killed. I think they were transplanted somewhere, not necessarily in the ground. They must have some relocation program for witnesses they don't want around without killing them or so I sure hope. I never said I know everything, I just have certain proof of a conspiracy.

Decimate you? I dont think that would be possible over this medium, I really don't because you can't even get what I have stated here which is far from complicated and the evidence and such I have is lengthy, detailed and takes a while to put all the pieces together but they lock together quite nicely in a nice tight little package. It is easier for me since I have lived it and bear the marks of it but for someone coming in from the outside once I show some of it, it can make them a believer to an extent but to REALLY be blown away it would take a while for it all to soak in. It isn't one document or a recording to makes it all make sense. Well to be honest even after you put it all together you see what it is, but I don't think insanity will ever make complete total sense. It is like finally finding and tracking down a mass murderer and proving he is the man. That doesn't mean you will ever understand why he did what he did. Only he might truly know and then he might not even undestand why he did what he did. Liars and crooks I really cannot understand, my mind don't quite work that way, but that doesn't mean I can't prove they are liars or crooks does it? Besides no matter what I put up on here certain people would just say "THEY WOULDN'T DO THAT, THAT CAN'T HAPPEN, WE LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES". You see I have heard that all before and it was before I even got on here. Even when people see all I have and admits to it, they just DO NOT want to believe it as it totally unbelieveable. But see that is the way I see it myself, I didn't believe it could happen to me here in the land of the free and the brave. I had civil rights or so I thought, well I found out you have what they want you to have, when they want you to have them. And yes I was accused of being some sort of a Terrorist and there was no evidence of such, NONE WHAT SO EVER.

That has cost me more than words could ever express.

And posting on line here or not doesn't have anything to do with my life, it would have to do with showing all of my hand. They don't know all I have not really. They know of some of what I have that I know but they don't know all I have and who has copies of it. So that helps me somewhat in many respects, as I said befoe I am not stupid. And broadcasting everything online would be showing my hand and would give them time to prepare or falsify things. When I catch people I like catching them with their pants down (a figure of speech please......) Don't make enuendos about that and I am asking please........

One thing I do know for sure, absolutely without question and that is that SOME of the people involved do not want me alive, for as along as I am alive there are possiblities of police, government people, and supposedly civilians going to prison but then again maybe not, if their connections hold up, but they should go to prision is my point. I am not sure it is up for a vote here on whether I live or die, but I do not feel safe.

So take it for what it is worth. If you can read all my posts and can't see or sense any truth in them, I would say you have no intuition what so ever. There are a few on here that sensed it right away. I am sincere.

SK
Click to expand...
 
JamesB said:
Heh, in an amusing case of irony I got e-mail from Steven Jones informing me that I was violating academic ethics for submitting my rebuttal to Frank Legge's paper to his journal, because it was already published in our (somewhat satirical) Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

Once again proving conclusively that by the "Scholars" standards the only prerequisite to be considered an "academic journal" is the ability to create a website.

Of course the other irony is that we actually have higher standards.
Click to expand...
But,
1) at least it is a consistent stance;
2) how exactly is it supposed to be violating academic ethics? Depending on what principle you go by, one might be in violation for submitting something to a peer-reviewed academic journal when it is already published anywhere else; and/or, there needn't be a violation as long as the editor of the older publication agrees that the author may submit his article elsewhere.

Anyway... how does it follow that "we" "actually have higher standards"?
 
hellaeon said:
As much as I am replying and spamming a bit here in the last minute...why on earth are you posting on the net if your under such threatening circumstance. Im pretty sure anyone who wanted you 'dead' especially with a lot of resources such as the CIA would have no problem in making you invisible. Look how many unsolved murders there are. And your telling me/us that they are going to poison you or blow up your car etc and make it obvious your murdered.

* slaps head *

Cheers
Click to expand...

Hello? Please READ MY POSTS, they weren't stupid, just unlucky with me. I say that were pretty smart and none of the things they tried so far would have LOOKED obvious to anyone that I was poisoned, that was designed to make it look like a heart attack and it almost worked, I was at the door, just didn't go in. And the other things would have just looked like unfortunate accidents, but not later it would be harder to make it look like an accident, much harder but that happened a while back now.

and you are correct, there are many unsolved murders and a ton of deaths that look like natural caused deaths for years and maybe forever. there have been perfect murders. Fortunately I am not one of them.

And why I am chatting on here is I am hoping to find someone anyone that might help me. I have some on here that have offered some help. We shall see if anything comes of that. I have my reasons, stated clearly in some of my posts for doing this. And trust me it isn't to get anyone's attention, I am not starving for attention. LOL For help, for assistance maybe, attention isn't my problem.

I am not the usual person and I am not in the most usual circumstances, and my NOT dying when I should have surely has pissed off some people. Their plans just didn't go well. You sound so dissapointed, I bet you wish I was one of those unsolved murders. LOL

SK
 
Last edited:
gumboot said:
What I am saying is the primary member of the UN acted outside the UN, in direct conflict to the UN, because the UN would not act. And the UN did NOTHING about the US's actions.

Thus the last shreds of UN credibility were destroyed.
Click to expand...
I believe that, as a permanent member of the security council, the US have a right of veto. So... what country's foreign policy is likely to have been instrumental in destroying UN credibility?

gumboot said:
You may recall that Lebanon told the US to F*off. It is hard to come to a diplomatic solution when one side refuse to talk to you. And it may just be the US felt Israel was justified in its actions, as, quite frankly, I do. They invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter. It is their right.
Click to expand...
What I recall is that Lebanon told the US to F* off when the resolution it had crafted with France did not call for an immediate cessation of hostilities.

Further, I'd like to point out that there are quite a few UN resolutions that Israel has simply ignored over the years. Guess who made it possible for them to get away with that.

ETA: I guess my question simply is, why pin blame for the Lebanon crisis on the UN rather than the US?
 
Last edited:
Sir Knight said:
3. Different Car tampered with to disable the air bag and there was a micro switch set underneath the dash that had disabled the rear brake lights so it wouldn't show on the dash they were not working. The last was involving two attempts on me, one was to maybe kill me with a rear end collision with no airbag, and if that didn't do the job, I was going to be charged with causing the accident in an attempt to do insurance fraud. Neither of them worked due to I found the problem due to constant checking of the cars on a weekly basis and when it did happen someone was nice enough to inform me the tail lights were not working without plowing into the car. Upon checking things out everything appeared to be ok but not working, it took an electrical expert to find what they had done. To break into the wiring in a manner to not show something on the dash was not a simple job. the little micro switch was put there to pick the right timing.
Click to expand...
What kind of car were you driving that has a brake light monitor? You are also aware that it would take very damned little to fool any lightbulb monitor? They don't check whether the silly things actually light up. They only check to see that they are drawing current. You don't need a "microswitch and the right timing" to do it. All you do is disconnect the wire to the brake light and connect a resistor to chassis ground.

Cheap and easy and harder to find after the crash.
 
brumsen said:
I believe that, as a permanent member of the security council, the US have a right of veto. So... what country's foreign policy is likely to have been instrumental in destroying UN credibility?
Click to expand...

The UN never tried to pass any resolution against the US. Had the UN any balls, they would have drafted a General Assembly Resolution. The US can't Veto that.


brumsen said:
What I recall is that Lebanon told the US to F* off when the resolution it had crafted with France did not call for an immediate cessation of hostilities.
Click to expand...

Lebanon told the US to F*off after Qana, well before any UN resolution was drafted. And it was the Arab League that rejected the first resolution.



brumsen said:
Further, I'd like to point out that there are quite a few UN resolutions that Israel has simply ignored over the years. Guess who made it possible for them to get away with that.
Click to expand...

If they were passed as resolutions the US clearly didn't veto them, did they?


brumsen said:
ETA: I guess my question simply is, why pin blame for the Lebanon crisis on the UN rather than the US?
Click to expand...

:confused:

When did I blame the Lebanon crisis on the UN? Personally I blame it on Lebanon. And I quite frankly think it has very little do to with the US at all.

The UN's disaster in Lebanon is it's failure to provide a measly 15,000 troops to enforce its resolution.

The armed forces of the current members of the UNSC (they being the countries that voted to deploy 15,000 troops) are:

France: 359,000
Russia: 1,037,000
UK: 190,000
USA: 1,421,950
China: 2,250,000
Argentina: unknown
Congo: unknown
Denmark: 26800
Ghana: 7000
Greece: 109,266
Japan: 239,430
Peru: 135,000
Qatar: 11,800
Slovakia: 27,000
Tanzania: 27,000

Giving a Total of about: 5.8 million

15,000 troops is about 0.2% of this total.

So assuming Argentina and the Republic of Congo do not contribute any troops, each Security Council member only has to contribute 0.2% of their armed forces to enfore a resolution THEY VOTED ON.


All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.

Clause 1
Chapter VII, Article 43
Charter of the United Nations
Click to expand...

Hence why the UN has failed.

I don't blame the UN for the conflict. I blame them for failing to do their duty effectively in stopping it.

-Andrew
 
gumboot said:
The UN never tried to pass any resolution against the US. Had the UN any balls, they would have drafted a General Assembly Resolution. The US can't Veto that.
Click to expand...
US has a big influence both within the UN and outside.

gumboot said:
If they were passed as resolutions the US clearly didn't veto them, did they?
Click to expand...
Guess they didn't need to, because they knew they would be able to let Israel get away with it.

gumboot said:
When did I blame the Lebanon crisis on the UN? Personally I blame it on Lebanon. And I quite frankly think it has very little do to with the US at all.....
I don't blame the UN for the conflict. I blame them for failing to do their duty effectively in stopping it.
Click to expand...
Point taken; I agree that the discussion should be about who should stop / have stopped it. But to think that the US has very little to do with the conflicts that Israel engages in is rather naive. So is the thought that the US have no role to play in stopping it.

gumboot said:
The UN's disaster in Lebanon is it's failure to provide a measly 15,000 troops to enforce its resolution.
Click to expand...
The main problem being that a clear mandate is lacking. Of course we all want hostilities to stop. But how to go about more definitive solutions to the complex conflicts and problems in the middle east? It is that which needs to be addressed, and in which the US would be well-positioned to play a major diplomatic role as Israel's main support. But it just is not happening. Why let Israel get away with ignoring all these UN resolutions, yet vigorously defend its right to self-defence? I don't find that very consistent.
Moreover, the US have everything to do with the current conflict, given that Hezbollah is backed by Iran, and given the fine relations of late between Iran and the US. Are US attitudes towards the Iran nuclear program, and towards Hezbollah's role in the region, really unrelated?

ETA: if we are to continue this conversation, should it be moved to another section?
 
Last edited:
Guys;

I am far from a debating expert, so I was hoping you could help me with respect my posting of "Debunking Fetzers 15 Points", and whether or not this guy "Baiken" (Blog name) aka "Randfreedom" (Libertyforum.org name) has any valid points against what I said, and what should be rebutted.

This post is long, but please take time to read it for me.

Here is my blog post on "Debunking Uncle Fetzer's 15 Points":


Here is a brief debunking of each of Uncle Fetzer's 15 Critical Points:

Point:
1. The impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed); the planes that hit were very similar to those they were designed to withstand, and they continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.

Debunk:
1. Noone in the last four years, who is serious about getting the truth out there, has claimed that "The planes by themselves" brought down the towers. Most experts, and non-experts now agree it was a combination of the plane crashes, the spread of jet fuel through out the building, and subsequent fires, that eventually brought down the towers. As for his comments on the WTC being "Designed" to "withstand" a plane impact, (a) The WTC was not "Designed" for such an impact, but rather, after the designs were finalized, the plans were analysed to see if such an impact would be withstood by the existing design, and this was found to be true. (b) Most experts say that this was infact true, as the buildings did stand for an hour or longer after impact...no one debates (seriously) that the impact by itself brought the towers down, as they obviously didn't.


Point:
2. The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit is about 1,000 degrees higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt, which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings down.

Debunk:
One of the few points Fetzer is right on, yes Steel "Melts" at 2800F. Fire as a result of JET FUEL ALONE only reaches about 1800F. The fires of WTC involved much more than Jet Fuel, including Plastics, Paper, Wood, Rubber, carpetting, etc... Most experts have estimated that the fires, in some areas, likely reached in excess of 2000F, well past the point where Steel weakens significantly. On his final point, Noone who is seriously debunking these issues claims that "melted Steel" brought down the buildings. Weakened steel, due to heat and strucutural damage from crashes, caused collapse in areas. These collapses then caused subsequent collapses, resulting in a "progressive collapse" with "pancaking" of the floors underneath as a result of the increase in kinetic energy released.


Point:
3. UL had certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees for at least six hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burned too low and too briefly – about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North – to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less melt.

Debunk:
For starters, The ASTM tests did not conduct testing for 6 hours, but rather a maximum of 3.5 hours. If someone has this "Proof" from a definitive source that states that the ASTM E119 Performance testing on the WTC Steel showed that the Steel should have not lost any of its strength or integrity for SIX HOURS, please point me to this DEFINITIVE SOURCE. Secondly, The ASTM TESTING is done in a specific, controlled environment, with no outside factors such as PLANE CRASHES. As well, it tests Building "Systems", not individual components such as steel. 3rd, the tests done in the ASTM E119 Testing, were on much smaller "Building Systems" in physical size, than those in question with the WTC.


Point:
4. If the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition that was observed.

Debunk:
This is speculation, without reference I might add. "Pancaking" is a known and well described Phenomenon is building collapse. The incredible weight of the building above the initial point of collapse, would likely have forced an instant collapse of the entire floor, once the collapse started. For more detailed anaylsis, by professional engineers of the Civil and Structural type, I refer you to the links on the right hand side of this site...


Point:
5. There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the collapse of the next lower floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken, which means that, even if one floor had collapsed due to the impacts and the fires, that could not have caused lower floors to fall.

Debunk:
Once again without reference. I, however, do know his references, and they are from unqualified "Scholars" and nothing more. Once again, since I am not a Civil or Structural Engineer, I will refer you to the links at the right of this page, and you can read the studies done by panels of such experts, relating to the Kinetic energy required, and if it was present...go ahead...


Point:
6. There was not enough kinetic energy for the collapse of one floor to bring about the pulverization of the next floor, even if the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires had been enough to cause the steel to weaken and one floor to collapse upon another, which required a massive source of energy beyond any that the government has considered.

Debunk:
Ok, for most of this, once again, links at the right. A comment, though. Who said anything about having to pulverize the concret on each floor to make the next floor collapse. This is proposterous. You don't have to make the concrete completely dust for the next floor to go...silly man.


Point:
7. Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse," which can only occur with concrete structures of "lift slab" construction and could not occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as Charles Pagelow has pointed out to me.

Debunk:
For starters, who is Charles Pagalow. Fetzer's source cannot be found on a Google search, unless he is the MEDICAL DOCTOR, Charles Pagalow...Not really qualified.
Since that is his only reference, in my opinion without credentials it is NO REFERENCE, and hence the whole statement is Speculation/opinion. Once again, for people with real credentials, I point you to the links at the right of this page.


Point:
8. The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 11 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds – which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.

Debunk:
Judy Woods - Dental Engineer, Also believes the buildings should have toppled over like trees that are cut down, which as most REAL engineers point out, is impossible. Beyond that, There is numerous footage that times the collapse of one of the towers at between 20-30 seconds (9/11 eyewitness). Once again, Go to the right and read the papers...they make all of these matters quite clear, and they are written by TEAMS of MIT Structural and Civil Engineers.


Point:
9. The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain.

Debunk:
Ummmm....last I checked, a steel structure, with massive redundancy, and essentially as hollow as a paper roll, was not equal to a dense, non-hollow, wooden structure, like a TREE!!!! The comparison of the towers to trees is limited to their external dimensions only...ie, they were tall and narrow. that is where the LEGITIMATE comparison ends...For reference to REAL studies, go to the right and click on the links...


Point:
10. Pools of molten metal were found at the subbasement levels three, four and five weeks later, an effect that could not have been produced by the plane-impact/jet-fuel-fire/pancake collapse scenario, which, of course, implies that it was not produced by such a cause.

Debunk:
1. Molten METAL, could be of many types. The outside of the towers was coated in alluminum siding. The planes were largely alluminum.
2. Fire embers can continue to be super hot for days and weeks if buried under earth. Coal is the same. Fires found under 110 storeys of Building debris likely created the same...
3. Fetzer's point is catagorically wrong.


Point:
11. WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 p.m. after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to "pull it," displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions, including a complete, abrupt and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, and so forth, an event so embarrassing to the official account that it is not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Debunk:
1. Classic Demolition involves weeks of planting explosives in structurally key areas, and requires teams of demolition workers to do so. If this could possibly have been done, than,
2. "Classic" Demolition involves the setting off of multiple charges on every floor, to weaken the structure into collapse. These Detonations are visible, and quite loud, yet not one, ONE, witness has reported such an occurance.
3.The "Pull it" comment was in reference to the Fire Rescue/Recovery Effort there, and was said because the Fire captain had informed SIlverstein of the massive loss of life. As a 3rd party, Silverstein would have had no real power to order the Demolition of WTC7 anyway, even if this was his meaning, which it was not.
4. It fell well outside its own footprint.
5. The 9/11 Report didn't mention the destruction to many other buildings in the complex. There was no reason to include WTC 7 over any of the other buildings not mentioned. NIST has addressed it, and on their site, they have an interim report for your reading pleasure.


Point:
12. The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

Debunk:
1. A "point" can be hit by anything, regardless of size or shape. If he is referring to the "Hole Size", than it was 80-90 Feet wide on the first floor, and was some 16-20 feet wide above that. This is more than enough to accomodate a Boeing Airliner that virtually disintigrated upon impact.
2. The Pentagon wall was structurally reinforced concrete and steel, and could withstand an incredible amount of damage, and impact, and as a result, being nearly "immovable", any object ramming into it at such a high speed, would have nowhere to go, and hence crumbled into millions of tiny pieces. The exceptions would have been the titanium parts of the engines, and the steel landing gear, both of which, in part, survived, and were found at the site (Do some REAL Research and you will find this to be true).
3. Bodies were found, and all were accounted for through DNA testing. Evidence from the MOUSSAOUI Trial shows several charred bodies. Likely, most of the victims in the plane were disingtigrated, and likely IDed from the tiniest of blood or body samples.
4. The debris was that of a Boeing 757, this point is wrong.


Point:
13. The Pentagon's own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The Factor"; but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 71-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible; it was not, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

Debunk:
1. his jump from evidence to definitve proof, is a huge stretch.
2. The only footage released is a LOW REZ, Security Cam, that only takes an image about once per second. Now in one second, how far can an airline travelling 600mph go...600mph = 10 miles per minute. that is 52000 ft per minute = 866 feet per second. That is 1/6th of a mile in a second. Seems to me it might be real easy for that camera, taking one pic per second, to miss the plane entirely...


Point:
14. The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory – flying at high speed barely above ground level – physically impossible; and if it had come in at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the government has no way out, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!

Debunk:
Well, If I can get beyond all of the opinion in the statement, and address the heart of the point...
1. Where is your source, from qualified pilots, who state that the damage to the Pentagon could not have been done by such a jet.
2. There is a crator, it is within the first floor of the crash site at the Pentagon. The Plane did gouge itself into the earth, under the first floor of the Pentagon where it hit. It isn't much of a crator, because most of the plane was destroyed hitting the reinforced concrete.


Point:
15. If Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been a debris field of about a city block in size, but in fact the debris is distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would be explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed as required by the government's official scenario. "

Debunk:
1. Where is your source.
2. The debris you speak of, covering 8 miles, refers to almost exclusively paper, and other materials that could have easily blown that far.
3. Any parts of the plane found that far, would have likely been the titanium engine parts, or steel landing gear, which could have bounced off the earth, and moved much further away.

If this is the best that the head and co-founder of the "SCHOLARS" can do, than lets just rest easy, as it aint nothin to get upset about....

AND HERE IS THE GUY (BAIKEN, AKA RANDFREEDOM) REPLY:


http://www.libertyforum.org/showfla...ew=collapsed&sb=5&o=21&vc=1&t=0#Post294877844


First of all, the official body of standing in the 9/11 debate is not defending against any of these arguments supporting the demolitions theory. NIST DECLINES DEBATE What this means is all such "debunking" by blogger "The Artistic Macrophage" 911 - You Judge is merely for propaganda purposes, and it is to beat back the endless stream of such propaganda that I even bother to respond.

1. Fallacy: Post Hoc. The Post Hoc fallacy derives its name from the Latin phrase "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." This has been traditionally interpreted as "After this, therefore because of this." The argument is commonly made by those who don't care to think 9/11 was an inside job. They will say, "I know what I saw. The planes hit the buildings, the buildings fell."

2. Fallacy: Burden of Proof. The burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. None of the four samples of core column steel from both WTC 1 and 2 in the fire-affected zones show temperature excursions exceeding 250 degrees. Here's a page I did on the core column steel in the fire zones Digest: NIST WTC Project 3 Report. I'm calling this a "Burden of Proof" fallacy because even though the forensic evidence shows insufficient temperature excursions to weaken the steel or cause it to buckle, the government supporters keep pushing this in our face as if we can't prove it didn't get hot enough to weaken the steel, when in fact the burden is really on them to prove it did.

3. Fallacy: Straw Man. The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a misrepresented version of that position. Fetzer's "point" was originally a refutation by Kevin Ryan (Underwriter's Laboratories) of a statement by Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew. Dr. Hyman Brown claimed "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Kevin Ryan refutes, "We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F. Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all."

4. Fallacy: Appeal to Authority. Here the blogger simply does a hand-wave to his "links on the side," when in fact none of those who have tried to prove the case of progressive and complete collapse (without demolitions) have succeeded. This also is another case of "Burden of Proof." Nevertheless, here's my personal refutation of Bazant and Zhou. Here is a table of how poorly the other pro-government arguments fare, by Rick Rajter (original source nomoregames.net)


Note that as of 2006-08-18 Ratjer is in the process of updating this analysis and so there may be some changes once he gets it published.

5. Fallacy: Burden of Proof. Fetzer is correct that the kinetic energy of the collapse of a floor would be insufficient to sustain collapse. When no steel high-rise in history has collapsed due to fire, it is incumbent on the official investigators to prove a building can collapse as we saw on TV from gravitational energy alone. If they can't do that, then they MUST entertain alternate hypotheses. Gordon Ross provides an excellent discussion of the energy/momentum problem in his papers here: journalof911studies.com.

6. Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule. Ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence. "This is proposterous. You don't have to make the concrete completely dust for the next floor to go...silly man." Well, the dust cloud shows the concrete being pulverized. The energy required to disintegrate the concrete and create that dust cloud is on the order of an order of magnitude (10x) times the gravitational potential energy of the building.



7. Fallacy: Red Herring. An irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. Obviously this blogger was searching for the referenced "Charles Pagelow" in order to mount some kind of personal attack, instead of addressing the very real point that steel-frame buildings simply cannot "pancake" due to the strength of the steel columns and the multiple lateral weldments.

8. This not even a fallacy, it is a lie. "...times the collapse of one of the towers at between 20-30 seconds (9/11 eyewitness)." Reviewing 9/11 eyewitness, the collapse time of the south tower is definitely under 10 seconds, whereas the north tower falls in under 14 seconds, with the "spire" hanging in space for another 10-15 seconds before slipping down into the dust cloud.

9. This is another lie. The WTC towers were not like a tube. They had a core of graduated strength (like a tree). This core was over-built, even considering age at the time of collapse, by a factor of 6.

10. Blogger "The Artistic Macrophage" latches onto the word "metal" and tries to confuse the issue with the subject of aluminum. However, the temperature of the metal and its color when excavated from the WTC basement show it quite clearly to be molten steel. This is the conclusion of Professor Jones and others, and was clearly Fetzer's reference. The point being that the WTC fires were not sufficiently extensive nor hot enough to last five weeks, but multiple fires created from thermate reactions throughout the structure ARE.

11. In refutation, I think I must rest the case on the evidence. Larry Silverstein: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." WTC fell rapidly, in under 6.5 seconds, straight down, produced large clouds of dust, collapsed into a tidy pile, with the wall facia flopped on top rather than out to the sides.

12. In every airline crash I've seen, there are the usual seats, luggage, trash, bodies, and recognizable airplane parts including wing tips and tail fin. With the exception of select pieces of fuselage skin that bore the recognizable paint job of the airline, none of these things were in evidence. The burnt bodies shown in the Moussoui trial were of occupants of the Pentagon.

13. Not only is there no clear camera evidence of flight 77 approaching or impacting the Pentagon, the tailfin that we do see is different than the fin of a 757:




14. Fetzer has an excellent argument here, which the blogger fails to discount. The only way to force a plane so close to the ground is at lower speeds, braking heavily. There is a compression wave of air that lifts the plane, vacuum above and compression below, and in approaching the ground it would have been forced up unless its downward angle of approach was greater. Interesting!

15. "The debris you speak of, covering 8 miles, refers to almost exclusively paper, and other materials that could have easily blown that far." Ha ha ha, that's amusing in itself except that in addition to the fact the debris was scattered along the flight path, there were human body parts: "discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine." source Clearly, the plane was fragmenting in the sky as it fell. Eyewitness accounts are consistent with a missile strike and not with a plane being flown into the ground.

Like I said, long, but any comments or critique on my approach or his would be appreciated.

T.A.M.
 
JamesB said:
Heh, in an amusing case of irony I got e-mail from Steven Jones informing me that I was violating academic ethics for submitting my rebuttal to Frank Legge's paper to his journal, because it was already published in our (somewhat satirical) Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

Once again proving conclusively that by the "Scholars" standards the only prerequisite to be considered an "academic journal" is the ability to create a website.

Of course the other irony is that we actually have higher standards.
Click to expand...
That's hilarious. Would it violate 'net ethics to publish his email somewhere?
 
Sir Knight said:
And I NEVER said I wasn't prepared to share people the FACTS, just that I will be careful with whom I share them.
Click to expand...

So far, that has been no one.

Unfortunately those in the military do what they say for the reasons they are told. And a lot of people won't tell the truth because of FEAR. It works on the majority of people. I have received private notes that have to do with that on here, and I understand how fear controls the masses.
Click to expand...

Really ? Pray tell, why would people be so afraid of their government in the US ?

Well why show 5 frames of a film when it was running BEFORE those 5 frames? That doesn't make sense, and what is the mystery, according to you guys the film would show the PLANE, well SHOW ME THE PLANE! LOL
Click to expand...

When did we say that ? The camera was just taking pictures. Before the 5 there was nothing.
 
gumboot said:
My 1fps is based on a car which came through the barrier arm - it only moved position once every second (roughly).

As far as I am aware the aircraft is only in one frame prior to impact.

I used this video. The frame I used was the second one (it has both the cameras, one after the other).

-Andrew

ETA. 0.5fps is not uncommon for a surveillance camera.
Click to expand...

Nice video, I hadn't seen one so complete before. Funny how twoofers use this as "evidence", as you can somewhat clearly make out the plane on at least one frame before it crashes, in both videos.
 
Sir Knight, Gravy in post 2524 has presented you with a huge amount of evidence that a passenger plane hit the Pentagon.

You somehow neglected to even acknowledge it. Interesting. Do you think that is all fake?
 
Sir Knight said:
If you download this exact footage, then focus on frame 7152. Frame 7152 is when the "plane" comes into view, but is only half painted in. Frame 7153 then adds a white color to make the plane seem real.

[...]

I am not suggesting either way, fake or real.
Click to expand...

Interesting contradiction.

Have fun but I wonder what you must dream about when you are asleep because from what I see from what you mostly post you must be dreaming now if you think you can change my mind from what you say.
Click to expand...

No, you really aren't that important.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom