GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

TheFLY · 04-05-2002, 02:06 PM

Is there some suggestive evidence that points to the US knowing what was going to happen...? I suppose this is a spawn of that other nasty thread, "What really happened..." Don't blow a fuse -- here are some questions...

Did the CIA do an insurance examination of the structural integrity of the WTC just before it was hit...?
Did we have one of the hijackers in custody before the planes hit...?
Was there a swift agenda that was put through after the destruction...?

One of my friends made the connection w/ another moment of tragedy in history--Perl Harbor which he says was "allowed to happen" in order for the US to enter the war... Was it? Sacrifice is an integral element of war... right? You are going to have losses -- isn't it best to think ahead and have control of those losses? This is a basic rule of chess also...

Remember Spock --

"The good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one."

Did we see this attack coming and hope that the WTC would not collapse? If it had not collapsed... how many would be dead? Weren't a lot of these WTC floors empty? Would we have sent in as many firefighters if we thought it was going to fall? An announcement was made to the people in the building to stay inside because it was thought the building would not fall... It's all sick and horrible any way you look at it.

Nov 1, 2001 (President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia emerged from more than an hour of talks with President Bush today saying they could reach agreements that would alter the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, according to The New York Times. If so, that would free the United States to test a proposed anti-missile system while meeting Moscow's demand not to abandon the treaty altogether.)

Nov 29, 2001 (The U.S. military plans to conduct its fifth "hit-to-kill" missile defense test in space over the Pacific Ocean on Saturday as Moscow and Washington remain at odds over the American anti-missile program, Reuters reports. "It is scheduled for Saturday night. It is just part of an ongoing and robust missile defense program," Defense Department spokeswoman Victoria Clarke told reporters. Defense officials have stressed that the test, in which a projectile fired from Kwajalein island in the Pacific will attempt to intercept and shatter a dummy warhead launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, would not violate the 1972 Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty between the United States and the former Soviet Union. Two of four former U.S. hit-to-kill tests have been successful and two have failed. But Russia remains strongly opposed to plans by the Bush administration to move beyond the controversial ABM treaty. In "What's the Right Missile Defense System for America?" written just before the recent Bush-Putin summit, senior defense policy analyst Charles Pena said: "If the United States is going to build a new strategic framework with Russia and eventually scrap the ABM Treaty (although Russia still considers the treaty central to nuclear stability), it should do so to provide real national security for the U.S. homeland and not to be the world's policeman. Advocates of missile defense are quick to paint a 'doom and gloom' picture that America and Americans are defenseless against attacks from ballistic missiles. Why then are we pursuing a system that will defend the world and will be significantly more expensive than a system designed to defend the United States?")

December 12, 2001 (Bush to Withdraw U.S. from ABM Treaty
President Bush plans to give Russia notice soon of a decision to withdraw the United States from the 1972 treaty banning deployment of a nationwide antimissile system, according to The Washington Post. The officials said the announcement, which could come as early as this week, would invoke a clause in the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that requires six months' notice before abandoning the pact.)

Dec 14, 2001 (Rejecting Russian and Chinese opposition, President Bush gave formal notice on Thursday that the United States is abandoning the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to press ahead with a missile defense system., according to the Associated Press. In the White House Rose Garden, Bush said the Sept. 11 attacks proved the need to develop ways "to protect our people from future terrorists or rogue state missile attacks."
"We know that the terrorists and some of those who support them seek the ability to deliver death and destruction to our doorstep via missile. And we must have the freedom and the flexibility to develop effective defenses against those attacks," Bush said. Cato Institute defense analysts Ivan Eland and Charles Peña offered the following comments on the President's announcement: "We support the development of a limited national missile defense to protect the U.S. homeland and acknowledge that withdrawal from the ABM Treaty eventually may be necessary. But now is not the time to make that decision.
"First, the testing program for the most mature elements of a limited land-based missile defense system is still in its infancy. The results to date are largely positive and promising. But it is too early to make a deployment decision, which would require either amending, renegotiating or withdrawing from the treaty. Adequate testing of a limited land-based system can continue within the constraints of the treaty. Therefore, there is no immediately compelling reason to unilaterally withdraw from the treaty. "Second, President Bush claims that the ABM Treaty "hinders our government's ability to develop ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue-state missile attacks." However, ballistic missiles are the least likely means by which terrorists would attack the United States because missiles provide an immediately known point of origin, which would result in immediate U.S. retaliation. If a threat from rogue states (e.g., Iran, Iraq, and North Korea) emerges, it will not materialize for a number of years. Since both the threat and a thoroughly tested limited land-based missile defense system are still in the future, the United States does not need to abandon the ABM Treaty now. It can continue testing until a well-informed deployment decision can be made.")

04-05-2002, 02:06 PM
TheFLY So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: http://www.thefly.net/ --- Quit your job and live off steady traffic. Posts: 11,856	World Missle Defense and 911 Is there some suggestive evidence that points to the US knowing what was going to happen...? I suppose this is a spawn of that other nasty thread, "What really happened..." Don't blow a fuse -- here are some questions... Did the CIA do an insurance examination of the structural integrity of the WTC just before it was hit...? Did we have one of the hijackers in custody before the planes hit...? Was there a swift agenda that was put through after the destruction...? One of my friends made the connection w/ another moment of tragedy in history--Perl Harbor which he says was "allowed to happen" in order for the US to enter the war... Was it? Sacrifice is an integral element of war... right? You are going to have losses -- isn't it best to think ahead and have control of those losses? This is a basic rule of chess also... Remember Spock -- "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one." Did we see this attack coming and hope that the WTC would not collapse? If it had not collapsed... how many would be dead? Weren't a lot of these WTC floors empty? Would we have sent in as many firefighters if we thought it was going to fall? An announcement was made to the people in the building to stay inside because it was thought the building would not fall... It's all sick and horrible any way you look at it. Nov 1, 2001 (President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia emerged from more than an hour of talks with President Bush today saying they could reach agreements that would alter the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, according to The New York Times. If so, that would free the United States to test a proposed anti-missile system while meeting Moscow's demand not to abandon the treaty altogether.) Nov 29, 2001 (The U.S. military plans to conduct its fifth "hit-to-kill" missile defense test in space over the Pacific Ocean on Saturday as Moscow and Washington remain at odds over the American anti-missile program, Reuters reports. "It is scheduled for Saturday night. It is just part of an ongoing and robust missile defense program," Defense Department spokeswoman Victoria Clarke told reporters. Defense officials have stressed that the test, in which a projectile fired from Kwajalein island in the Pacific will attempt to intercept and shatter a dummy warhead launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, would not violate the 1972 Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty between the United States and the former Soviet Union. Two of four former U.S. hit-to-kill tests have been successful and two have failed. But Russia remains strongly opposed to plans by the Bush administration to move beyond the controversial ABM treaty. In "What's the Right Missile Defense System for America?" written just before the recent Bush-Putin summit, senior defense policy analyst Charles Pena said: "If the United States is going to build a new strategic framework with Russia and eventually scrap the ABM Treaty (although Russia still considers the treaty central to nuclear stability), it should do so to provide real national security for the U.S. homeland and not to be the world's policeman. Advocates of missile defense are quick to paint a 'doom and gloom' picture that America and Americans are defenseless against attacks from ballistic missiles. Why then are we pursuing a system that will defend the world and will be significantly more expensive than a system designed to defend the United States?") December 12, 2001 (Bush to Withdraw U.S. from ABM Treaty President Bush plans to give Russia notice soon of a decision to withdraw the United States from the 1972 treaty banning deployment of a nationwide antimissile system, according to The Washington Post. The officials said the announcement, which could come as early as this week, would invoke a clause in the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that requires six months' notice before abandoning the pact.) Dec 14, 2001 (Rejecting Russian and Chinese opposition, President Bush gave formal notice on Thursday that the United States is abandoning the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to press ahead with a missile defense system., according to the Associated Press. In the White House Rose Garden, Bush said the Sept. 11 attacks proved the need to develop ways "to protect our people from future terrorists or rogue state missile attacks." "We know that the terrorists and some of those who support them seek the ability to deliver death and destruction to our doorstep via missile. And we must have the freedom and the flexibility to develop effective defenses against those attacks," Bush said. Cato Institute defense analysts Ivan Eland and Charles Peña offered the following comments on the President's announcement: "We support the development of a limited national missile defense to protect the U.S. homeland and acknowledge that withdrawal from the ABM Treaty eventually may be necessary. But now is not the time to make that decision. "First, the testing program for the most mature elements of a limited land-based missile defense system is still in its infancy. The results to date are largely positive and promising. But it is too early to make a deployment decision, which would require either amending, renegotiating or withdrawing from the treaty. Adequate testing of a limited land-based system can continue within the constraints of the treaty. Therefore, there is no immediately compelling reason to unilaterally withdraw from the treaty. "Second, President Bush claims that the ABM Treaty "hinders our government's ability to develop ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue-state missile attacks." However, ballistic missiles are the least likely means by which terrorists would attack the United States because missiles provide an immediately known point of origin, which would result in immediate U.S. retaliation. If a threat from rogue states (e.g., Iran, Iraq, and North Korea) emerges, it will not materialize for a number of years. Since both the threat and a thoroughly tested limited land-based missile defense system are still in the future, the United States does not need to abandon the ABM Treaty now. It can continue testing until a well-informed deployment decision can be made.")