It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why not plant WMD to justify Iraq war?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Nope, I havent read it. I will now but not sure when. I've got books in a drawl next to me, ones "An Islamic Perspctive Terror and Suicide Attacks and the others The Rise of Babylon. BUT in order to read them I need to finish a book about Wally World and the US's Social Security problem that I've started.

I DONT HAVE ENOUGH TIME!!!!!!!


But if you can post it I'd really appreciate it. History will judge the WOT and the war in Iraq as well as the WMD. History will decide truth, lies, fact and fiction.




posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
War_monger,

I appreciate your position. In your professional opinion, you believe that a fire burning for less than an hour brought down 100 stories of infrastructure?

That seems to belittle common sense (yes I have looked at other examples of burning sjy scrapers).

Remember the b-29 bomber that crashed into the Empire state building back in the day? That building was a lot less sound from an engineering standpoint, and it still up.

I challenge anyone who doesn't believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy to do the right thing. Step away from their position and really entertain the hundreds of elements surrounding 9/11, leading up to and afterwards, it will become self-evident. There is a psycholgy implanted in our american minds making us not want to see it. Alas, it is still there.

AAC

[edit on 11-8-2006 by AnAbsoluteCreation]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   
How did 9/11 come into this? We were talking about Iraq.

And I have listened to many arguments and watched video and heard from EXPERTS and not conspiracy theorist and all the experts say the same thing; the planes impact and heat from the fuel caused them to collapse because of the damage to the infrastructure and weight from above floors.

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I think we sometimes forget that the conspiracy theory community is not as large as we'd like it to be. unfortunatly most people aren't asking the tough questions. had the administration planted some WMD's at the begining of the invasion into iraq, it would have sealed the deal, no questions asked for 99.9% of the population.

we're not talking to ourselves, but we might be the only ones listening.


[edit on 11-8-2006 by bokinsmowl]



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mecheng

Originally posted by War_Monger
...very damaging to those who claim Saddam was not seeking WMD when we went into Iraq.


WM - I'd like to see the report if you have it. IMO, there's a big difference between saying we're going to invade another country because they have WMD's vs. we're going to invade another country because they're seeking WMDs.

Bush, Cheney, and Rummy all told us, prior to the invasion, that they have WMDs and that was the supposed reason for invading Iraq. Unfortunately, so far, it appears they're wrong.

So what I don't get is why not just plant them to say "see here they are"?


Mecheng

I'd first like to say that I comend you for the decency you have shown me here in this thread. I'm a new member for I've joined only recently but I have participated in several discussions already. There are some members of this site (I won't mention any names) that have attack me personaly and seem to only want to argue and fight simply because I disagree with them on the very topics relevent too our (yours and mine) disscussion here. Therefore, I will vote for you this month. It is members like you that make this worth participation. I hope we can continue to have an intelligent and rational discussion and transfer of ideas.

Now, in responce to the above quote, I would like reiterate the assertions of a member, who posted earlier to this thread, that it was not just Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld who were saying that Iraq had WMD. There were a number of intel agencies around the world who were saying the same thing. I remember the news stories about it in the time leading up to the invasion. I'm currently working to find good sources for this information.

I do agree, however, that something very unfortunate happended in regard to the intel on the WMD. Several questions must be asked (and answered) about the apparant intel failure. First, if the intel that the U.S. provided as justification for an invasion was faulty, what happened with the intel from other nations that agreed with that of the U.S.? That could, in the minds of conspiracy theorists, suggest not just a U.S. cooked conspiracy, but global collaboration for a conspiracy. Is that Likely? I think not. The other possibility is simply that the weapons were hidden somewhere in Iraq underground, as many other weapons have, or the weapons were destroyed in haste as a result of the threat of invasion, or that the weapons were transfered out of the country. There is one final point I would like to make about the "hidden weapons" theory. Even a cursory search on google will turn up much factual evidence of weapons that were found buried in the sand in Iraq. Even intact and fuctional fighter jets have been uncovered. And this was not a scrap yard either. If Saddam was willing to hide legal weapons in the ground, why wouldn't he be willing to hide illegal weapons in the sand? I'd like you to comment on that.

Here is another point to ponder. Lets just assume for a moment that Bush and Blair did lie about wmd to justify an invasion. What would be the consequences of lieing and cooking up faulty intel? THe consequences would be exactly what we are seeing today with people calling them liers and demading impeachment proceedings. Bush and Blair are not dumb. They would have understood the consequences and relized that there political careers and reputations would be severly damaged. Furthermore, if they lied people would have found out that they lied when no wmd turned up. They would have had to understand this as well. So why lie about something when you know for certain any lies are certain to be uncovered. I wouldn't do that and I don't think you would neither. No rational person would. Think about that.

Here is a link to the Duelfer Report:
www.cia.gov...



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mecheng

Originally posted by War_Monger
...very damaging to those who claim Saddam was not seeking WMD when we went into Iraq.


WM - I'd like to see the report if you have it. IMO, there's a big difference between saying we're going to invade another country because they have WMD's vs. we're going to invade another country because they're seeking WMDs.

Bush, Cheney, and Rummy all told us, prior to the invasion, that they have WMDs and that was the supposed reason for invading Iraq. Unfortunately, so far, it appears they're wrong.

So what I don't get is why not just plant them to say "see here they are"?


Mecheng

Are you advocating the planting of evidence? If so I have to ask why. As far as answering your question I have to say this: It's just plain wrong. Planting wmd and saying "see here they are" would be the big lie. The fact that this hasn't happened is eveident of the fact that that Bush and Blair are a bit more honest then then they are given credit for. Sure, planting would be an easy way to try to cover up a lie but as I as I stated in an earlier post, why would they lie when they have to know that lies alway push there way up through the sands of deception only to be revealed for what they are.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
WM - thanks for the kind words and for your vote. That was a very nice gesture.
I am absolutely not advocating the planting of or the lying about WMDs. I'm just wondering why they haven't. My angle is this... I believe they lied (I'll try to answer your questions above later) about the WMDs. I believe they knew that either Saddam didn't have them or had very little. Certainly not enough IMO to justify invading the country. Unfortunately I don't have time to link you to those sources but I believe they are readily available and have been discussed quite a bit here.

The thing is is if they lied about the WMDs why wouldn't they cover their tracks and plant the evidence right away so they wouldn't have to take the abuse they have gotten from people like me.

I really hate to do this. There is some good discussions going on now. I'm truely not blowing you off and will try to give better answers later. But I'm going camping with the family this weekend and I don't think I'll have any more time to get into this with you guys till next week.

But you kids keep having fun... take care



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by
War_monger,

I appreciate your position. In your professional opinion, you believe that a fire burning for less than an hour brought down 100 stories of infrastructure?

That seems to belittle common sense (yes I have looked at other examples of burning sjy scrapers).

Remember the b-29 bomber that crashed into the Empire state building back in the day? That building was a lot less sound from an engineering standpoint, and it still up.

I challenge anyone who doesn't believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy to do the right thing. Step away from their position and really entertain the hundreds of elements surrounding 9/11, leading up to and afterwards, it will become self-evident. There is a psycholgy implanted in our american minds making us not want to see it. Alas, it is still there.

AAC

[edit on 11-8-2006 by AnAbsoluteCreation]


AnAbsoluteCreation

I to respect your opinion. However, I strongly believe you to be mistaken. Allow me to explain. First, a B-29 never hit the Empire State Building. It was a B-25 Mitchell

source: Scroll down to July.

The B-25 was much smaller and much lighter than the Boeing 767's that crashed into the Twin Towers. Also, the 767 is a jet capable of speeds far great than the maximun speed of the prop driven B-25. It is very poor judgement to compare the combined supeior speed and maximun tonnage of the 767 to the inferior speed and tonnage of the B-25. More speed and mass results in higher impact energy.

The Twin Towers were designed to take a direct hit from a fully loaded Boeing 707. So does that mean that the building should have been able to survive the 767 impact. A comparison of the 767 to the 707 reveals that the 767 is not only larger in dimension but also an incredible 116,400 lbs heavier than a fully loaded 707! The answer is No.

Now, where do you get this information that the Empire State Building was "alot less sound from an engineering standpoint"? The Empire State Building uses the traditional steel column and girder construction with a concrete facde. This construction technique is used throughout the world on literally thousands of buildings and is known for its enormous strength and durability. In fact, it is quite common knowledge in the civil engineering community that column and girder construction is the one of the strongest designs available. The drawback in using this design is the fact that it uses tremendous amounts of steel which translates to tremendous costs and and a great total building mass. The fact that the Empire State Building (and many other buildings using this construction) is still standing after nearly 80 years is testement to the fact that column and girder construction is quite sturdy indeed.

People seem to think that the steel in the trade center had to melt and become a liquid in order for the building to become weak enough to collapse. This is a faulty assumption. The strength of steel, or any metal for that matter, weakens as a function of temperature. In fact, by the time steel reaches 44% of its melting temperature (approx 1100 degrees F) it has already lost 72% of its yield strength (source A)! In addition, steel, like all other metals, has a very low specific heat capacity, which means that it will absorb heat very quickly and easily and is the reason why it only took approximately 1 hour to fell the buildings. The reason that other buildings (column and girder) survived and the towers didn't has everything to do with their respective design criteria. You need to take into account the mass and the cross section of the steel, the amount of steel, the thermal translation in the buildings interior, and a whole host of other engineering considerations.

Sources and additional info:

source A: Handbook of Mathematical, Scientific, and Engineering (by the Staff of Research and education Association)

[url=http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/References/FireDesignSteel.pdf]Fire Design of Steel Structures



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Note to other members. My last post for some reason is all in red perhaps suggesting that it that I did not write it but links to it. I'm not sure what happened there but there are only two things that were meant to be links. Only the phrase "Scroll down to July" and the URL at the end of the post are suppossed to be links. Everything else is my writing. Sorry for problem.



posted on Aug, 11 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Thanks for the correction.


I was not referring to them being the same size, though it may have seemed that way. I meerly wanted to state my belief that 100 stories falling in under an hour of burning (which I believe was their reason for the collapes) is just hard for me to believe. The engineers that delievered the steal for the WTC to be constructed were verified post 9/11 by the engineers at being highest quality, with them saying themselves that the report was far-fetched. I won't try to make others believe this, but none others has yet to make me believe otherwise. AAC



posted on Aug, 12 2006 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mecheng
I believe the war in Iraq is illegal. I believe we went in there under false pretences. I believe the president lied to us by saying Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I therefore believe we made a mistake by preemptively attacking Iraq for those reasons.

So I'm wondering why hasn't the government simply planted WMDs to justify the war?


Because the weapons would have to be verified by an independant UN team, all of whom would be familiar with the technology and methods of construction used by the US.



posted on Aug, 13 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I think they were extremely confident they would find something Saddam had genuinely forgot to destroy. After all both the U.S and Russia (as well as probably a view other countries) have chemical and biological weapons they are still in the process of decommissioning
www.defenselink.mil...
www.ens-newswire.com...

Once they had found such weapons I think the plan would be to work out how deadly their contents would be if say they were injected into you. They would then be able to say in the press they had found a hundred or so WMD’s each with the capability to kill say 10,000 people. That would look good, the press would love it, and only sites like this would make people aware of the facts.

Actually planting WMD’s would be totally criminal to all those involved. Everyone from the president downwards would be committing both a national and international crime. In the event something leaked (which you could be sure it would) there is a chance the president would have to leave as an exile; or possibly do time.
As the war (post invasion) progressed the chances of being to do this (and get away with it) would grow slimmer. You would need the involvement of at least a hundred troops just to get them there; everyone one of those soldiers would be liability and you couldn’t be sure they would all get killed in action. In fact this might be a particularly bad idea if those involved got pissed.

Side Note
Contrary to popular belief the U.S only opposes the first use of these weapons; it retains the right to retaliate. www.fas.org...
I found that link interesting, on the one hand they are destroying perfectly good WMD’s on the other hand they retain the right to use them. I guess America will just have to make some new ones pretty damn quick in the event they want to retaliate?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join