News Stories

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

I only meant that as a figure of speech. My point is that the engines on the planes that crashed on both the Twin Towers and the Pentagon (as well as Pennsylvania), couldn't have been vaporized without a single trace. I saw a documentary on this as well a long time ago. Even common sense should be able to tell you this though. When a plane crashes, it doesn't vaporize. The engines operate to work at extreme heat and speed. The heat expelled from the crash sites in the Pentagon and Pennsylvania, at least, could not have been greater than the heat in which the engines normally operate in. That being said, it's impossible for the engines to have vaporized.

They didn't. Peices of the plane were recovered. There are pictures of debris. However, a lot of it actually would vaporize and most of what's left would be inside the building. Seriously, look this stuff up rather than taking things like Loose Change at their word. What is with people and this "I saw it in a documentary so it must be true!" thinking no matter how much evidence there is against it.

Also, that vid you showed me in no way reflects what happened in either the Twin Towers or The Pentagon. It proves a plane can disintegrate on impact, but are you trying to tell me the concrete walls of the Pentagon or more importantly a random clearing in a forest are as tough and durable as a concrete wall of a nuclear power station? Sorry, but that vid doesn't prove anything to me.

If you say the walls aren't as tough, what does that mean in terms of where the majority of the wreckage from the plane would be? Inside the buildings maybe? Wreckage was found, and the parts that would be expected to survive, like the turbines in the engines, did survive. As for flight 93, most of the plane was recovered. What you don't see is large pieces of a plane because you're not going to see any after a plane crashes at over 500 mph.

If you look back and read my posts, that's exactly what I said. Go through it again.

No, no it wasn't. After I refuted your line about Bush needing to "divert attention" prior to 9-11, you retorted with, and I quote, "Also, in America, the ratings were not that bad, I know that. We're referring to Europe and possibly other places more than anything. Bush wanted to obtain more support and decided to provide the people with a common enemy." Key line there in bold. You explicitly said you were referring to Europe.

It was for the oil, and what I mean by oil is the potential market for the oil there. One of the largest oil reserves in the world and one of the most extensive pipelines formerly used by the Soviets would have given Bush great influence over the oil industry in general, especially in that part of Asia.

Except that once again Afghanistan doesn't have that much oil. I've cited a source on that too btw. There is no extensive pipeline built there by the Russians either. There is a plan to build such a pipeline, however, and in fact at one point a deal was struck with the Taliban to do so, though it fell through due to funding issues. Still, a pipeline would get constructed eventually invasion or not.

And yes, the oil would've also given Bush great political power and leverage considering oil is one of the biggest industries in the world today.

They don't have that much oil. The US could get more oil then Afghanistan is even believed to have by simply killing a few caribou in Alaska. That pipeline? It isn't even for oil, it's for natural gas.

As for the Talibans, they're an offshoot of Bush's "war on terrorism." What the media says about the Talibans is that they offered refuge to Al Queda, and Bush, wanting to go against Bin Laden, would have to face them as well. If it wasn't for that, the Talibans wouldn't be a problem. They don't have any considerable reasources to start a war to begin with. Also, considering Russia and China are in the vicinity, they cannot have the advantage its neighbours do from a geographical position.

Even without 9-11 and Al Qaeda, the Taliban were still brutally oppressing the Afghan people and destroying priceless historical artifacts, like those buddhist statues they blew up. More than enough reason to go in, if the US really wanted to do so. We've intervened in other countries for less. Of course 9-11 did happen and it was Al Qaeda, who were in Afghanistan, so it's a moot point now.

[Xion Valkyrie]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

1. in the US we would have give him a medal not a prison sentence.

2. he should have finish the job before calling the police

3. what happen to being able to defend his life, family and property against vicious criminals?

Completely agree. Such a sentencing would only further cause the general public to lose faith in the justice system. Next time people would just kill the criminals and hide the bodies instead.

[justsomeguy]

Why shouldn't there be a law that states that criminals are denied all legal and civil rights during both the commission of a crime and the escape from the scene, and that injuries sustained are not applicable for lawsuits or welfare? Then we wouldn't have this situation where an innocent man is imprisoned for chasing down and (permanently) disarming a thug who tied up and threatened his family.

And that part about the scumbag not being able to enter a plea is bullshit. The default plea should be "not guilty," which shouldn't matter much because any prosecutor should be able to nail this case.

[mechabao]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

I only meant that as a figure of speech. My point is that the engines on the planes that crashed on both the Twin Towers and the Pentagon (as well as Pennsylvania), couldn't have been vaporized without a single trace. I saw a documentary on this as well a long time ago. Even common sense should be able to tell you this though. When a plane crashes, it doesn't vaporize. The engines operate to work at extreme heat and speed. The heat expelled from the crash sites in the Pentagon and Pennsylvania, at least, could not have been greater than the heat in which the engines normally operate in. That being said, it's impossible for the engines to have vaporized.

Vaporized? More like melted due to the extreme heat caused by thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel. The rest of the plane's composite material would have been scattered by the force of the impact.

Also, that vid you showed me in no way reflects what happened in either the Twin Towers or The Pentagon. It proves a plane can disintegrate on impact, but are you trying to tell me the concrete walls of the Pentagon or more importantly a random clearing in a forest are as tough and durable as a concrete wall of a nuclear power station? Sorry, but that vid doesn't prove anything to me.

(snip...)

The ground would like to say hello.

[Vexx]

I love it when people who don't know a thing about aviation engineering or aviation forensics speak up about plane crashes ..... o.O. But then half my family thinks I'm a MiB because I worked in classified areas of NASA and the Air Force so don't mind me.

[FateAnomaly]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

1. in the US we would have give him a medal not a prison sentence.

2. he should have finish the job before calling the police

3. what happen to being able to defend his life, family and property against vicious criminals?

There is something very wrong with the judge. He is probably prejudiced against the defendant or something.

[ClockWorkAngel]

I wouldn't find it surprising that he might have prejudice against the defendant.

Why is there so much protection for the instigators of the crime? Would the "crime" that was committed against the instigators have happened if the instigators didn't commit the initial crime? What could have Mr. Hussain do? Let his family be harmed and possibly be killed and let the slow hand of the law to act upon it? What Mr. Hussain did was civil service; he made it so that without out doubt that one of the instigators would no longer have the capacity to harm others.

I am by no means an advocate of vigilantism (It can and does get very bad very quickly) but there's a certain line that the law should not be able to cross especially when the situation is so dire and the circumstances so fantastical.

Let's hope he can appeal his charges and that the rest of the criminals get caught and locked up forever.

[justsomeguy]

It wasn't actually self defense, since the scum was running away when Hussain chased him down and beat the **** out of him. Of course, a criminal who would take hostages and threaten to kill them cannot be trusted not to return; nor would Hussain be considered a man if he did not take vengeance for the threat to his family.

[WordShaker]

Originally Posted by ClockWorkAngel

*snip*

I understand your point, but it's important to realize that necessary force only goes so far. In the news report, it noted that Salem, the criminal, suffered permanent brain damage after being hit by a cricket pole and continued to be beat after he was incapacitated. While I'm not trying to mitigate Salem's crimes, I am trying to say that Hussain went too far.

Even criminals have a right to be free from harm, though it could be argued, convincingly, that he revoked it after he decided to commit the crime. Even in that case, the pursuance of self-defense and the use of "castle" laws (though I'm not sure how they're termed in the UK) has to restrict itself to a certain amount of force.

[justsomeguy]

I don't think the UK has the castle doctrine at all. Victims are required to run unless the criminal is literally about to kill them. By then of course, the victim has his back to the attacker and it's too late to defend himself anyway.

If all the news I've read about the UK is right, that country is filled with uncontrollable yobs, runaway bureaucracy, bone-headed cops, and people who dare to defend themselves being punished more harshly than actual criminals. All of this crap stems from the idea that criminals have rights that must be respected, even while committing the crime!

Given that he and his family were tied up and threatened with death themselves by a man who clearly demonstrated that he had no qualms about killing, Hussain did the rationally correct thing by ensuring that Salem never put his family in danger again (which anybody with a brain knows will happen). How dare the judge talk about "rule of law" and "civilized society" when a asshole with 50 prior convictions was allowed to roam the streets. Since guns are banned in Britain, Hussain had no choice but to resort to an inefficient beating once he decided to eliminate the threat.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by FateAnomaly

There is something very wrong with the judge. He is probably prejudiced against the defendant or something.

Or, you know, prejudiced in favor of the rule of law. Or quite possibly trying to do his job of judge.

[QUOTE=ClockWorkAngel;2823002]I wouldn't find it surprising that he might have prejudice against the defendant.

Why is there so much protection for the instigators of the crime? Would the "crime" that was committed against the instigators have happened if the instigators didn't commit the initial crime? What could have Mr. Hussain do? Let his family be harmed and possibly be killed and let the slow hand of the law to act upon it? What Mr. Hussain did was civil service; he made it so that without out doubt that one of the instigators would no longer have the capacity to harm others.

I am by no means an advocate of vigilantism|/quote]
Except in your previous paragraph.

(It can and does get very bad very quickly) but there's a certain line that the law should not be able to cross especially when the situation is so dire and the circumstances so fantastical.

But that's the thing, isn't it? Once the criminals were on the run, the situation wasn't dire anymore. Except for the criminals.


I'm not necessarily against beating up criminals. But I wouldn't go as far as accusing the judge of bias when he clearly had grounds for his decision. That's the way the law's set up in the UK. What's he to do?

Besides, it's no more absurd than a burglar having an accident in the home he broke into and suing the owner.

[FateAnomaly]

Must be great being a criminal in the UK.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Even without 9-11 and Al Qaeda, the Taliban were still brutally oppressing the Afghan people and destroying priceless historical artifacts, like those buddhist statues they blew up. More than enough reason to go in, if the US really wanted to do so. We've intervened in other countries for less. Of course 9-11 did happen and it was Al Qaeda, who were in Afghanistan, so it's a moot point now.

Is this meant to be your justification for a war lead by a democracy?
I am not so sure if US-american/NATO intervention will bring sustainable peace in the region. Which renders your whole argument void. You cannot force people to be democratic. There has to be at least a considerable amount of them who want democracy and fight for it/defend it. But imo there is not much hope - I guess that it will end in an equally authoritarian system as it was before.
The only place were bringing peace and democracy by the means of war worked is europe and japan. I don't know why many people are still thinking that what worked in europe/japan is applicable to whole world.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Jinto

Is this meant to be your justification for a war lead by a democracy?
I am not so sure if US-american/NATO intervention will bring sustainable peace in the region. Which renders your whole argument void. You cannot force people to be democratic. There has to be at least a considerable amount of them who want democracy and fight for it/defend it. But imo there is not much hope - I guess that it will end in an equally authoritarian system as it was before.
The only place were bringing peace and democracy by the means of war worked is europe and japan. I don't know why many people are still thinking that what worked in europe/japan is applicable to whole world.

I don't believe I said anything about bringing democracy to Afghanistan. This was in response to Yoko Takeo's belief that the US government staged 9-11 to give casus belli for an invasion of Afghanistan. I wasn't attempting to justify the war, merely pointing out that there would have been ample cause without 9-11 had the US really been interested in invading.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I love it when people who don't know a thing about aviation engineering or aviation forensics speak up about plane crashes ..... o.O. But then half my family thinks I'm a MiB because I worked in classified areas of NASA and the Air Force so don't mind me.

Don't trust him when he says that. He is just lulling you to getting your guard down so he can abduct you for experiments in Area 51. He could even be one of those involved in DARPA's mass production of catgirls that have strong cuteness proximity plus a heart-shaped energy beam that can vaporise those who are immune.

Originally Posted by mechabao

Vaporized? More like melted due to the extreme heat caused by thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel. The rest of the plane's composite material would have been scattered by the force of the impact.

Ever studied thermodynamics in Physics class? If it is melted or vaporised, then the plane would have turned into a frying pan for humans upon takeoff or activation of engine. There is something called entropy that spreads the heat from a body to another (Zeroth/First Law of Thermodynamics). I know nothing of aviation science, but simple science can explain alot of complex things.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

I don't believe I said anything about bringing democracy to Afghanistan. This was in response to Yoko Takeo's belief that the US government staged 9-11 to give casus belli for an invasion of Afghanistan. I wasn't attempting to justify the war, merely pointing out that there would have been ample cause without 9-11 had the US really been interested in invading.

Let me explain please. You were talking about destroying priceless historical artifacts. Now I couldn't believe anyone would think this would be a sufficient reason to wage war.
The other thing you mentioned are the oppressed afghan people. You said this alone would be more than enough reason. So, unless you just want to bring war to oppressed people because of war's sake, then I don't know what your point is. Maybe the goal is to let oppressed people suffer even more by the means of waging war and the chaos that is ruling afterwards? But I was thinking no sane person would think like that.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Jinto

Let me explain please. You were talking about destroying priceless historical artifacts. Now I couldn't believe anyone would think this would be a sufficient reason to wage war.
The other thing you mentioned are the oppressed afghan people. You said this alone would be more than enough reason. So, unless you just want to bring war to oppressed people because of war's sake, then I don't know what your point is. Maybe the goal is to let oppressed people suffer even more by the means of waging war and the chaos that is ruling afterwards? But I was thinking no sane person would think like that.

Like I said, Yoko Takeo claimed the US government staged 9-11, or at least could have stopped it but allowed it to happen anyway, to get public support to invade Afghanistan because they wanted oil. My point there was the US government didn't need a 9-11 to make this case. They could have just focused on the Taliban's oppression to make a case for an invasion if they really wanted to invade. I was not attempting to provide a point by point discussion of what they would use to sell the war, just mentioning things off the top of my head.

[mechabao]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Don't trust him when he says that. He is just lulling you to getting your guard down so he can abduct you for experiments in Area 51. He could even be one of those involved in DARPA's mass production of catgirls that have strong cuteness proximity plus a heart-shaped energy beam that can vaporise those who are immune.



Ever studied thermodynamics in Physics class? If it is melted or vaporised, then the plane would have turned into a frying pan for humans upon takeoff or activation of engine. There is something called entropy that spreads the heat from a body to another (Zeroth/First Law of Thermodynamics). I know nothing of aviation science, but simple science can explain alot of complex things.

No. No. I meant when the the plane's fuel has been scattered after the crash and after they've set fire to anything flammable nearby. Though I doubt metal components would actually melt completely. Maybe warped by the heat?

[Cipher]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

They could have just focused on the Taliban's oppression to make a case for an invasion if they really wanted to invade.

But won't a greater more "direct" motivation, 9-11, serve better?

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Cipher

But won't a greater more "direct" motivation, 9-11, serve better?

Perhaps, but the US already had that too, the attack on the USS Cole. 9-11 wouldn't have been necessary to sell the American public on a war.