Did Sadam go out like a punk??

[Xenocrates]

[quote author=GodKid link=board=29;threadid=2611;start=30#msg25639 date=1072769555]the third plane though going extremely fast was OBVIOUSLY deceptive in at least 1 way... the pilot's control...

think about it.. why did they have to pull off that WICKED manuever as described by CBS if they weren't trying to decieve anybody... wouldn't they just have FLOWN IT INTO THE BUILDING like they did with the WTC.. why the fandangles? why the show of skill? .. to me.. they were up to something.. then when it would have been too late for defense mechanisms to act (remember the Pentagon has roads and other buildings around... S.A.M.s would NOT be welcome.. especially if they missed : :
[/quote]

- Ehehehehe.... Not so GK. Sometimes the truth is a lot simpler than you think. The pilot, having almost missed his target, made the best effort he could to get there. He didn't hit the Pentagon as hard as he had intended. If you watch the trajectory reports from the first two planes carefully, you will see that both planes took an almost 180^o turn JUST so that they could hit the towers from the bay area. Both planes impacted the towers at a slightly tilted angle, indicative of their trajectory from takeoff.

Similarly, the plane that hit the pentagon would have missed its target had it not taken the almost 360^o spiral which it engaged just to hit the target. The plane still dropped a little short of its target point. The pilots weren't trying to showoff. They were trying to do Allah a favour - or so they thought.

[Xenocrates]

[quote author=GodKid link=board=29;threadid=2611;start=30#msg25639 date=1072769555]
... so Nas.. Xeno... lenme say it again.. be careful that whilst thinking outside of the box you don't find yourself stepping into another one!
[/quote]

- GK, the paradox has tied you into a rather interesting predicament! Don't you realise that the Statement "to think outside of the box" is a paradox? Lemme explain:

If we think outside of a box, we are only thinking within the constraints of a bigger one. Therefore, the statement is not an attempt to absolve the thinker of all boxes, but rather, the innate propensity with which he is likely to constrain his thought. For without boxes GK, it is virtually impossible to draw a reference point on anything, considering that the box is merely a construct for a thought, and all thoughts on a specific subject matter are constrained by the rules of the specific box.

HOWEVER...

Thinking outside of the box only relaxes the contraints upon which your thoughts are conceived, thereby, it is impossible to think WITHOUT a box. For without constraint, what is the function of a thought? It has thereby automatically lost all relevance, since the receiver has no box within which to define the thought in the first place!

THEREFORE...

To say that we (Nas and Myself) are absolving ourselves of one box inevitably means that we MUST use the CONTAINING box for our points of reference - Either way, we CANNOT avoid the use of ANY box to begin with, since all human minds are constrained by a box of some sort. It would almost seem as though you are implying that you don't use a box for your own thoughts GK! Not true! It is impossible to think about something without a reference point of some sort.

FINALLY...

We must conclude that it is logically fallacious to conceive that it is possible to think outside or inside of any box without containing the resultant thought inside some other box. Changing the box for the thought is merely changing our points of reference, since, as I have already demonstrated, boxes are just metaphors for our points of reference. Ergo, changing the point of reference only sheds new light on the discussion from a broader perspective. It does not make it fallacious.

APROPOS...

Criticism of one's choice to change his points of reference to a discussion is automatically redundant.

I'll rest that case here.

Back to the topic at hand, NO ONE HAS ANSWERED MY PREVIOUS QUESTION:

If the 911 Terrorist Attack was indeed a Terrorist Attack, why has President Bush put on the TOP of his priorities of all things, the vicious HUNT for a man who was not in the LEAST bit responsible for the attacks?

Why is the effort to find Bin Laden not treated with as much priority as that which cost many American lives for the hunt of a dictator who was once an Ally of the US in a War against IRAN?!

Before we even DARE to continue contemplating the questionable events of 911, let's answer this question first. I'm waiting patiently for a sensible answer, outside of the most obvious ones which more readily present themselves.

[ramesh]

Xeno, I agree with your thoughts on this matter 100%. I have stopped watching Fox News for the same reasons you have lambasted them for.

I remember that day very well. I switched on the TV for the news and greeted with the image of the first Trade Tower with a hole in the centre. Suddenly a burst of flame erupted from the second tower. Who would not be struck with grief over the probable loss of life in that instant?

Even before this incident, I realised that Bush was a bumbling, uneducated Texan cowboy warlord. It could be seen that he was a puppet under the control of others in his cabinet with only an eye for big corporation money. Bush always asserted that Saddam was the one who attacked his Daddy.

America's place in the grand scheme of things

For a time, Iran was the enemy and Iraq the ally. Suddenly Iraq was the enemy and Iran the ally?? Almost out of the pages of George Orwell's 1984!

Xeno, you have hinted that America is to play a big role in the End Times as prophesied in the Bible. I strongly think that you know more you let on, because the same thoughts have been in my mind for a long time. There are just too many hints in Daniel, Revelations and Matthew.

The final control of the Earth will involve world dominace of agrculture. There is one major Agricultural Company striving to take over much of the world's food production. They have three initials in their name and they are American.

[Nastrodamus]

:'( :'( *sniff sniff* :'( :'(

I am so proud of you guys

[GodKid]

Xeno.. you've actually agreed wih most of what I have to say...

1 - Notification: At first we only heard he was notified and assumed he was notified of BOTH the WTC attack AND a third plane. What I did was to introduce ANOTHER possibility.. what if he was only notified of EITHER the WTC attack OR the third plane. If that is so then there is the scope for his actions being plausible, as if he was only notified of the WTC attack then it made no sense for him to move. Your last response was still under the assumption that he heard BOTH articles of news.. not that he heard either or

2 -

How can you know full well that there are two inbound planes that have yet to hit their targets and only dispatch one figther complement?

This is my point.. how do we KNOW that only ONE fighter complement wass dispatched.. this is the part about CHOOSING not to tell all the information... only ONE fighter squadron is mentioned.. that doesn't mean only one was dispatched


3 -

In fact, if you were to fly a CESSNA aircraft within 500 ft of the White House, you are liable to be shot down by air-to-air missiles, subsequent to unsuccessful negotiations with the captain of the surveiling squadron. The areas over the Pentagon and the White House are NO FLY ZONES. Everybody KNOWS that

Agreed, but there are stile rules of engagement which tend to mitigate against this...


4 -

Did you notice that in the article, the third plane COMPLETELY bypassed the White House? Think about that!

Yes I did... what is there to think about? It didn't exactly fly over and crash into it... according to the article it went directly to the Pentagon