Opinions on 9/11

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah, chemical is possible. The three usual trades are chemical, NTR, or electric. I don't believe NASA has created an electric (VASIMR, etc) mission concept yet. Maybe in future.

But Mars is one of those things that's always 20 years away.

In 1969 Werner Von Braun advocated nuclear thermal rockets only because of the 1963 nuclear test ban treaty. Before 1963 Werner Von Braun championed Project Orion which proposed used atomic bombs to propel the ship.

Von Braun's ideas were often decades to generations ahead of possible technical developments.

I lost my calculator that day.

It was one of those graphical calculators that was programmable and was very cool. I had some clever programs on it.

9/11 was awful.

Post on Post 9/11 topic

A day in which nearly three thousand lives were lost due to terrorist actions of eleven murderers, using commercial jets as weapons.

Other family members, first response personnel and bystanders have since then died, become disabled/diseased and distressed by the events on that day, and the days/months/years following.

The world and people as we knew before 9/11 then changed rather abruptly, and we are still trying to understand the consequences of such unprecedented transformation.

Number Two on AG's list comes closest to how I perceive what September 11, 2001 means to me.

The mossad were able to warn us because they were the ones doing the brewing. They are very adept at manufacturing terror, and then blaming it on Arabs and/or Muslims. Just look at our own military's assessment of them as of, let's say, Sept. 10, 2001. Specifically.

Did you get as excited about implied violence when the USS Liberty was decimated?

Something tells me you are unfamiliar with that one...

I remember that day, and my first thought was, "At least somebody has burst the Americans' mental bubble of invulnerability." The attack wasn't special to me. Understand that I was a very young child in London when the IRA was bombing it left right and centre in the early to mid 1990's, and there were reports weekly, and often daily, about another blast and another load of lives ended, so I had little sympathy for the Americans. The only real differences between the destruction of the twin towers and the destruction of numerous places in London were a) the number of lives lost in a single incident, b) aeroplanes were used to assist the demolition, and c) the loss of an American icon. Other than that, it's a pretty standard tactic.

Ha can't believe the major choice is the 'evil evil evil' Bush-esque answer.

I voted 'A sign of how far the evil US government will go to control the masses. The government attacked the twin towers.' but I don't think it's quite that simple. I think it was more the global elite that did 9/11 than the US government itself, though the elite has some plants in our government, including the Bush family.

Twin towers were never an American icon. In fact, the NY people didn't really like them that much. They weren't particularly beautiful buildings.

Openly funded, in part, by Americans.

The majority of weapons came from the US and Libya:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisiona ... mportation

John Major asked Clinton not to grant visas to Sinn Fein/IRA and not allow fund-raising. He did and then this happened:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/30003.html

Bars in Boston sold drinks called 'car bomb' and 'kill a brit'. US politicians supported the IRA through rose-tinted glasses.
http://www.nysun.com/national/rep-king- ... ary/15853/
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/05/19/222634.php

It does cause problems when asking for support in the 'war on terror'. The irony was not lost.

That is true. But they were OUR ugly buildings. The Jihadists had no right to fly hijacked planes into them.

ruveyn

Yes, quite.
There are more acceptable methods of demolition available.

Over here the news people presented them as an iconic part of the New York skyline. Also, I didn't say the terrorists were right to demolish them. Please don't twist my words.

It's not clear to me who twisted your words or where (not least because you weren't quoted), but I'll attempt to explain what I meant in case you're referring to me.

My response was to ruveyn, and my intent was to express agreement with his sentiment that even if they were viewed as ugly that doesn't make it Ok for foreign nutters to fly planes into them as a means of removing an eyesore.
If Americans thought that they were sufficiently ugly as to actually require demolition, then that's their business and something they would be more than capable of competently handling - with no loss of life.

For what it's worth, I thought they were iconic too and made quite a startling and impressive architectural statement. Views of the Manhattan skyline - especially at night - is a popular photographic subject for a good reason.
I made no claims about terrorists' rights to anything, and neither would I.
As far as I can tell, I just agreed with ruveyn and twisted nothing.

Neither I nor Vexcalibur implied that the terrorists were right in demolishing the buildings, ugly or otherwise. I have no idea where ruveyn got this impression, but it is a distortion of what we said, hence why I felt my words had been twisted. Perhaps I misunderstood?

I think 9/11 was a tragedy, but what I think is even more tragic is how the government has exploited it to fuel America's near-genocidal hatred of Muslims. Now the majority of Americans think the entire Middle East is full of evil freedom-hating terrorists and that we should just blow the s**t out of that area with atomic bombs.

I also think it's sad how businesses have exploited it for commercial purposes by selling "memorabillia" of 9/11, but I guess that's to be expected. Corporations really have no concious and will do anything for money.