# Are we prepard for a terrorist attack or any other attack



## childs56 (7 Jul 2005)

After seeing the ability with in Canada over the past few years respond to different situations, forest fires, ice storms, earth quake preparedness etc I have come to the conclusion that we are not ready to support operations with in our country on anything more then a small localized problem efficiently. We have minimum security on our bases and such will one day pay the price for this lack of leadership to protect what our military uses for defence of our country. Any person can drive on pretty much any base or living area of bases through our Canada and reek havoc. Not to mention the ability to do sabotage and destruction with out even a glimpse of our security force used to protect our bases and personally. How would we respond to an emergency in Canada such as an attack. Well as every emergency response unit has their own way of doing things with very little training with them selves through interdepartment for such incidents we would be in the hurt locker. We have seen these disaster response seminars or training events but they are usually local to the immediate  area and are preplanned months ahead of schedule so every one knows what to expect. the participation is by those who know what is going on. I will say BC ferries does emergency training every year with their local authorities, and honestly i think they are the most prepared out of any group with in Canada to handle one of their own emergencies. They gain the use of all services and explain to them what they require, then wait for the feed back from the local groups as to what they can do. It is a decent plan to which the rest of Canada needs to follow.  We have become complacent, how would people respond to soldiers patrolling the streets of Canadian cities with rifles after such an attack as happened in London, or New York. How would the military respond to such an event. What can we do with the type of equipment we have and where best to deploy it. How many people with in the emergency services including RCMP, OPP hospitals, the military etc are trained and have a plan in effect for mass casualties or disaster. Responding to an earth quake or flood is much different then an attack, such things as security from future attacks is needed, how about the response from bomb squads, or NBCD personnel. Who really understands what our weaknesses are. We don't we have a false sense of security with in Canada and even worse within our own response teams, Such as the Military and local government. Nobody wants to face the reality that we have very little plans in force. We have these plans as to what we would like to do but these are relying on the fact that certain resources and such are available. The reality is we have very little in the way of those. We also have very little training in responding to these situations. Some will say you cannot train to respond to every situation. well we haven't trained for any situation. It is sad to think the minister for emergency response and terrorism stated today that we are more then ready for such an incident if it ever happens here. Yet only thing is, she has only seen a plan on paper and never seen or implemented any of their plans. It is scary to think of this. I for one know we are not ready and will not be for a while to come. Lets hope that we do not see any thing materialize here on our soil until we have more implementation our our first responders part.


----------



## CH1 (7 Jul 2005)

CTD:

What you say is true.  As for ppl responding to armed soldiers on the streets & curfews, well the best thing to look at is the November 1970 FLQ crisis after action reports.  While most had no problem with curfew, they were not happy with us on the streets with wpns L & L.  It was not a pretty picture, in some cases.

Hopefully some one wakes up & tries to correct the situation.

Cheers


----------



## Black Watch (7 Jul 2005)

I hope we're prepared for a soviet attack... Let's roll ex. Tocsin C!!!!!


----------



## Slim (8 Jul 2005)

Fat, dumb and happy was yesterday!

Time for the country to wake up and sniff reality!


----------



## Black Watch (8 Jul 2005)

imaginne this... The government raises the level of security and we ear the follwing on the radio:


"This is a national emergency. An enemy nuclear attack is considered probable. Sirens are or have sounded the nuclear alert warning. No, here is a message from the prime minister, the Right hnourable John Deifenbeker"


----------



## McG (8 Jul 2005)

> *'No specific threat,' but Canada could be target: McLellan*
> Last Updated Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:38:39 EDT
> CBC News
> 
> ...


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Jul 2005)

I don't think we can ever be prepared for it, but to train for it is a different story. Training in the UK made a difference in the survivability of the victims.

In Australia, our PM has told us an attack here will happen, and we too train for the scenerio, lets just hope it does not happen.

Time will tell.

Wes


----------



## x-grunt (9 Jul 2005)

CTD, can I request you break up your paragraphs? You have good stuff to say, but one huge block of text makes it tough to plow through.

Thanks.


----------



## 45506445210414924 (11 Jul 2005)

http://www.canada.com/news/national/story.html?id=913440d8-e9b1-45d5-b933-42f545321427

I was just reading this over, seemed proper for this discussion.


----------



## Manimal (11 Jul 2005)

"Meanwhile, the prime minister said, he has ordered flags on all Canadian government buildings to fly at half-mast as a sign of mourning"


LADIES AND GENTELMEN OUR LEADER......

good job eh, we really need new speech writers for this guy, cause that just doesn't cut it.
lets make Canada look good for the world eh.


----------



## Manimal (11 Jul 2005)

our gov't saying it will happen and we can't stop it, is simply not good enough. there has not been a successful attack on the US since 9/11 (US soil that is) and they have stopped a few attacks before it got going. why can't we do the same. are our values and culture not good enough to find a way to protect, and prepare? why wait, and see..... do something about it! maybe it's time we started spending money to protect our CANADA


----------



## childs56 (13 Jul 2005)

I am pretty sure that CSIS has stopped more then a few attacks upon Canadian soil. The problem lies with the one that they fail to find out about. This is the one that with better training and a proper attitude from all services involved would result in much less damage not only to lives but also infrastructure. We need to train to build up the lack of skills out their. And also to further the ones that are. 

The typical Canadian attitude of "ah well wait till it happens then we will make do with what we have" has got to go to the wayside and be replaced with the lets train attitude. 
Amazing though all the talk from the bosses on these matters. all say things are good yet they all know that they really arent. We are only treading water till we get tired so to speak.


----------



## scm77 (13 Jul 2005)

http://www.torsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Commentary/2005/07/13/pf-1128941.html

Maybe it's the heat, but we find ourselves agreeing with Deputy PM Anne McLellan, who this week talked rather bluntly about the risks Canada faces from terrorists.

"I don't believe that Canadians are as psychologically prepared for a terrorist attack as we probably should be," she told a conference on emergency preparedness here in Toronto. "I think that we have, perhaps for far too long, thought that these are things that happen somewhere else."

Interestingly, McLellan defied the conventional wisdom (particularly amongst Canada's chattering classes) and declared Canada's decision to sit out the American-led war in Iraq does not exempt us from from potential terrorist attacks. "I don't think that is the motivation of Osama bin Laden and his people," she said.

But while we agree with McLellan's remarks, we can't let the hypocrisy inherent in them go without comment.

After all, decades of successive Liberal governments have neutered the Canadian military, all but erased our proud military history, and resulted in at least one generation of Canadians believing that we're nothing but a peacekeeping nation that has no enemies on Earth.

In recent years, the deaths of Canadian soldiers in combat have deeply affected Canadians and led to an enormous outpouring of grief. So we can only imagine the kind of psychological scars that would be left on this nation from a terrorist attack that claimed large numbers of civilian casualties.

Not to mention that in the days and months following the horrific Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, former deputy PM John Manley was the only senior Liberal who seemed to truly understand what was at stake. "Canada has soldiers buried all over Europe because we fought in the defence of liberty," he said then. "And we're not backing away from a challenge now because we think somebody might get hurt."

By comparison, then-PM Jean Chretien never directly addressed the nation (even though some two dozen Canadians died in the 9/11 attacks), blamed terrorism on poverty and American greed, vacillated over whether Canada would join the U.S. war in Afghanistan, and skipped out on a planned visit to Ground Zero in New York so he could attend a Liberal fundraiser instead.

In short, the Liberals have done everything they can since 9/11 to downplay the terrorist threat to Canada -- ignoring warnings about border security and terrorists living on our own soil, and refusing to close the gaps in our refugee and immigration system. They seem to believe Canada's tolerance and diversity will somehow overcome backpack bombs and hijacked airplanes.

And now McLellan says Canadians aren't ready to deal with the reality of terrorism?

Gee, we wonder why.


----------



## edadian (14 Jul 2005)

Any immigration and refugee system's problem we have is nothing compared with the US problem. This is a nation of immigrants and refugees and refugees come here looking to escape terror and intolerance. London has found out the bombers were all British citizens who's families have been there for decades.

As for are we prepared, Canada has never broadcast its security activities and isn't about to now. The attack against us will probally come in December or January, right before the election Martin said he would call. I base this on the following story on the BBC site.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4678969.stm

One thing we could do is strengthen the border with the US, as long as it remains 'undefended' it will be a major threat for both countires. We need a sort of bulkhead system in North America as well as within our three countries. An example of this is what is happening in Europe.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4680163.stm

As for our leaders they are being very Liberal in a MacKenzie King satisfy everyone and no one kind of way. CBC has reported Martin has had briefings on Toronto subway security incidents in the last 2 years. The lack of public acknowledgement may be to avoid alienating certain political circles.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/07/13/ttc-martin050713.html


----------



## Bug Guy (14 Jul 2005)

CTD said:
			
		

> How many people with in the emergency services including RCMP, OPP hospitals, the military etc are trained and have a plan in effect for mass casualties or disaster. Responding to an earth quake or flood is much different then an attack, such things as security from future attacks is needed, how about the response from bomb squads, or NBCD personnel.  The reality is we have very little in the way of those. We also have very little training in responding to these situations. Some will say you cannot train to respond to every situation. well we haven't trained for any situation. It is sad to think the minister for emergency response and terrorism stated today that we are more then ready for such an incident if it ever happens here.




I conceed that the quantity has to be fleshed out, but it is happening.  There's a bunch of military folks on a large air base in ON who work next to a water tower.  They are tasked to do this and are on call.  On short notice they will respond to any CT CBRNE incident and work as an integral part of a team with RCMP, Heath Canada and OPP.  Their CBRNE skills and equipment represent a new capability that many are unaware of, and are prepare to respond to task that members of the higher chain fail to understand.  You are right.  The plans are not in place or refined to the degree to which they should, but the resources do exist and are prepared.

 :skull:


----------



## McG (30 Jul 2005)

> *Police lack terror training*
> Police chief expects country will face attack
> _Juliet O'Neill
> CanWest News Service
> ...


----------



## PJ D-Dog (30 Jul 2005)

The entire Canadian attitude toward terrorism is based in smug complacency.  I have many buddies of mine who are still serving in the CF and they tell me how there is no anti-terrorism training of any sort in the general populous of the CF (except maybe JFT units).  The attitude in which this is presented also alarms me as I am told that Canada is a "peace loving nation" and how "no terrorists are flying planes into our buildings".

As an anti-terrorism instructor for the Marine Corps, much of this stuff is my bread and butter.  When I visited Canada this summer and last summer, I was alarmed at the looseness at the border and the lack of any real security at the smaller border crossings into Canada.  Coming back to the American side, they registered my liscence plate in the computer, asked me my business and I had to show two forms of ID which were actually run in their system before I was allowed to cross into the US...And I'm a naturalized US citizen.

Here is a little story:

In June of this year, I drove to northern New Brunswick and crossed the border at Hamlin, Maine.  This is a small border crossing into Canada that is open for business 18 hours a day.  When I arrived at the Canadian border house, the Canada Customs agent spoke to me in French and said "are you just going into town?" and I replied in French, "yes, just in town for the evening" and I drove off.

This was my first entry into Canada in nearly a year.  I was driving an american vehicle with Vriginia plates on it and the back was full of luggage etc..  I was never asked where I live, what my name is, what my business in town was nor did I even have to produce one single piece of identification.  In addition, my plate number was not taken down  nor was anything entered into a computer for any type of check.

This lack of security at our border crossing is criminally alarming to say the least.  If a bad guy wants to get into Canada from the US, he certainly won't be going through any major border crossing.  There is a serious gap in the training and level of awarness at the borders.  I really don't think this is an isolated incident either. I crossed at other small ports of entry along the Maine/New Brunswick border and they operate similarly.

As for security on Canadian military installations, I visited CFB Gagetown twice in May 2004.  On my first trip, I was in civilian clothing.  It was during a base force protection exercise.  I stopped at the Commissionaire's shack and got a pass to enter the base using my US military ID.  When I arrived at the check point, I showed them my pass and ID card, told them the building I was goin too and I was let through.

As I drove on the base, I encountered another check point and the routine was the same.  I parked my vehicle and entered the base headquarters building on the strength of my ID card.  I was looking for a friend of mine who used to work in that building and I roamed around for ten minutes before someone stopped me and asked if I needed directions.  I then went to another building and found my old buddy.

The next day, I went to the base again but this time in my Marine Corps uniform.  I was asked for two pieces of ID at the initial check point.  What took place here was equally alarming.

As I sat in my vehicle, the young private asked for my ID.  I showed her my US military ID card.  She looked at me and said "I don't think we can accept this".  She stood directly in front of my driver side door (the place you are not supposed to stand).  She then called a MCpl over and they began to debate in front of my driver's side side.  They then called for the Sgt to come over and then all three of them were standing in the same location.

Had I been a bad guy, I could have taken them out with a grenade or a pistol or an IED.  They were not able to see what I had in my lap, if I would have had anything.  They then asked me for a secondary form of ID.  At this point, I became aggressive in my tone and said "you're kidding me, right?  This is a US government issued ID card.  What do you need my driver's liscence for?".  I produced my liscence and the Sgt turned to me and asked me for a Canadian military ID card and asked if I was with 403 Squadron on base.  I told him that I was a US Marine and that I did not need a Canadian military ID card.  I argued further and explained how I had entered the base the day before while in civilian clothes and did not get this type of hassel.  I also explained how the commissionaires at the gate said I didn't need a pass since I was in uniform.  He said that he would let me in this time but that I needed a Canadian military ID card the next time.

As I drove on the base, I encountered another check point.  I showed the cpl my military ID card and then a youn officer came running to my vehicle with a great big smile.  

"You're a Marine", he said as if I was some sort of celebrity.  

"Yes," I replied.

"I'm supposed to search your vehicle but for all intensive purposes, we'll just say that we did," he said to me still smiling.

"So, I suppose that box with wires sticking out of it that is clearly written bomb on it is ok to have in the back of my car," I replied to him sarcastically, smilling back at him.  He just laughed and sent me on my merry little foreign way.

I was appauled at the entire situation.  Whenever I teach my vehicle search class, I use this example of what not do to when standing post at the gate.

Complacency seems to be the order of the day.  I am convinced that Canadians really believe in their heart of hearts that the terrorists like them and won't attack their beloved Canada.  The CF is not ready to deal with a hightened level of security for their installations.  In the US, this is something we practice everyday on the job.

I blame the CF for the young officer's "all intensive purposes" statement due to his training being "notional" in nature.  This notional training, due to lack of resources, is dangerous.  We will fight a notional enemy with notional bullets in this notional training environement etc...

This is serious food for thought.....

PJ D-Dog


----------



## Dale Turner (30 Jul 2005)

It's fair for you to say that Canadian security procedures are lacking when compared to US borders and bases. In some ways I agree. And due to recent world events that I think that Canadians in general have terrorism on their minds more now than in the past. But I feel that if terrorists attacked Canada they would be cutting off their only access to the US. The borders would be slammed shut by both governments. And the worlds longest undefended border would be no more. I'm not saying Canada is a haven for terrorists but it would definately be harder for them to cross back and forth if they attacked Canada.


----------



## Black Watch (30 Jul 2005)

I remember visiting the Mobile force command (MFC) at CFB St-Hubert during the Oka crisis. Lots of safety to go in there, and we had to be searched just in order to enter domestic site. Not to mention alle the cheks we had to go through to get in ops site(ST-Hubert is a former RCAF station w/o fences around the domestic site and on that site was MFCHQ and the ops and domestics siteswere separated by a civilian road)

BTW, the public know the adress of the most secret intelligence unit of Canada...


----------



## P-Free (30 Jul 2005)

Every nation always thinks it can't happen to them until it actually does happen. America never expected September 11th and I doubt Londoners expected July 7th or 21st. It will be the same in Canada, it will be a loud wakeup call and jaws will drop. But there is not much you can do before, during or after an attack to prevent it or to lessen the damage. If a bomber is bent on blowing himself up there is nothing you can do to change his mind and after it happens the damage is already done. All we can do is take the fight to them, so that the hell and the bombings are happening in their backyard and not in ours.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (1 Aug 2005)

P-Free said:
			
		

> But there is not much you can do before, during or after an attack to prevent it or to lessen the damage. If a bomber is bent on blowing himself up there is nothing you can do to change his mind and after it happens the damage is already done. All we can do is take the fight to them, so that the heck and the bombings are happening in their backyard and not in ours.



I beg to differ.  There are a lot of things we can do to prevent another terrorist attack or at least minimize the effort.  Redundant security systems, more patrols for police, actively pursuing known terrorist organizations within Canada and train everyone in individual protective measures by increasing their level of awareness for things that are out of place etc...  People do not have to live their lives oblivious to their surroundings until something happens.  The will to prevent it from happening has to be there from the start.

As for taking the fight to them, the Canadian military is barely capable of meeting its NATO/UN commitments let alone embarking on a campaign alone following a terrorist attack.  As far as I am concerned, Canada has left itself more or less wide open and unequipped to deal with the aftermath or even a retaliatory strike of significance.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## Manimal (2 Aug 2005)

i agree, saying there is nothing you can do to stop it is the wrong attitude. look at how other countries have dealt with terror, not all have succeeded the first time thru, but they do get their shit together. Britain tried to beat the IRA with a bigger stronger army. didn't work, what worked was leaving it up to the police on that beat, it worked. the US did the same thing, you beat terror by teaching people to protect their own, (home, area, friends and family) look how many attempts have been stopped since 9/11. it can be done.

Canada won't do it though. i have little faith that we will get our shit together before it happens. too many people have that "we can't stop it" attitude.


----------



## McG (21 Aug 2005)

> *Blair's tough anti-terrorism measures merit our consideration*
> Blinded by our commitment to multiculturalism, Canada is vulnerable to extremism
> _James Bissett
> Freelance
> ...






> *Canada may consider U.K. anti-terror steps, Cotler says*
> _Steve Mertl
> The Canadian Press
> Tuesday, August 16, 2005_
> ...


----------



## copper_43 (30 Aug 2005)

Maybe Canada has taken a back seat approach to Terrorism because the Intelligence community here actually works.

Sorry but after examining the evidence of 9-11 I have to call Bull on the Americans, I think this attack was carried out by Americans for a couple of reasons, one the Government got a blank cheque to spend what it wanted on defense and the spin offs from Defense Contracts have diverted the country from a recession, at least in the short term.  The owners of the Buildings received huge payoffs (7billion on the WTC alone)  and with the resulting unrest in the Middle East, it filled that lag left in industry from the cold war ending.

Think I'm full of it?  Check this link and make up your own mind   www.reopen911.org


----------



## Britney Spears (30 Aug 2005)

And just when we were done with the idiots, the lunatics jump in......


----------



## George Wallace (30 Aug 2005)

Let's see:

Nuclear detonation takes down Twin Towers?  

727 never flew into Pentagon - it was a missle - but then what happened to the 727 and all its pax and crew?

Why are people on drugs allowed to host internet sites?


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Aug 2005)

copper_43 said:
			
		

> Think I'm full of it?  Check this link and make up your own mind   www.reopen911.org



If I'm not supposed to believe the US Govt, why should I believe the completely opposite view of the conspiracy theorists? If the first doesn't measure up in your view, then how, exactly, does viewing and then blindly believing the issued statements of the latter constitute "making up my own mind"?


----------



## copper_43 (30 Aug 2005)

Well George lets see:
1. Nobody claims a nuke was used?
2. How does a 60ton aircraft make a 16 ft hole and not leave its wings on the side of the building?
3. The drug comment is a way of saying your closed minded, did you even look at the videos on the link, I bet not.

Mr. O'Leary:
All information can be subjective, manipulated and re-spun, nobody denies that, however if you remember the events as you remember them, re-watch the videos, while reading the reports issued by the US Government, glaring points become evident.  Less than ethical reports were written and professional agencies were silenced or bypassed all together.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words, a video captured by a armature which shows exactly the opposite of what was reported can only leave you to ask why and compel you to look deeper, and I don't believe looking deeper while keeping an open mind is proceeding blindly.


----------



## Pfc_Norup (30 Aug 2005)

WTF?


> 2. How does a 60ton aircraft make a 16 ft hole and not leave its wings on the side of the building?


Try driving a glassfiber car into a solid concrete wall at 200m/h, and see how much damage the wall takes compared to you.... :blotto:



> 3. The drug comment is a way of saying your closed minded, did you even look at the videos on the link, I bet not


OMG! We are being attacked by evil aliens... Oh... nevermind... It's was just Independence Day... pyhhh!  :-[

Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it real!


----------



## George Wallace (30 Aug 2005)

Well Mike

1. Statement on front page of your link states the fact that Twin Towers were taken down by nuclear detonation, or Did YOU not read that?

2. They burned up, being full of Aviation fuel.   Check out most airliner crash sites and see what remains of Aluminum/Magnesium alloys after a fire.

3. I have visited that and other sites and find them so full of holes as to be put forward by people either on drugs or suffering from some form of dementia.

This is a Lighthouse....Your Call!


----------



## copper_43 (30 Aug 2005)

Interesting statement Norup, and correct, the damage to the concrete may not have to be extensive but the wreckage outside the hole of the vehicle would be.   Although this 60ton aircraft left nothing, not even a paint smear.


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Aug 2005)

copper_43 said:
			
		

> Mr. O'Leary:
> All information can be subjective, manipulated and re-spun, nobody denies that, however if you remember the events as you remember them, re-watch the videos, while reading the reports issued by the US Government, glaring points become evident.  Less than ethical reports were written and professional agencies were silenced or bypassed all together.
> They say a picture is worth a thousand words, a video captured by a armature which shows exactly the opposite of what was reported can only leave you to ask why and compel you to look deeper, and I don't believe looking deeper while keeping an open mind is proceeding blindly.



Than may I assume that _your _personal opinons are based on _your _personal examination of *all original evidence*? Without any influence by others through their chosen presnetation of excerpts of vidoes, audio tapes or photos and the select isolated opinions of certain "experts" who may have prior records of attempting to define other events in terms of goverment conspiracies?


----------



## Pfc_Norup (30 Aug 2005)

> Interesting statement Norup, and correct, the damage to the concrete may not have to be extensive but the wreckage outside the hole of the vehicle would be.   Although this 60ton aircraft left nothing, not even a paint smear





> Check out most airliner crash sites and see what remains of Aluminum/Magnesium alloys after a fire


I saw a M113 burn up almost completely... Only the tracks was left.... 

Newsflash... Metal burns!



> ...after examining the evidence of 9-11 I have to call Bull on the Americans, I think this attack was carried out by Americans for a couple of reasons


That s**t has to be some of the most disrespecting BS I have ever heard!


----------



## copper_43 (30 Aug 2005)

Of course you are correct to a point that all evidence left is suspect, as nothing is original anymore, what I find interesting is the avoidance of the government offices to answer simple questions, if attacked you would think things like the original video of an aircraft slamming into the Pentagon would be widely distributed, as opposed to being denied when the question came up as to how such a large jet could crash with such little damage or debris.

Norup is quite correct that an APC will burn like a torch, I believe that is largely due to the Aluminum content used to try and lighten the vehicle, however the Towers were mainly Steel and the jet fuel George refers to was mainly out within the first 10 min, the fires didn't even spread across the entire level of tower 2.

George, I still can't find the mention of Nukes you say are there, oh yeah and my name isn't mike.  And by all means I always willing to listen to other views, so lets here some of the holes you found on these sites. really.


----------



## Pfc_Norup (30 Aug 2005)

> Norup is quite correct that an APC will burn like a torch, I believe that is largely due to the Aluminum content used to try and lighten the vehicle, however the Towers were mainly Steel and the jet fuel George refers to was mainly out within the first 10 min, the fires didn't even spread across the entire level of tower 2


Well, the Towers didn't burn did they? The steel melted, right? Causing the building to collapse, right? So, what's your point???


----------



## George Wallace (30 Aug 2005)

Quickly I'll point out that I am talking about the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, not the Twin Towers.   As for the Nuke, I will point out that it is a bold title to a link in the right hand ccolumn of that webpage under the pictures.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Aug 2005)

Here's your link from that webpage:

http://www.reopen911.org/undergroundnuke.htm

Further down they even have a conspiracy theory that Hunter Thompson was murdered because of what he wrote.  

The whole site is one big conspiracy theory.


----------



## copper_43 (30 Aug 2005)

Ok, got it, the Nuke headline you refer to was a e-mail to the editor of that site stating radioactive debris was detected at the WTC site, however the editor goes on to say he can not confirm this data which this person writes about.

Norup, there was a fire within the towers, the building was actually designed with much more massive fires in mind, the heat produced by the jet fuel in the short term it burnt would not be enough to melt the massive steel structure.   Most of the flames after the initial 10min burn was paper, office equipment and building supplies which is no where hot enough to make steel fail within an hour.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Aug 2005)

copper_43 said:
			
		

> Norup, there was a fire within the towers, the building was actually designed with much more massive fires in mind, the heat produced by the jet fuel in the short term it burnt would not be enough to melt the massive steel structure.    Most of the flames after the initial 10min burn was paper, office equipment and building supplies which is no where hot enough to make steel fail within an hour.



Are you an Architect or a Structural Engineer or a Civil Engineer or something?  Seems to me that they interviewed the Architects and numerous Engineers who counter your theory.


----------



## Pfc_Norup (30 Aug 2005)

> Apart from all the charges set through the building, of which the evidence is overwhelming, the evidence is also crystal clear for those who know what they are looking at that the buildings were ultimately brought down by nuclear explosions


Holy X-File... This looks like a job for Mulder!!!

( Somebody needs to check their trailer for propane leaks )



> Norup, there was a fire within the towers, the building was actually designed with much more massive fires in mind, the heat produced by the jet fuel in the short term it burnt would not be enough to melt the massive steel structure.   Most of the flames after the initial 10min burn was paper, office equipment and building supplies which is no where hot enough to make steel fail within an hour.


Well... I think a saw something about old "fireprotective foam" ( most of it blown away doing impact ) and I'm pretty sure that a 747 hitting a building will do some damage to it.... And a Jet-fuel fire IS capable of making steel melt... And in this case you also have the entire weight of the building resting on the impact-zone...

Why is it SO impossible to believe Muslim Terrorist crashed planes into the towers?


----------



## copper_43 (30 Aug 2005)

Again all information can be hi-jacked, but when a government being questioned on the simplest aspects runs for cover and does nothing but block all attempts to gain information, one has to say, wait a minute why is the victim hidding evidence.
Also because a web site doesn't follow the norm of society, why should we be so quick to label it and dismiss anything written there, are we afraid they could be right.   We would be a fool to take one opinion, be it off of the web or total trust in a government which moves from one scandal to another, we as westerners have learned that scandals and politics go hand in hand.   Thats why when something doesn't seem to add up we have to ask the questions Why, look at different sources of info and keep open minds.

Opions vary, if you got one, at least make sure you base it on your thoughts and not societies prejudices.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Aug 2005)

May I address you to this thread:

Stories of CF soldier in Afghanistan

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/18269/post-259305.html#msg259305

In particular this statement:

This is a serious matter.  The US Army just published this in response to Milbloggers and OPSEC:

"THE ENEMY AGGRESSIVELY "READS" OUR OPEN SOURCE AND CONTINUES TO EXPLOIT SUCH INFORMATION FOR USE AGAINST OUR FORCES. SOME SOLDIERS CONTINUE TO POST SENSITIVE INFORMATION TO INTERNET WEBSITES AND BLOGS, E.G., PHOTOS DEPICTING WEAPON SYSTEM VULNERABILITIES AND TACTICS, TECHNIQUES, AND PROCEDURES. SUCH OPSEC VIOLATIONS NEEDLESSLY PLACE LIVES AT RISK AND DEGRADE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF OUR OPERATIONS.

PETER J. SCHOOMAKER, GEN, CSA

THE ENEMY IS ACTIVELY SEARCHING THE UNCLASSIFIED NETWORKS
FOR INFORMATION, ESPECIALLY SENSITIVE PHOTOS, IN ORDER TO OBTAIN
TARGETING DATA, WEAPONS SYSTEM VULNERABILITIES, AND TTPs FOR USE
AGAINST THE COALITION. A MORE AGGRESSIVE ATTITUDE TOWARD PROTECTING
FRIENDLY INFORMATION IS VITAL TO MISSION SUCCESS. THE ENEMY IS A PRO
AT EXPLOITING OUR OPSEC VULNERABILITIES. 

REMIND ALL PERSONNEL THAT THE ENEMY WILL EXPLOIT
SENSITIVE PHOTOS SHOWING THE RESULTS OF IED STRIKES, BATTLE SCENES,
CASUALTIES, DESTROYED OR DAMAGED EQUIPMENT, AND ENEMY KIAs AS
PROPAGANDA AND TERRORIST TRAINING TOOLS. FOR EXAMPLE, ANNOTATED
PHOTOS OF AN ABRAMS TANK PENETRATED BY AN RPG ARE EASILY FOUND ON THE INTERNET. CAPTURED INSURGENT PAMPHLETS CONTAIN HAND DRAWINGS AND INSTRUCTIONS ON WHAT INSURGENTS BELIEVE ARE VULNERABLE PENETRATION POINTS ON TANKS, HMMWVS, BRADLEY FIGHTING VEHICLES, AND HELICOPTERS. 
RELEASING PHOTOS OUTSIDE OFFICIAL, PROTECTED CHANNELS MAY ALLOW THE
ENEMY MATERIAL FOR HIS INFORMATION OPERATIONS AND TARGETING TTP
AGAINST FRIENDLY FORCES. INSURGENTS ALSO USE WEBSITES TO COMMUNICATE, TRAIN, AND RECRUIT FOLLOWERS, OFTEN USING PHOTOS/VIDEO OF THEIR BATTLEFIELD SUCCESSES. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE OUR PHOTOS BECOME TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT TOOLS FOR THE ENEMY.

RICHARD A. CODY, GEN, VCSA"

Another link may be on a blog site:

http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/004531.html

or try this very reputable site:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2005/08/usa0805.html


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Aug 2005)

So, the trade centre was nuked. Nobody detected an EM pulse, shockwave, radiation cloud, or any of that other stuff one normally associates with nukes? Oh, I know, MIB's flashy-thing technology has advanced to the point where an entire city can be zapped.  Scary stuff, man, I start putting foil on the windows in the morning.


----------



## NavComm (30 Aug 2005)

This one time at band camp....I saw the movie "wag the tail" or whatever it's called


----------



## Pfc_Norup (30 Aug 2005)

I'm gonna need a little help with this one:


> Apart from all the charges set through the building, of which the evidence is overwhelming


So some planted charges in the building?

Then they crashed the UFO from Roswell into the first tower? 

The they backed the UFO out of the Tower in cloak-mode and crashed into the second tower?

And then they detonated all the charges ( the charges nobody had seen, eventhough they were planted all over the towers ) and the towers almost collapsed?

And just to be completely sure the detonate a nuclear device under Manhattan, which only makes the allready damaged towers to collaps 


> 3. Pyroclastic flow of the building and its total pulverisation from top to bottom - classic of an underground nuclear explosion. Shock wave travelled up the building, reflected off the top and pulverised it back down



And then the UFO fires a missile at the Pentagon and  finally crashes with a jet right outside Camp David?

Seriously, I know that there's some retarded people out there, but this is... umm.... the most f***ed up BS I have ever heard! Ghees!!!


----------



## Redeye (30 Aug 2005)

This is getting ridiculous.   Discovery Channel ran a great show a while back about how the planes brought down the Twin Towers.   Try to track it down.   Locked... assuming the three replies I didn't didn't already do that.


----------

