RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty

RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/18/2009 8:11:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1550477.cms http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html The are unable to confirm, without some doubt, that the video tape released is actually Bin Laden. This does not mean it is not him. The audio tape is the same way. They have a lot of circumstantial and here say evidence, mountains of it. This just means that there is not enough for an indictment of that attack. With evidence of all the other things they do have, it is considered sufficient. Whew. Saves me some time. Sums up my feelings exactly. Personally, I don't think it was bin Laden in that tape, but I substantially accept the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission.

Owner59 -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/18/2009 8:11:10 AM)
Truthers make me sick.God forbid I should meet one in person.

MrRodgers -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/18/2009 9:00:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1550477.cms http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html The are unable to confirm, without some doubt, that the video tape released is actually Bin Laden. This does not mean it is not him. The audio tape is the same way. They have a lot of circumstantial and here say evidence, mountains of it. This just means that there is not enough for an indictment of that attack. With evidence of all the other things they do have, it is considered sufficient. Whew. Saves me some time. Sums up my feelings exactly. Personally, I don't think it was bin Laden in that tape, but I substantially accept the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission. Why ? Do you believe that when 60 ton airliners crash...they vaporize on impact ? Do you sincerely believe that a single airliner hitting just a few floors could reduce an entire 110 story and 110,000 ton, steel bldg. to a neat pile of rubble virtually into its own basement ? Do you substantially believe that hijackers who were supposed to have taken over those planes while never having tickets (not on passenger list) crash those planes and 6 of them could have survived ?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/18/2009 9:37:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Why ? Do you believe that when 60 ton airliners crash...they vaporize on impact ? Is that what happened? They vaporized? quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Do you sincerely believe that a single airliner hitting just a few floors could reduce an entire 110 story and 110,000 ton, steel bldg. to a neat pile of rubble virtually into its own basement ? Of course. 10 minutes before the first tower collapsed, I told my roommate, "If they don't get that fire out very soon, that whole building is going to go down." For most people who've studied engineering, there's nothing the least bit surprising about it. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Do you substantially believe that hijackers who were supposed to have taken over those planes while never having tickets (not on passenger list) crash those planes and 6 of them could have survived ? What? I need some elaboration, and maybe some linkage as well.

NorthernGent -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/18/2009 10:02:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda But none of this changes the fact that killing thousands of innocent people is an act of terrorism. Regardless of the motivations or the perceived justifications. It's not possible to eliminate them as a functional force, but i do believe that by taking away their safe haven in Pakistan/Afghanistan, and keeping them fragmented and on the run by cooperative police efforts, it is possible to reduce them to something substantially less threatening. They're never going to go away, and we're never going to leave the MidEast. We will always be in conflict with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. That's not going to change. I think the situation has already passed the tipping point. I think our chance to reduce the inflammation by turning down the heat came and went unnoticed several years ago. I acknowledge that, but as I understand it the focus of this discussion is the legitimacy of the American effort in Afghanistan/Western Pakistan, and secondarily the effects of that adventure. The legitimacy of the war in Iraq is an entirely different topic. If the discussion is to include the effects of American military actions overall, then there's nothing to debate, because I doubt we would be in any disagreement. It seems that we agree on more than which we disagree. I've condensed your post as I think the points above are the crux of the matter: 1) I don't think it matters whether or not it's called terrorism/striking back/whatever, because all of that is a matter of perspective: the point is that 3,000 people were killed, and that is a fact. 2) Assuming we're in agreement that the important issue is the response, then it follows that the cause/s of that event matter, because without understanding this you can't possibly arrive at an effective response. 3) Assuming the cause/s matter to you, then I'm struggling to understand how you can arrive at anything other than the conclusion that the more you invade their space, the more people will gather behind the idea. It's happened with every invading force since the year dot, and the result is always the same: the invading force are booted out. And, you'll never leave the Middle East? perhaps not by choice. 4) It is not an entirely different topic: the lessons of empire, Vietnam, Iraq etc are there to be learned. Opposition to the United States and the general call to arms, has ramped up significantly in recent years as the US has become more visible in that region. Those susceptible to extremism aren't going to listen to your argument about "smoking some people out of a safe haven" when bombs are flying around destroying villages and their inhabitants. That is what they'll focus on, because when push comes to shove that is what matters. Edited to add: And, no, I'm not saying people deserve to die because of the actions of a government. But, I do think you have to accept your responsibility in this general chaos before you can ever arrive at a solution.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/18/2009 10:53:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda But none of this changes the fact that killing thousands of innocent people is an act of terrorism. Regardless of the motivations or the perceived justifications. It's not possible to eliminate them as a functional force, but i do believe that by taking away their safe haven in Pakistan/Afghanistan, and keeping them fragmented and on the run by cooperative police efforts, it is possible to reduce them to something substantially less threatening. They're never going to go away, and we're never going to leave the MidEast. We will always be in conflict with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. That's not going to change. I think the situation has already passed the tipping point. I think our chance to reduce the inflammation by turning down the heat came and went unnoticed several years ago. I acknowledge that, but as I understand it the focus of this discussion is the legitimacy of the American effort in Afghanistan/Western Pakistan, and secondarily the effects of that adventure. The legitimacy of the war in Iraq is an entirely different topic. If the discussion is to include the effects of American military actions overall, then there's nothing to debate, because I doubt we would be in any disagreement. It seems that we agree on more than which we disagree. Well, sure. I didn't doubt that. Sorry if I didn't make that more clear. quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent 2) Assuming we're in agreement that the important issue is the response, then it follows that the cause/s of that event matter, because without understanding this you can't possibly arrive at an effective response. True. Which explains why I have a very fatalistic perspective on the whole issue. I think that in the longterm, it hardly matters how we respond to AQ, because we are not going to fundamentally change the way we do business in the world. I believe that under the Obama Adminsitration, the United States will be a much better world citizen than it has been for the last 8 years, and perhaps for the last 40 0r 50, but in the end it's still the United States. I don't believe we'll ever fully learn the lessons that we need to learn, or act in accordance with those lessons, and we'll always be the enemy in the eyes of most of the world. quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent 3) Assuming the cause/s matter to you, then I'm struggling to understand how you can arrive at anything other than the conclusion that the more you invade their space, the more people will gather behind the idea. It's happened with every invading force since the year dot, and the result is always the same: the invading force are booted out. And, you'll never leave the Middle East? perhaps not by choice. Who's they? How broadly do you define "they?" I'm again left to wonder whether we're talking about Iraq, Southwest Asia, or all of Islam. And no, i don't believe we are ever going to leave the MidEast. Certainly not by choice, and probably not at all. As long there's oil there, the United States will never walk away. I'm not defending that, I'm just stating an observation. quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent 4) It is not an entirely different topic: the lessons of empire, Vietnam, Iraq etc are there to be learned. Opposition to the United States and the general call to arms, has ramped up significantly in recent years as the US has become more visible in that region. Those susceptible to extremism aren't going to listen to your argument about "smoking some people out of a safe haven" when bombs are flying around destroying villages and their inhabitants. That is what they'll focus on, because when push comes to shove that is what matters. The more closely you link the two topics, the more difficult you make it to discuss either of them. There are similarities between Iraq and Southwest Asia, and there are profound differences. If you insist on dicussing them as the same topic, there's probably no point in discussing it at all, because it could only be discussed in the most general terms. My contention is that if you try to attack the moral case for action in Southwest Asia by pointing out the consequences of what we did in Iraq, you're using the wrong argument, and I stand by that contention. What happened in Iraq is a good argument for whether it makes sense to take action in Southwest Asia, but it has nothing do with the rightness or wrongness of it. Because in that sense, they are two entirely separate issues - there was a logic and a justification for the efforts in Southwest Asia, and there never was any such logic or justification for Iraq. Two entirely different subjects in that regard. quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Edited to add: And, no, I'm not saying people deserve to die because of the actions of a government. But, I do think you have to accept your responsibility in this general chaos before you can ever arrive at a solution. Mine, or my government's? They're not entirely separate, of course, but they're not entirely the same, either.

NorthernGent -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/19/2009 1:48:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda I believe that under the Obama Adminsitration, the United States will be a much better world citizen than it has been for the last 8 years, and perhaps for the last 40 0r 50, but in the end it's still the United States. I don't believe we'll ever fully learn the lessons that we need to learn, or act in accordance with those lessons, and we'll always be the enemy in the eyes of most of the world. Whenever I read these threads, I'm always struck by how much Americans talk about being world citizens or the enemy. In this part of the world, you're not really seen as either. People think the idea that you can solve all of your problems by bombing and occupying countries is dangerous, and that's about it, though the conduct of the US Army in Iraq (as reported by the British Army) hasn't helped your cause. quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Who's they? How broadly do you define "they?" I'm again left to wonder whether we're talking about Iraq, Southwest Asia, or all of Islam. 'They' is difficult to quantify, naturally, but Al-Quaeda is an idea that people from all over the world latch onto. It has become a far more attractive proposition since the US became more visible in the Middle East. quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda My contention is that if you try to attack the moral case for action in Southwest Asia by pointing out the consequences of what we did in Iraq, you're using the wrong argument, and I stand by that contention. I'm coming from two angles: 1) A consequential approach that is supported by the evidence of Iraq. 2) An argument that you should not be violating another country's sovereignty on the grounds that you think there's some people hiding in the hills somewhere - haven't you been on this wild goose chase before in the form WMDs? quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Mine, or my government's? They're not entirely separate, of course, but they're not entirely the same, either. Out of curiosity, what's your personal responsibility in all of this?

NormalOutside -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/19/2009 2:02:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda 10 minutes before the first tower collapsed, I told my roommate, "If they don't get that fire out very soon, that whole building is going to go down." For most people who've studied engineering, there's nothing the least bit surprising about it. I don't know if you're an engineer (or other expert who would know) or not, but if not, why is your opinion important? Just because you predicted it doesn't mean it happened without help. After all, anyone I've seen talk about it, engineers included, say that no other steel-framed building has ever collapsed due to fire, before or since. Same with buildings hit by large airplanes, or artillery, or tornadoes, etc. I'm not saying I have the answer. I'm saying that because you (wrongly) assumed that the buildings would collapse because of the fires, and then they collapsed, that they didn't necessarily collapse because of the fires. I mean, my Grama predicted that my relationship wouldn't last very long, because god doesn't like it when people have sex outside of marriage. My relationship didn't last very long. I still don't believe in god(s).

NormalOutside -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/19/2009 2:04:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Truthers make me sick.God forbid I should meet one in person. You're either really funny, or really stupid and ignorant.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/19/2009 10:20:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Whenever I read these threads, I'm always struck by how much Americans talk about being world citizens or the enemy. In this part of the world, you're not really seen as either. People think the idea that you can solve all of your problems by bombing and occupying countries is dangerous, and that's about it, though the conduct of the US Army in Iraq (as reported by the British Army) hasn't helped your cause. Good point, and certainly my own perception is colored by how appalled I am at the disgraceful and despicable actions of my country over much of the last 8 years. Perhaps I'm overreacting, but the shock and the fury of watching a country I once loved adopt the very ideals against which it once fought so fiercely has sparked a strong emotional reaction in a lot of us who have been so deeply opposed to the Bush administration's shameful policies and practices. One of the ways in which that emotional response probably expresses itself is an increased sensitivity to where we fit in the scheme of things, an overawareness of our role in the world as a whole. In addition to that, I've always felt that with greater power and greater privilege comes greater responsibility. We're the most powerful and most privileged country in the history of countries, and our citizens enjoy a higher per capita standard of living than any country in human history. In my personal belief system, that confers upon a nation (and its people) a greater obligation to treat other nations and their citizens with compassion, respect, and integrity. As a nation, we have fallen woefully short of that obligation. And as a citizen of that nation, I have never been more acutely aware of that than over the last 6 to 8 years. Which I suppose also contributes to whatever over-sensitivity I feel in that regard. But having said all that, I'll also maintain that it's not an overstatement at all to say much of the world does consider us an enemy. People who fly hijacked airliners into the sides of buildings tend to reserve that sort of behavior for those whom they consider to be enemies. It's not an unnatural perception on the part of Americans to sense that to many, we are the enemy. quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent 'They' is difficult to quantify, naturally, but Al-Quaeda is an idea that people from all over the world latch onto. It has become a far more attractive proposition since the US became more visible in the Middle East. Which is quite probably the greatest victory Al Qaeda achieved from the 9/11 attacks. Bush played right into bin Laden's hands with the invasion of Iraq. quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent 2) An argument that you should not be violating another country's sovereignty on the grounds that you think there's some people hiding in the hills somewhere - haven't you been on this wild goose chase before in the form WMDs? We'll never live that down, certainly not in my lifetime and perhaps not for generations. quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Mine, or my government's? They're not entirely separate, of course, but they're not entirely the same, either. Out of curiosity, what's your personal responsibility in all of this? Interesting question. I'm just taking a quick lunch break here, so I don't have time to do it justice, but a general feeling for my answer to that could probably be found in my first response in this post. It's a complex issue, because it's difficult to discuss without exploring the very complicated question of "national guilt," but ity might perhaps be better addressed by trying to make a clear distinction between liability and responsibility. To some degree, I am certainly responsible for the actions of my political leaders, because I vote for those leaders. Now, to what degree? Where does that responsibility begin and end? I honestly can't answer that at the moment. I'm too rushed, and would probably want to take some time to reflect upon it even if I weren't. I'll just say that as a citizen of a putative participatory democracy, some degree of responsibility is undeniable. And I'd further say that as Americans, we have a responsibility to acknowledge the responsibility, because if we turn away from it, we're not going to learn the lessons we need to learn to avoid repeating the same errors we (as an electorate) have made in the past. But even aside from the issue of personal responsibility, we can more easily acknowledge some degree of personal liability. I may be opposed to many of the actions of my country, but whether I agree with them or not, i can't deny that I have benefited from them. My life is substantially better, at least in a material sense. Every time I put .50 per liter gasoline in my car, I benefit from the actions of my government. Every time I pay 20 dollars for a pair of shoes that was made by someone who needs to make shoes 10 hours a day for a month to earn that much money, I benefit from the actions of my government. I sit in my living room, with the fireplace to my left, the 32-inch color TV straight ahead of me, the two amplifiers, preamplifier, two tuners, 3 disc players, and tape deck beneath it, surrounded by the tower speakers, and I am - in that ordinary, everyday moment - experiencing a level of luxury that is literally beyond the imagination of hundreds of millions of human beings who are every bit as good as I am, every bit as intelligent, every bit as decent, every bit as deserving as I am, but who were born in a different country than I was, with a different government. And regardless of how hard I've worked in my life to buy these things, the fact remains that I wouldn't have had access to them, or been able to afford them, were it not for the actions of the government i so often condemn. So. What degree of responsibility does this confer upon me? I don't know how to quantify that. Some, certainly. A great deal, probably. How much, exactly? I don't know. I don't know if there's an answer to it, but even if there is, i don't know it at the moment. I'd have to reflect upon it.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/19/2009 10:43:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NormalOutside quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda 10 minutes before the first tower collapsed, I told my roommate, "If they don't get that fire out very soon, that whole building is going to go down." For most people who've studied engineering, there's nothing the least bit surprising about it. I don't know if you're an engineer (or other expert who would know) or not, but if not, why is your opinion important? Just because you predicted it doesn't mean it happened without help. After all, anyone I've seen talk about it, engineers included, say that no other steel-framed building has ever collapsed due to fire, before or since. Well, if that's what they said, they're just plain wrong. That's just not true. Intense heat is a known contributory factor in the potential failure of any steel-supported structure. That's why they fireproof structural steel. I don't know if the people you heard mis-spoke or are just full of shit, but this is just completely false. There's just no question about this at all. Google it if you don't believe me. quote: ORIGINAL: NormalOutside Same with buildings hit by large airplanes, or artillery, or tornadoes, etc. I'm not saying I have the answer. I'm saying that because you (wrongly) assumed that the buildings would collapse because of the fires, and then they collapsed, that they didn't necessarily collapse because of the fires. Well, let's break this down. You say you don't know the answer, then you say that I'm wrong. Which is it? If you don't know the answer, how do you know I'm wrong? Engineering was my first major in college, and while i didn't get a degree in it, I studied it for years and worked my way through college as an inspector for an engineering and testing firm that specialized (among other things) in failure analysis. I observed and inpected numerous structural failures, of many types of buildings, including three large multi-story building collapses. None of it on the scale of the WTC, obviously, but the basic principles are pretty straightforward. I don't claim to have anywhere near the expertise of degreed engineers who've worked in this field their entire lives, but I can say I know enough about the subject to have a pretty informed opinion. I knew what i was seeing as i watched it, and when it happened, i understood exactly what was happening. Every single thing i saw, and everything i have seen and read since, is entirely consistent with the accepted explanation of what happened. And I have yet to see a single conspiracy theory that even comes close to making any kind of credible sense whatsoever.

NorthernGent -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/19/2009 10:49:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Good point, and certainly my own perception is colored by how appalled I am at the disgraceful and despicable actions of my country over much of the last 8 years. Some would suggest that the last 8 years is a matter of continuation rather than change, and point to Nicaragua, Iraq part 1, Brazil, Iran, Venezuala, Vietnam etc. I'm not suggesting for a moment that the United States is the only country/government that has designs on foreign assets - I mean, we have form for that sort of carry on, too - but, I believe that the United States' appeal to the moral high ground is unreasonable and hypocritical. Again, it's fair to say you're not the only country that employs these tactics - it's a tried and tested formula that predates US aggression. quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda To some degree, I am certainly responsible for the actions of my political leaders, because I vote for those leaders. Now, to what degree? Where does that responsibility begin and end? I honestly can't answer that at the moment. And I'd further say that as Americans, we have a responsibility to acknowledge the responsibility, because if we turn away from it, we're not going to learn the lessons we need to learn to avoid repeating the same errors we (as an electorate) have made in the past. I take my hat off to you for a post that doesn't involve: 'they're not my government', which I think is the get out of jail free card. Over here, a large majority didn't want any involvement in Iraq unless UN backed and WMDs had been found. They went ahead anyway, but we are certainly responsible for not having the will to chase through our beliefs; we just sat back and let them get on with it, even though we didn't agree with them. We must bear responsibility for that. Their reign is only as free as that which is afforded them. I agree that where the line is drawn in terms of responsbility isn't the easiest of questions to answer.

MrRodgers -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/20/2009 8:11:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: NormalOutside quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda 10 minutes before the first tower collapsed, I told my roommate, "If they don't get that fire out very soon, that whole building is going to go down." For most people who've studied engineering, there's nothing the least bit surprising about it. I don't know if you're an engineer (or other expert who would know) or not, but if not, why is your opinion important? Just because you predicted it doesn't mean it happened without help. After all, anyone I've seen talk about it, engineers included, say that no other steel-framed building has ever collapsed due to fire, before or since. Well, if that's what they said, they're just plain wrong. That's just not true. Intense heat is a known contributory factor in the potential failure of any steel-supported structure. That's why they fireproof structural steel. I don't know if the people you heard mis-spoke or are just full of shit, but this is just completely false. There's just no question about this at all. Google it if you don't believe me. quote: ORIGINAL: NormalOutside Same with buildings hit by large airplanes, or artillery, or tornadoes, etc. I'm not saying I have the answer. I'm saying that because you (wrongly) assumed that the buildings would collapse because of the fires, and then they collapsed, that they didn't necessarily collapse because of the fires. Well, let's break this down. You say you don't know the answer, then you say that I'm wrong. Which is it? If you don't know the answer, how do you know I'm wrong? Engineering was my first major in college, and while i didn't get a degree in it, I studied it for years and worked my way through college as an inspector for an engineering and testing firm that specialized (among other things) in failure analysis. I observed and inpected numerous structural failures, of many types of buildings, including three large multi-story building collapses. None of it on the scale of the WTC, obviously, but the basic principles are pretty straightforward. I don't claim to have anywhere near the expertise of degreed engineers who've worked in this field their entire lives, but I can say I know enough about the subject to have a pretty informed opinion. I knew what i was seeing as i watched it, and when it happened, i understood exactly what was happening. Every single thing i saw, and everything i have seen and read since, is entirely consistent with the accepted explanation of what happened. And I have yet to see a single conspiracy theory that even comes close to making any kind of credible sense whatsoever. There is almost nothing in the evidence presented to us via media or govt. is consistent with what really happened. Bldgs. do NOT collapse as dust in their own basement just as in a planned demolition because of a fire burning for only a short while 77 floors up. ALL over the world engineers are laughing at us in buying this bullshit. YOU google it. There are explosions going off from BEFORE the planes hit and after the planes hit. There is no possibility whatsoever that burning jet fuel at 1500 to 2000 degrees brings down steel that requires at least 3500 degree to CUT, not reduce to dust. The remaining steel in the ground shows that it was cut and with demo explosives. Why did people die from explosions several floors down in the underground parking ? AND how does all of this explain WTC 7 that wasn't hit by a plane yet fell because of fire ? BULLSHIT. If that were the case why didn't WTC's 3,4,5 and 6 also fall into dust perfectly into their own basements in a matter of a few seconds...they too were on fire yet just suffered only...some damage. Get a grip people...google ALL of it and you see molten steel and explosions all the way down the WTC 1 and 2. Why was that steel still over 1000 degrees days later ? WHY ? It's because those bldgs. were blown up with explosives and yes, with about 1500 people still inside. For or those that seem to buy the outrageous claims of the Bush admin, and the 9/11 comm. Where there is a plane crash we ALWAYS find an airplane. The TWA flight that flew into the water, sank to the bottom, yet we found it and brought it up. Where were the airplanes that crashed into the pentagon and in the fields of PA. ? NOWHERE to be found. The Pa. Somerset Co. coroner was at the site for only 15 minutes. Why ? because there was no bodies, no blood, no frieght...i.e., no plane. We have DNA and identifying data on the employees killed in the pentagon...yet NO DNA from any passengers of the plane ALLEDGED to have hit the bldg. WHY ? The whole concept of what the previous admin. and the 9/11 comm. report tells us, is a ridiculous and outlandish insult to our intelligence. Of course, if one has any to begin with. There is more...so much more it is absolutely ridiculous to accept the line put out by the govt.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/20/2009 10:34:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers There is almost nothing in the evidence presented to us via media or govt. is consistent with what really happened. I'm sorry, but there's just no subtle way to put it. I understand this is something you feel passionately about, but if that's a serious statement then you simply have no clue what you're talking about. No clue whatsoever. I'll address your post briefly, but frankly I don't see the point in wasting more than 10 or 15 minutes trying to explain this to someone who needs to have it explained in the first place. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Bldgs. do NOT collapse as dust in their own basement just as in a planned demolition because of a fire burning for only a short while 77 floors up. I can think of 2 that did. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers ALL over the world engineers are laughing at us in buying this bullshit. YOU google it. I have. And everything I've seen that supposedly supports these lunatic conspiracy theories is complete crap. I made up more persuasive pseudo-scientific fantasies than that when I was writing parodies for the high school newspaper. I've seen enough that there's no reason to go looking for more; if you have some links that you think support your case, post 'em. And as for the laughing engineers, I could just as easily say that if the validity of one argument or the other can be measured by the number of people laughing at it, your side would lose quite badly. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers There are explosions going off from BEFORE the planes hit and after the planes hit. Again, I've seen numerous videos puporting to show that, and every one was crap. Not one of them showed what they claimed to show. If you've got a better one, let's see it. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers There is no possibility whatsoever that burning jet fuel at 1500 to 2000 degrees brings down steel that requires at least 3500 degree to CUT, not reduce to dust. I'm sorry, but here's what I mean when I say that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. The steel doesn't have to be cut or melted, it only has to be weakened to the point where it can no longer support the static load it is called upon to support. This is just simple, basic science. If you've truly researched this as much as you say you have, there should be no reason for you not knowing that. If you've read it and don't understand it, then I go back to what i said earlier about just now knowing what you're talking about, but either way, if you hang any part of your argument on such an obviously false assertion you're destroying your own credibility. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers The remaining steel in the ground shows that it was cut and with demo explosives. Why did people die from explosions several floors down in the underground parking ? Link? quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers AND how does all of this explain WTC 7 that wasn't hit by a plane yet fell because of fire ? BULLSHIT. If that were the case why didn't WTC's 3,4,5 and 6 also fall into dust perfectly into their own basements in a matter of a few seconds...they too were on fire yet just suffered only...some damage. Smaller buildings, not as badly damaged, weren't in any danger of collapsing because the static load the structure was required to support was not as great as the 47-story WTC 7. Easy. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Get a grip people...google ALL of it and you see molten steel and explosions all the way down the WTC 1 and 2. No you don't. At best, you see something that you want (for some reason I can't understand) to believe is explosions and molten steel, but you're not seeing explosions and molten steel. Again, I've seen numerous videos claiming to show what you say you're seeing, and without exception, every one of them is complete crap. If you've got one that isn't, toss it up. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Why was that steel still over 1000 degrees days later ? WHY ? It's because those bldgs. were blown up with explosives and yes, with about 1500 people still inside. Got a link? Without one, I'd venture to say it was because the steel was buried in rubble and insulated. If anything, this would disprove your demolitions theory, because if the heat source was demo charges instead of thousands of tons of jet fuel, the amount of energy released would have been smaller by several orders of magnitude. Much of the steel would have been cooled to the ambient temperature by the time it reached the ground. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers For or those that seem to buy the outrageous claims of the Bush admin, and the 9/11 comm. Where there is a plane crash we ALWAYS find an airplane. The TWA flight that flew into the water, sank to the bottom, yet we found it and brought it up. You do understand that in terms of impact damage, there's an enormous difference between a plane hitting the water and a plane hitting the ground. Right? quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Where were the airplanes that crashed into the pentagon and in the fields of PA. ? Scattered all over the immediate area, from the photos I saw. Again, in neither case did i see anything that stood out as inconsistent with the high-speed impacts of jetliners with full fuel loads. Do you realize how little solid mass there really is to an airliner? quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers NOWHERE to be found. The Pa. Somerset Co. coroner was at the site for only 15 minutes. Link? quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Why ? because there was no bodies, no blood, no frieght...i.e., no plane. Google "kinetic energy". quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers We have DNA and identifying data on the employees killed in the pentagon...yet NO DNA from any passengers of the plane ALLEDGED to have hit the bldg. WHY ? Link? quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers The whole concept of what the previous admin. and the 9/11 comm. report tells us, is a ridiculous and outlandish insult to our intelligence. Of course, if one has any to begin with. There is more...so much more it is absolutely ridiculous to accept the line put out by the govt. I don't think there are more than ten people on the entire planet who hate and mistrust the Bushers more than I do, but even liars tell the truth sometimes. The official explanation for the physical effects of the 9/11 atacks is so overwhelmingly consistent and persuasive, and the supposed "evidence" in support of these loony conspiracy theories is so absurd and utterly ignorant, there's just no logical reason to believe anything substantially different than the official reports. In order to believe the conspiracy theories, you have to reject so many things that are scientifically sound, and believe so many things that are just plain nonsense, that i can't understand why anyone with their wits about them would buy into it. It's just amazing to me.

MrRodgers -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/20/2009 1:02:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers There is almost nothing in the evidence presented to us via media or govt. is consistent with what really happened. I'm sorry, but there's just no subtle way to put it. I understand this is something you feel passionately about, but if that's a serious statement then you simply have no clue what you're talking about. No clue whatsoever. I'll address your post briefly, but frankly I don't see the point in wasting more than 10 or 15 minutes trying to explain this to someone who needs to have it explained in the first place. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Bldgs. do NOT collapse as dust in their own basement just as in a planned demolition because of a fire burning for only a short while 77 floors up. I can think of 2 that did. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers ALL over the world engineers are laughing at us in buying this bullshit. YOU google it. I have. And everything I've seen that supposedly supports these lunatic conspiracy theories is complete crap. I made up more persuasive pseudo-scientific fantasies than that when I was writing parodies for the high school newspaper. I've seen enough that there's no reason to go looking for more; if you have some links that you think support your case, post 'em. And as for the laughing engineers, I could just as easily say that if the validity of one argument or the other can be measured by the number of people laughing at it, your side would lose quite badly. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers There are explosions going off from BEFORE the planes hit and after the planes hit. Again, I've seen numerous videos puporting to show that, and every one was crap. Not one of them showed what they claimed to show. If you've got a better one, let's see it. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers There is no possibility whatsoever that burning jet fuel at 1500 to 2000 degrees brings down steel that requires at least 3500 degree to CUT, not reduce to dust. I'm sorry, but here's what I mean when I say that you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. The steel doesn't have to be cut or melted, it only has to be weakened to the point where it can no longer support the static load it is called upon to support. This is just simple, basic science. If you've truly researched this as much as you say you have, there should be no reason for you not knowing that. If you've read it and don't understand it, then I go back to what i said earlier about just now knowing what you're talking about, but either way, if you hang any part of your argument on such an obviously false assertion you're destroying your own credibility. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers The remaining steel in the ground shows that it was cut and with demo explosives. Why did people die from explosions several floors down in the underground parking ? Link? quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers AND how does all of this explain WTC 7 that wasn't hit by a plane yet fell because of fire ? BULLSHIT. If that were the case why didn't WTC's 3,4,5 and 6 also fall into dust perfectly into their own basements in a matter of a few seconds...they too were on fire yet just suffered only...some damage. Smaller buildings, not as badly damaged, weren't in any danger of collapsing because the static load the structure was required to support was not as great as the 47-story WTC 7. Easy. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Get a grip people...google ALL of it and you see molten steel and explosions all the way down the WTC 1 and 2. No you don't. At best, you see something that you want (for some reason I can't understand) to believe is explosions and molten steel, but you're not seeing explosions and molten steel. Again, I've seen numerous videos claiming to show what you say you're seeing, and without exception, every one of them is complete crap. If you've got one that isn't, toss it up. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Why was that steel still over 1000 degrees days later ? WHY ? It's because those bldgs. were blown up with explosives and yes, with about 1500 people still inside. Got a link? Without one, I'd venture to say it was because the steel was buried in rubble and insulated. If anything, this would disprove your demolitions theory, because if the heat source was demo charges instead of thousands of tons of jet fuel, the amount of energy released would have been smaller by several orders of magnitude. Much of the steel would have been cooled to the ambient temperature by the time it reached the ground. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers For or those that seem to buy the outrageous claims of the Bush admin, and the 9/11 comm. Where there is a plane crash we ALWAYS find an airplane. The TWA flight that flew into the water, sank to the bottom, yet we found it and brought it up. You do understand that in terms of impact damage, there's an enormous difference between a plane hitting the water and a plane hitting the ground. Right? quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Where were the airplanes that crashed into the pentagon and in the fields of PA. ? Scattered all over the immediate area, from the photos I saw. Again, in neither case did i see anything that stood out as inconsistent with the high-speed impacts of jetliners with full fuel loads. Do you realize how little solid mass there really is to an airliner? quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers NOWHERE to be found. The Pa. Somerset Co. coroner was at the site for only 15 minutes. Link? quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Why ? because there was no bodies, no blood, no frieght...i.e., no plane. Google "kinetic energy". quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers We have DNA and identifying data on the employees killed in the pentagon...yet NO DNA from any passengers of the plane ALLEDGED to have hit the bldg. WHY ? Link? quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers The whole concept of what the previous admin. and the 9/11 comm. report tells us, is a ridiculous and outlandish insult to our intelligence. Of course, if one has any to begin with. There is more...so much more it is absolutely ridiculous to accept the line put out by the govt. I don't think there are more than ten people on the entire planet who hate and mistrust the Bushers more than I do, but even liars tell the truth sometimes. The official explanation for the physical effects of the 9/11 atacks is so overwhelmingly consistent and persuasive, and the supposed "evidence" in support of these loony conspiracy theories is so absurd and utterly ignorant, there's just no logical reason to believe anything substantially different than the official reports. In order to believe the conspiracy theories, you have to reject so many things that are scientifically sound, and believe so many things that are just plain nonsense, that i can't understand why anyone with their wits about them would buy into it. It's just amazing to me. I simply cannot believe this post. You can site no bldg. even close to the size of these that didn't just fail, they didn't just fall, they crumpled into dust and all 110 stories into the basement...in free fall in a matter of seconds, just like in a planned demolition. EVERY video shows this demolition. There is simply nothing even close to this in the entire history of such similarly constructed steel bldgs. WTC 7 had fire of office furnishings for a few hours concentrated on only 2 floors, yet that fire results in all 47 stories falling in 10 secs in what is obvioulsy another planned demolition into dust in its own basement.. Can you and are the American people to really accept that two 60 tons OF MASS just VAPORIZED on impact with the pentagon and hitting a country farm ? Yet much of the pentagon and murdered employees...did NOT vaporize with it. You can't have it both ways...1000's of tons which is ridiculous prima facie when typically they have 6500 lbs of fuel could take down 110 story steel bldg. but didn't take down but a small section (far too small for a jetliner) of brick, block and drywall at the pentagon. I mean which set of engineering properties are we supposed to believe ? Look, no matter what happened, no matter who exactly did it. Why ? Why ? Why ? ...83 video tapes survivng 2 federal FOI lawsuits still being held top secret by the FBI ? ...the most protected and videotaped and secure bldg. IN THE WORLD was left unprotected without intercept or any missiles fired and not a single supporting video being made available ? Why did both Bush and Cheaney absolutely refuse to testify seperately before the 9/11 comm., under oath with transcripts. They only had a 'conversation' with the comm. members...OFF THE RECORD. Why ? What did they have to hide ? Why with documented warnings from much of the indusrialized world, did the Bush admin. fail to act ? Why was there 5-6000 'puts' (more than 10 times their normal volume) purchased on United and American airlines stock 1 and 3 days just before 9/11 ? Kinkroids please...where are the planes that hit the pentagon and crashed on a farm in Pa. Fact: where there are plane crashes...there ARE planes. There simply is no getting around the fact...yes fact...there were no planes...period. Why was Cheaney as VPres. of the US with no constitutional military position whatsoever...'appointed' commander of NORAD in the white house undergound bunker and for the only time in the history of this country on 9/11 ? Why did an Israeli co. BREAK their lease at WTC one week prior to 9/11 and move their offices to Norfolk, Va. ? Let's say we just don't know...ok. So where is the CSI on 9/11 ? Where is the documentary and forensic evidence. Why was the pentagon grounds covered in dirt immediately after 9/11 ? Why were 'govt. agents' seen taking away material from the pentagon grounds and almost immediately after impact ? Where is the 9/11 grand jury ?

Politesub53 -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/20/2009 3:29:07 PM)
quote: There are explosions going off from BEFORE the planes hit MrRodgers, Do you have a link for this ? I have seen loads of films and videos re-9/11 and never seen one with explosions prior to the planes hitting the buildings. Do you have any idea how many charges need to be planted to collapse a building by demolition ? The idea that could be carried out with no one noticing is laughable.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/20/2009 5:54:48 PM)
Hey I have a link that has a pretty logical arguement that proves Elvis is not dead ;).

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/20/2009 7:59:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers I simply cannot believe this post. I understand that, but I still don't understand why. You seem to have a pretty strange set of standards for what you're willing to believe and what you're not. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers You can site no bldg. even close to the size of these that didn't just fail, they didn't just fall, they crumpled into dust and all 110 stories into the basement...in free fall in a matter of seconds, just like in a planned demolition. EVERY video shows this demolition. I'll tell you again, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. I'm sorry, but there's just no other way to put it. The video does not show a controlled demolition. It just looks like a controlled demolition to you because the only time you're ever seen buildings falling down before was in controlled demolitions, and this looks similar to those other videos. So you leap to the conclusion that that's what this is, too. Do you even know what a controlled demolition is? Do you even know how it works? Let me explain it to you. They take a small quantity of explosive charges (usually just a couple of hundred pounds, at most), and use these small charges to weaken the structure, so that when the charges go off, the structure can no longer support itself. It's not like they just blow the building up - they simply weaken it enough that gravity pulls it down. Which is exactly what happened on 9/11 with the twin towers. The structural steel columns were weakened by the intense heat, and collapsed beneath the weight of the floors above them. The impact of the falling debris then transferred onto the columns below a dynamic load exceeding their bearing capacity, and they failed, imparting an even greater dynamic load to the structure below them, and so on. The reason the structure fell straight down, as it does in a controlled demolition, is because that's simply what things do when they fall down - they fall straight down, as much as they are able. It's just simple physics. The reason the WTC collapse looked similar to a controlled demo was because it's essentially an identical process - you weaken part of the structure to the point where it collapses, and it falls in upon itself. The difference is, in a controlled demo, you deliberately weaken the lower supports to the point where the static load of the upper levels collapses the lower levels. With the WTC collapse, the dynamic load caused by the upper levels collapsing onto the levels below them is what exceeded the design strength of the lower levels, but the principle is basically the same. I've witnessed the exact same thing myself, about 25 years ago (although on a much smaller scale). I was inspecting an office building under construction, and they were pouring concrete on the deck of the 6th or 7th level. The supports for the concrete forms were not properly placed, and a large portion of the deck collapsed beneath the weight of the wet concrete. The dynamic load of the falling concrete, impacting the deck below it, caused that deck to collapse, and when it hit the deck below, that deck partially collapsed as well. I think it went down about 4 levels altogether before it finally reached a point where the concrete had cured enough to withstand the load, but if the falling debris had been carrying as much mass as the upper levels of the WTC, there's no way that concrete could have withstood it. It would have collapsed all the way to the basement, the way the WTC did. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers There is simply nothing even close to this in the entire history of such similarly constructed steel bldgs. You can't be serious. How many "similarly constructed steel buildings" have had airliners full of fuel flown into them at 300 miles per hour? Think about that for a second, and then ask yourself whether that might have something to do with the fact that there isn't an extensive history of steel-frame buildings collapsing over the years. Think this one through, eh? quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers WTC 7 had fire of office furnishings for a few hours concentrated on only 2 floors, yet that fire results in all 47 stories falling in 10 secs in what is obvioulsy another planned demolition into dust in its own basement.. Obvious? In what way? The same way the towers were "obviously" brought down by controlled demolition? WTC 7 had massive structural damage to the lower floors, and significant fires throughout the building, all of which was reported repeatedly throughout the day by emergency workers. quote: "A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good. Debunking the bullshit I have no idea which conspiracy website you got this "small fire on 2 floors" thing from, but it's just not true. You don't believe the entire fire department was in on the conspiracy, do you? quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Can you and are the American people to really accept that two 60 tons OF MASS just VAPORIZED on impact with the pentagon and hitting a country farm ? Yet much of the pentagon and murdered employees...did NOT vaporize with it. You keep talking about planes that vaporized, and I keep wondering why. Why do you keep saying that? I saw debris from the planes scattered all over the Pentagon grounds that day, and the field in Pennsylvania as well. Where are you getting all this stuff about planes "vaporizing?" Just google the photos, and you'll see the debris too. You're not suggesting someone hauled all that junk in by truck, are you? And how do you account for the numerous eyewitnesses who watched both of these planes crash? Are they in on it too, along with the New York Fire Department? How far are you willing to go to believe this business? Do really not see how far you've got to bend rationality in order to believe the things you're claiming? What's next, those really weren't airplanes we saw crashing into the twin towers, either? You've got to take a moment to think here. About all the unlikely, and even impossible, things you need to accept in order to believe this conspiracy theory. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers You can't have it both ways...1000's of tons which is ridiculous prima facie when typically they have 6500 lbs of fuel could take down 110 story steel bldg. but didn't take down but a small section (far too small for a jetliner) of brick, block and drywall at the pentagon. I mean which set of engineering properties are we supposed to believe ? Oops! Did I say thousands of tons? Sorry. You're right. I meant thousands of pounds. I don't know where in the world you're getting 6500 pounds, though; they couldn't even get to the corner store and back on 6500 pounds of fuel. The max fuel load for a 757 on takeoff is in the neighborhood of 50 tons. Something like 11,000 gallons, if I recall correctly. But anyway. Why are you conflating the Trade Center towers with the Pentagon? You seem to be ignoring the structural differences between the two. The towers were brought down by gravity, the weight of the structure itself, which was obviously not going to be a factor in a 4-story building. In terms of fire damage and impact damage, i don't see anything significantly different between the WTC and the Pentagon. Size of the hole, amount of fire damage, all roughly consistent. The only difference is, the Pentagon fires were at a low enough level that firefighters were able to successfully quench them, whereas the WTC fires burned out of control. quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Look, no matter what happened, no matter who exactly did it. Why ? Why ? Why ? ...83 video tapes survivng 2 federal FOI lawsuits still being held top secret by the FBI ? ...the most protected and videotaped and secure bldg. IN THE WORLD was left unprotected without intercept or any missiles fired and not a single supporting video being made available ? Why did both Bush and Cheaney absolutely refuse to testify seperately before the 9/11 comm., under oath with transcripts. They only had a 'conversation' with the comm. members...OFF THE RECORD. Why ? What did they have to hide ? Why with documented warnings from much of the indusrialized world, did the Bush admin. fail to act ? Why was there 5-6000 'puts' (more than 10 times their normal volume) purchased on United and American airlines stock 1 and 3 days just before 9/11 ? Kinkroids please...where are the planes that hit the pentagon and crashed on a farm in Pa. Fact: where there are plane crashes...there ARE planes. There simply is no getting around the fact...yes fact...there were no planes...period. Why was Cheaney as VPres. of the US with no constitutional military position whatsoever...'appointed' commander of NORAD in the white house undergound bunker and for the only time in the history of this country on 9/11 ? Why did an Israeli co. BREAK their lease at WTC one week prior to 9/11 and move their offices to Norfolk, Va. ? Let's say we just don't know...ok. So where is the CSI on 9/11 ? Where is the documentary and forensic evidence. Why was the pentagon grounds covered in dirt immediately after 9/11 ? Why were 'govt. agents' seen taking away material from the pentagon grounds and almost immediately after impact ? Where is the 9/11 grand jury ? I don't know. And for the purposes of this particular discussion, I don't care. Because I don't need to know the answers to any of those questions in order to know that the conspiracy theories about "controlled demolitions" and "airplanes that weren't really there" are complete crap. And I can't help noticing that the links I asked for earlier, to support some of your assertions, never found their way into this thread. Which raises the question of whether you can offer any logical explanation at all for believing what you believe.With all due respect, I have yet to see one.

MrRodgers -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/20/2009 11:09:46 PM)
I'll write this and will write no more. This country is supposed to be a nation of law yet we all too often bypass the law and one wonders why. The law normally requires the formation of a grand jury bringing all kinds of science and forensic evidence to support any charges. Yet we didn't use our laws...why ? We used something called a 9/11 commission which produced something called the 9/11 commission report. Are you aware that everything that was to be published by the 9/11 commission report was to be agreed upon unanimously ? If a single member voted no, any issue brought up was entirely excluded from the report. So what did we get. It ignored WTC 7. Why ? It ignored the money trail. Why ? We get that you and nobody could have seen ANY evidence that a plane crashed into the pentagon or the fields of Pa. Why ? Because the 9/11 commission report told us that both of those planes VAPORIZED ON IMPACT. That means that all of the parts, luggage, freight and passengers ALL VAPORIZED !! There was molten steel discovered in the ruble of WTC 1 & 2, the 9/11 comsssion report had nothing at all about the molten steel. The 9/11 commission report itself identified a general in the Pakistani ISI has having wired $100,000 to a 9/11 conspirator in Florida. No further inquiry was made into that wire transaction. Now everybody knows that the single greatest tool in investigating conspircies is to follow the money. The 9/11 commission decided it wasn't important to investigate the origin of that $100,000 any further. Not important who financed 9/11 ?? Finally, nobody hs been able to explain why our govt. is withholding all of the rest of the evidence, all of the documentation or the video tapes from VDOT and surrounding hotels etc. BTW, you have cited no links yet either but suffice it to say put in 9/11, 9/11 mysteries, 9/11 conspiracies, 9/11 inconsistencies. Who benefited from 9/11 etc. Watch it all and take it ALL in.

Politesub53 -> RE: Violation of another Nations Sovereignty (5/21/2009 1:27:14 AM)
quote: Original MrRodgers BTW, you have cited no links yet either but suffice it to say put in 9/11, 9/11 mysteries, 9/11 conspiracies, 9/11 inconsistencies. Who benefited from 9/11 etc. Watch it all and take it ALL in. Speaking of links, I am still waiting for one showing an explosion before the planes hit. As for the various documentaries, I have watched them all, as real ( I think that was his name ) used to post them up. None contain proof and all contain theory. Getting back to a controlled demolition, ask yourself the most basic question. If someone wanted to bring down the towers for whatever reason, do you really think they would be worried about making sure it collapsed in a heap ?

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625