CENTCOM Stories
We have been discussing the story of Lauro Chavez, a former Army Sergeant who apparently worked at CENTCOM (although according to his DD-214 he did not serve in Afghanistan as he claimed). Now he is on the Alex Jones radio show, available here.
Chavez talks about working at the SCIF on the morning of 9/11, where he supposedly overheard orders to standdown NORAD. Conveniently he doesn't remember the names of any of the people involved. He also mentions the former commander of the US Army Corps of Engineers (his good buddy), which he identifies as a Lieutenant General, but refuses to name. I am not sure of the point of that, the only 3 star in CENTCOM would be the deputy commander, it is just a matter of looking it up and seeing who had that job in September 2001. Hint: It was Lieutenant General Michael P. DeLong, who most likely was never head of the Army Corp of Engineers, based on the fact that he was a MARINE. I suppose next we will hear that this 3 star was just passing through to say "hi" to SGT Chavez...
Anyway, the command center part, is all vague speculation, but then he starts talking about his (supposed) overseas service, here it gets rather bizarre, at the 57:30 mark:
Chavez: Yeah, I was deployed to Afghanistan for 8 months. About 2 weeks after 9/11 happened. I was there in support of the United States SOCOM, which if everybody has played the game SOCOM they are actually a real entity, located all at MacDill Airforce Base, and I provide them with communications, for the special ops teams. We flew into Kabul Airport, we were actually under fire as we flew in.
Yeah, I would think you would be, considering in September, 2001, the Kabul Airport was firmly in the hands of the Taliban. The war would not even start for another two weeks.
Anyway, he continues:
Chavez: Yeah, and I thought I was going to hunt bin Laden, and that was clearly not the objective of that war. I still don't know what the objective is. Other than to subliminally condition the people.
Alex Jones: Can you say 400 billion in opium a year coming out of there?
Chavez: Exactly, or the pipeline. A lot of people are like, "what pipeline?"
Alex Jones: Unoco
Chavez: I had to pull roving guard to make sure nobody blew up that pipeline. That was where our billions of dollars for the war went. (unintelligible) pull patrols.
Oh really. Well that seems like it would be a rather hard thing to do, considering the pipeline hasn't been built yet!
Chavez: You know, you got soldiers over there, that are using live depleted uranium in their tanks, in all the mortars, and all the howitzers. And DU is horrible, not only does it kill people, and that's fine, but its technically against the Geneva Conventions because it provides like an after effect, it's a radioactive material.
Uhh, how many tanks are we using in Afghanistan? I have never heard of any. But I guess this guy would know, he snuck into Afghanistan to repair computers with Delta Force and guard non-existent pipelines.
posted by James B. @ 6:39 PM
99 comments
99 Comments:
And DU is horrible, not only does it kill people, and that's fine, but its technically against the Geneva Conventions because it provides like an after effect, it's a radioactive material.
People see "uranium" and think they're gonna be glowing green.
Oh god, that last part gave me a good giggle. I don't think I've ever seen that many mistakes crammed into two sentences.
You know, you got soldiers over there, that are using live depleted uranium
Let's start with "live depleted uranium". Now how in the hell can you have a "live" metal? That's rather like saying our rifle rounds contain "live lead penetrators".
in their tanks, in all the mortars
MORTARS?? Wow, this guy must be REALLY super-secret-special-forces, because a simple soldier like me can't even figure out why you'd WANT DU in a mortar round.
and all the howitzers
While I suppose a DU howitzer round might be somewhat useful in an anti-tank direct-fire role, I've certainly never heard of such ammo being produced.
And DU is horrible, not only does it kill people, and that's fine, but its technically against the Geneva Conventions because it provides like an after effect, it's a radioactive material.
Well he packed most of the mistakes into the first sentence. The only thing he got wrong in sentence number two is the fact that there is nothing in the Geneva Conventions prohibiting the use of DU.
I thought this guy was going to be a bit better than Jessie Macbeth, but it looks like he's equally clueless.
Jessie Macbeth
That was his name! From the first post about this winner, that twiggy antiwar poster child popped into my head.
Don't you not know that birth defects are up 400-600% in Iraq? And lung cancer is up 500%?
This information brought to you by the authors of "Jewish Termites Demolished the WTC to Build a Pipeline in Afghanistan".
Sorry bub, I don't buy it. All my research on DU points to inflated statistics and poor science performed by the same people who scream about US atrocities whenever a US soldier accidentally squashes an ant.
People see "uranium" and think they're gonna be glowing green.
So is "uranium" ever really "safe" then? Duh..
All my research on DU points to inflated statistics and poor science performed by the same people who scream about US atrocities whenever a US soldier accidentally squashes an ant.
So are all the "Gulf War Illness" vets liars then?
I'm sorry, I don't recall hearing anyone screaming about a US soldier squashing an ant. Maybe the rest of your comment it as full of shit as that one.
If your comprehension abilities are truly that bad, you have my pity.
Of course I do wonder where you get your DU is a-ok reports. Could you link me to one of your DU is a-okay reports? I would love to read it. Don't have any? Damn, that's a shame!
Hold on there tiger! How about this little factoid:
Uranium was widely used as a coloring matter for porcelain and glass in the 19th century. The practice was believed to be a matter of history, however in 1999 concentrations of 10% depleted uranium were found in "jaune no.17" a yellow enamel powder that was being produced in France by Cristallerie de Saint-Paul, a manufacturer of enamel pigments. The depleted uranium used in the powder was sold by Cogéma's Pierrelatte facility. Cogema has since confirmed that it has made a decision to stop the sale of depleted uranium to producers of enamel and glass. [5]
Uranium (and other radioactive substances) has historically been used for all sorts of civilian applications. Chances are your parents ate dinner every day from plates containing trace quantities of uranium. Yet cancer rates are higher today!
There's plenty of studies available on the amount of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation released by DU. The consensus is that DU certainly is dangerous, but that it's chemical properties are more dangerous than the level of gamma radiation given off by it. In other words, it's nothing to be overly concerned about, no more so than lead or tungsten rounds. Now, I'm not going to do all your work for you! Look for some reputable websites instead of your usual conspiracy nonsense.
Let's put it this way, do you want DU dust in the air you breath?
No, but I also don't want gasoline fumes in the air I breathe. Does that mean we should all stop driving?
I don't recall anybody saying that DU is harmless. However, this is from Wikipedia.
By contrast, other studies have shown that DU ammunition has no measurable detrimental health effects, either in the short or long term. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported in 2003 that, "based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts," although "Like other heavy metals, DU is potentially poisonous. In sufficient amounts, if DU is ingested or inhaled it can be harmful because of its chemical toxicity. High concentration could cause kidney damage."
There is also the fact that depleted uranium is much less radioactive then regular Uranium. Also the primary type of radiation emitted by Uranium will not even penetrate skin. It's primary danger is that of a heavy metal all of which are poisonous.
the russians used DU since the 70s, anyoen want to complain about them? im sure they conducted alot more invasions with it than bush is planning
They only invaded Afghanistan since the 70's and BTW they are no more. The purpose of DU is to kill the soldiers as well as the soldier’s targets. In the NWO there will be no armies and those of you who did the deed will meet their demise eventually. That's simply the plan. Too bad you’ll have to find out the hard way.
I don't recall anybody saying that DU is harmless. However, this is from Wikipedia.
Wiki is under Jewish censorship so most of the articles there are skewed.
BTW "depleted" is only a cover name for the same ole, same ole..
Uranium!
There's nothing "depleted" about it. The only thing that can "deplete" uranium is about a million years of half life.
Wiki is under Jewish censorship so most of the articles there are skewed.
Typical moronic response. If it refutes your worldview, then it is becaues the Jooooos have corupted it. Truly pathitic.
This kid is amazing :) Truly makes me wonder just how far out of whack it's possible for the human mind to go. He could keep a team of shrinks busy for the rest of their lives!
There's nothing "depleted" about it. The only thing that can "deplete" uranium is about a million years of half life.
My GOD are you stupid. Have you not even taken a basic science course? Or is science corrupted by the Jooooos too? Natural Uranium has 3 isotopes. When you remove the 2 most radioactive isotopes (a process called enrichment- you should have heard of that, your hero in Iran is doing it, or is he a joooo too?) What you have left is Depleted Uranium. Open a book sometime instead of you neo Nazi websites.
The only thing that can "deplete" uranium is about a million years of half life.
BTW the half life of DU is 4.5 Billion years. This makes DU one of the least radioactive substances existing.
Wait for it, now he's going to come back and say that a 4.5 billion year half life makes it more dangerous. After all, if it's radioactive for that long, it's GOT to be dangerous stuff, right? ;)
LOL, I was really was expecting that from him!
DU one of the least radioactive substances existing.
Keep telling that to your chromosomes.
I have worked with and handled both DU and enriched Uranium. My Chromosomes are fine, thank you
Isn't thermite a key component for depleted uranium? ;-)
My Chromosomes are fine, thank you
Hey, the guys that handled agent orange said the same thing until...
Isn't thermite a key component for depleted uranium? ;-)
Yes! You will symmetrically collapse in due time ;)
Hey, the guys that handled agent orange said the same thing until...
I have met Vets who sprayed the stuff, and used to come back to base covered in it head to toe. They are all fine. There has never been one credible study that has linked agent orange to any human ailment.
The government right now, today, could pick you up at the airport, take you away send you to some CIA secert camp, torture you for a year in god knws manners, and then release you with no charges ever be filed. Don't believe me? Go ask Maher Arar.
That is simply a lie. There is nothing at all in the Patriot act that allows this, period. Please take your meds to ease those paranoid delusions.
such a public will always exist, thus nessies assertion that there will be no army under the NWO is flawed
You guys of all people should understand what separates actual military and ex-military men from the "public."
you wanna go handle some? bet you will not be too happy to ...
I *have* handled it. There is nothing dangerous about it at all...as long as it stays outside your body.
as long as it stays outside your body.
So how did you tell the exploded dust particles to stay away from your lungs? Wow! You guys are marvelous!!
I think you're trying to be sarcasic
Yeah, that was directed at me... private joke I guess, tee hee ..
him, in his mind, all things are settled as simply paranoia, no more thinking is require.
That reminds me "conspiracy theory" is also a "stop-think" phrase often used to achieve this goal.
Jack:
Don't you love the "this subject is kicking my ass so I'm going to try to do a switch-a-roo to cover my big fat dumb ass" tactic by the weak minded chronicly wrong fool.
No, dumbass, it's called an analogy. You can call it a comparison if you can't pronounce "analogy". If you're going to take away my DU because you don't want people breathing it in, I'm certainly justified in taking away your car so I don't have to breathe the fumes. I definitely need our pilots using DU rounds more than I need you cruising around trying to pick up little boys.
You won't fight today for freedom, so why you do it when life is harder to fight for it?
You've obviously never studied history or sociology.
Hell, you might not even need to study those subject if you were at the very least able to look at the world around you without seeing NWO agents around every corner. Where do you see people fighting against their governments these days? Prosperous democratic nations? Or third world shitholes?
I course, I didn't read in history book about washington blowing frogs with firecrackers or be repermeded for be to rough on college peldges.
Unless you're talking about French people, I fail to see the relevance.
Pick up a history book and read about Lincoln some time. The things he did make Bush look like a saint, yet today most people consider him to have been a great president.
Paranoia is a term called a "stop-think" word.
Yes, your paranoia certainly does lead you to do that.
Thus that is why paranioa has been developed as a stop think word.
By the Jews, right?
911:
BRITISH and American coalition forces are using depleted uranium (DU) shells in the war against Iraq and deliberately flouting a United Nations resolution which classifies the munitions as illegal weapons of mass destruction.
That's as far as I bothered going with your "article" because the above statement is an outright lie. There is no such UN resolution, nor is there anything in the Geneva Conventions prohibiting the use of depleted uranium. And DU is DEFFINITELY not classified as a "illegal weapon of mass destruction". In fact, the use of that phrase alone tells me that the author is absolutely clueless about prohibited weapons classification and weaponry in general. I challenge you to go out and find this UN resolution that supposedly bans DU. That premise is almost as silly as the uproar over the use of white phosphorous munitions a few years back.
I'm sorry but all your credibilty just went down the toilet!
Why, because you quoted some goofball who knows nothing about the subject at hand? That's not how rational discourse works, boy.
you wanna go handle some? bet you will not be too happy to ...
I've got no problem with it whatsoever. You'll absorb more harmful radiation from your CRT screen than I will from "handling" DU.
Would any of you be willing to go on the record (with your real names) dissing this guy and his concerns for DU?
Absolutely, if I thought there was any point to it. As it is, my name would just be added to your "list of CIA shills to be liquidated after the revolution". And while I don't have much fear of bodily harm, I'd really rather not have 16 year old potheads crank calling me in the middle of the night.
Nesnyc:
So how did you tell the exploded dust particles to stay away from your lungs? Wow! You guys are marvelous!!
If you're ingesting DU, you've got bigger problems than radiation. As we've pointed out several times now, the chemical properties of DU are more harmful than it's radioactive properties. It's not a good idea to ingest "dust particles" of lead or tungsten either. If we were to follow your argument to it's logical conclusion we'd have to ban sharp sticks too because some kid might get a splinter from a discarded stick, and develop gangrene.
Man - SLC puts up damning evidence that one of the new idols of the Truthers is a lying crank, and look at the sheer volume of batsh*t crazy that comes oozing in!
I don't think the truthers realize how completely entertaining they are to us - kind of like rats that keep taking the electrified food pellets over and over again.
Wow, breathing and eating DU must be really bad. Except that every one of us, and all out parents, even the jooos, has ingested and breathed uranium every day of their lives. Uranium is naturally occurring, it is in the soil and water everywhere. And naturally occurring uranium is more dangerous than depleted uranium, because it is not depleted as explained above.
So if DU was so dangerous we'd all be dead.
Of course it HAS been studied. Anyone who wants to read 300+ page reports on the impact on DU in Bosnia, etc. can go to this site: http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications.php?prog=du. Alternatively, hide from the real science and think whatever alex jones tells you to think, good old alex who thinks DU is fired out of mortars.
However, it SURE as hell isn't fired from F#$#%ING MORTARS!! JESUS!
Yeah, no kidding. Its an anti-armor round. Putting it in a mortar round is useless, and IIRC you need muzzle velocities for the stuff to work the way it is supposed to. This means that even if howitzers could score perfect hits on the Tank armies of the Taliban (?) they wouldn't have enough velocity to work.
I remember the DU scaremongers were pointing to a couple of Italian soldiers in the Balkans had a Luekemia. They were oh so quick to blame the big bad USA and their depleted Uranium. Turns out those soldiers hadn't been in the Balkans long enough for the incubation period for Luekemia, and when someone did some research they found that their soldier's hometown had an industry pollution level that could be described as 'Stalinesque'.
No, I wouldn't want to breath DU dust, but the stuff is heavy and unlikely to stay in the air long. I would wash my hands after handling the stuff. But this is all because of its chemical properties, not its nuclear ones. Nesync and 911mysteries show they have no science knowledge whatsoever beyond scaremongering and claiming anything that disagrees with them is run by jews.
Would any of you be willing to go on the record (with your real names) dissing this guy and his concerns for DU?
His opinions on the dangers of DU is a minor point. The fact that he is lying and has never been to Afghanistan is the major point of this post, and something none of the conspiracy theorists here will even come close to addressing.
There's an even more easily falsifible claim than the DU one: the fact that there is no pipeline in Afghanistan, and no plans to build a pipeline in Afghanistan. The country is so unstable right now that no company wants to invest in the infrastructure. Plus, the only plans in the works anyway weren't for oil, but for natural gas from Turkmenistan--which would have ended up going to the former Soviet republics anyway.
Pipeline claim demolished thanks to yet another helpful lefty media source:
"No War for Oil"
I am not picking at him for his "concerns" I am picking at him for lying. I am a soldier, and it offends me greatly when people lie about their service, especially when they are doing it to smear their country.
I already did. I posted about that in the comments of a previous thread. He refused to answer my questions. There is no way his paperwork could be that screwed up, and his lies about events that could have never taken place only serve to undermine his credibility even further.
Why don't you write a letter to him to get confirmation? There could be mix up in the paper work? Or some other factor.
James did.
You failed, predictably, to address James' last point before you resumed cut-and-pasting the latest batch of CT dung.
Respond to his proof that this clown started off with a slew of lies about his service. We dare you.
Also if you were fired upon with radioactive ammunition, that coud be considered 'poison or poisoned weapons' and thus against the Geneva conventions.
That would be a point...if DU were radioactive.
You seem to be ignoring that little deatil.
9-11 mysteries -
Respond to James' proof that this clown sarted off his "truth" campaign with a slew of demonstrable lies about his service.
What of his drinking, drug and lap-dance habits. Do you think he was really ready to die after all that?
Martyrdom in Islam promises and forgives a whole lot. In fact it doesn't matter what you do beforehand. Why should a few strippers matter?
Also, re lap-dancing ... if he hated Americans, would he lap dance with one?
You're my new favorite thing on the internet 911 mysteries. Please let me know about each and every forum you post to. I think your stuff is hilarious.
If he so looked forward to martydom, why ruin his chances of being being held in high regard (to God) by not following his faith?
Because when you are martyred in a holy war, it really doesn't matter what your previous behavior was, get it?
Try reading some of the accounts of the 'Holy Wars' of the Ottoman Empire sometimes. Loads of discipline trouble with the ones promised heaven if they died in battle. They kinda knew that in a few weeks they'd be charging into walls of greek fire and other fun things. The only hope the Ottoman leaders sometimes had was to execute a few of the worst cases and then have it explained that being killed en route was not a path to heaven.
Atta didn't have that limitation.
Also remember this: Fanatcism does not mean you are going to follow all the tenets of your religion. In fact, many fanatics start making convenient exceptions for themselves. Look up Jimmy Swaggart or Jim Bakker sometime.
I'm glad you like it. But it's an important question, nonetheless.
Dear God, I'm still laughing about it.
Sadly, the 9/11 truth movement now hinges on a lap dance. Erm... Personally, I can think of at least 12 women I really, really hate that I'd be happy to get a lap dance from.
Also, re lap-dancing ... if he hated Americans, would he lap dance with one? I mean, these are people you are going to kill.
Sex is sex. Remember one little thing: The goal of Al Queda is not to exterminate Americans, it is to convert us to Islam.
Maybe he justified it in some crazy psycho way in own mind. But it's in no way typical.
People flying planes into buildings are not typical, even among the religious.
funny how the jews keep popping up. theiy're kind of your equivalent of GWB's bin laden. I have never mentioned jews in any of the posts. FYI, I am Jewish.
One of your points was countered by a reference.
Nesync countered with the claim that said reference was 'run by jews'.
I didn't see you type a single word in protest to that assertion.
Clean your house before you complain.
I think you confuse the word hate. Hating enough to kill, is much different from casual dislike (aka "hate") And this is not an anger thing. This is cold, calculated, deep rooted hate.
Trust me, nobody hates strippers that much. Anyway, why does it matter?
At some point you have to realize that all the pieces aren't going to fit together neatly. The fact that these oddities pop up isn't proof of any conspiracy, it's proof that the world is a messy place.
This isn't some James Bond movie, it's real life. In real life buildings don't collapse exactly the way we expect. People mishear things, misunderstand things, misquote things.
The fact that you can't connect all these oddities you keep coming up with into a coherent conspiracy should say something to you. You're being taken advantage of by people who could care less about 9/11 truth and more about fame. Don't be their pawn, man.
I see three possibilities:
That's the problem. That is all you see.
In Christianity, being baptized and accepting jeebus is considered good enough to wash away old sins. It doesn't matter what you did before.
In Islam, being a martyr in a holy war is a ticket to paradise. It does not matter what you did before. Since it is an act that requires mostly physical action combined with only modest faith (accepting jeebus is a lot more 'subjective') you can pretty much live it up in sin since your slate gets cleaned when you die.
If you know your slate is going to be cleaned, you might as well have fun dirtying in up.
I'm glad you like it. But it's an important question, nonetheless.
Because a lap dance is so much better when the stripper is cryin'.
However, I don't think NIST's modelling is complete, for they only went to collapse initiation. If this says anything, it is that this kind of analysis may even be beyond NIST with its current budget.
Its not a matter of budget. Most computer modeling programs just can't handle things beyond the point of failure. You increase the number of variables exponentially and that will create problems.
Some industries, like the auto industry, have their own programs that run past the failure point. But these are specialized and unsuited for buildings.
Its not a matter of just leaving the computer on running the program fora longer time either. These programs can crash, especially when they increase the variables so much. When they crash you lose all the data you've gotten up until that point.
So please, stop talking like you know what can and should be done.
However, I don't think NIST's modelling is complete, for they only went to collapse initiation. If this says anything, it is that this kind of analysis may even be beyond NIST with its current budget.
Its not a matter of budget. Most computer modeling programs just can't handle things beyond the point of failure. You increase the number of variables exponentially and that will create problems.
Some industries, like the auto industry, have their own programs that run past the failure point. But these are specialized and unsuited for buildings.
Its not a matter of just leaving the computer on running the program fora longer time either. These programs can crash, especially when they increase the variables so much. When they crash you lose all the data you've gotten up until that point.
So please, stop talking like you know what can and should be done.
Well, ok, seems like you know a lot about Islam. Are you an authority on the subject? (just curious)
I know enough. I know the effects martyrdom has had in warefare and terrorism. What you complain about with Atta is nothing new in the Islamic world.
I am not an authority on Islam. I know what a lot of Americans should know. I know perhaps a bit more than that. I know other things about it from sutdying history. Specialization is for insects.
One thing though, debating everything ad-nauseum is pointless. If there isn't a give and take in the debate, it is pointless.
That would imply that you have something to give beyond the usual mythmaking.
"It's not a one-off exposure that's the problem. It's the continual exposure (over years) that causes problems. Would you like having some in your backyard?"
I have natural uranium in my backyard. It is more radioactive than depleted uranium.
"Also, come the problem with shrapnel. If you're hit by radioactive shrapnel you're obviously in big doo-doo."
And if you get hit with a lead bullet, can't you get lead poisoning? You're not thinking this through.
"Well then you affirmed my point that pancaking is not provable. That was all I was trying to put accross."
In that case we can't actually prove that a controlled demolition would cause pancaking either.
Sorry bub, I don't buy it. All my research on DU points to inflated statistics and poor science performed by the same people who scream about US atrocities whenever a US soldier accidentally squashes an ant.
"Accidentally"... Yeah, right.
(:p)
The purpose of DU is to kill the soldiers as well as the soldier’s targets.
Oh, you mean since the US's been losing so few troops in Iraq recently?
Wiki is under Jewish censorship so most of the articles there are skewed.
Anyone want to contribute some money for my planned TV series? It's to be called "Nazis say the darndest things".
A few more tidbits for y'all:
To which I add: What on Earth does that have to do with this thread?
No, [I don't want DU fumes in the air I breathe]
Thank you for admitting that.
(...) but I also don't want gasoline fumes in the air I breathe. Does that mean we should all stop driving?
On the surface, that sounded logical. But beneath the surface, the logic fails.
a. OK, so gasoline fumes aren't good either. So the Heck what? Two wrongs make a right now?
b. Do you seriously believe that stopping all driving of all gasoline-powered vehicles will have the same impact on the world as the stopping of the use of DU? Do you really think that's a good analogy?
Also if you were fired upon with radioactive ammunition, that coud be considered 'poison or poisoned weapons' and thus against the Geneva conventions.
Now you're just being excessively obtuse. Is LEAD not considered a poison in your world? By your definition, regular lead-core-copper-jacket rounds would be considered "poison or poisoned weapons" as well.
Also, you've selectively quoted that". convention. The full text of the sentence you're looking for is "poison or poisoned weapons' and 'arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering'"
In other words, the poison or material has to intentionally cause unnecessary suffering. In the case of DU that's simply not the case. Even if we assumed that you were right about how dangerous it is, the fact is that such effects would be secondary and unintentional. The PRIMARY function, or the CALCULATED effect, is the penetrating power of the DU slug. Secondary actions don't disqualify weapons under this convention.
"Well then you affirmed my point that pancaking is not provable. That was all I was trying to put across."
Well, we did sorta, SEE IT HAPPEN. Not to mention that it's basically what occurs in a controlled demo too, just without explosives this time.
a. OK, so gasoline fumes aren't good either. So the Heck what? Two wrongs make a right now?
b. Do you seriously believe that stopping all driving of all gasoline-powered vehicles will have the same impact on the world as the stopping of the use of DU? Do you really think that's a good analogy?
Fine, if you want to be a dick about it, it's a crappy analogy when taken to an extreme, as most analogies are. All I was trying to point out is that DU has benefits which outweigh the concern about pollution. DU rounds help keep me and my buddies alive. If using them means I have to breathe some in occasionally, I'm willing to take any associated risk because the immediate benefit is much greater. Ditto with cars. I know all those gasoline fumes aren't good for me, but the benefit of having a set of wheels to get me around from place to place outweighs any long term risk of lung cancer.
We on the same page now?
"You guys are so high and mighty, you might as well found your own elitist society. Your attitude is what stinks, and with that attitude you will never accept anything beyond your set of beliefs."
Hey - you are the "truth seekers." If you are going to make incendiary suggestions, malavolent implications, or the like, YOU have to present the indisputable evidence. We're just asking questions.
After all, SLC is just asking question of the truthers. Why don't any of you have any answers? Why do your purported "answers" turn to dust under even the most rudimentary scrutiny? Why do you have an incessant obsession with "the neocons" and the "Jews"? Why do you engage in chicken-wire experiments and toliet-paper tube "science," and then claim you've got "evidence" of something? Why do your sources always turn out to be people who reside on the fringes of culture and academia who have little or no experience or expertise in any scientific or logistic field that can be associated with real 9-11 research? Why can't you seem to find any 9-11 first responders to go on record with your "truth movement?"
I'll help you out - you are all full of crap. Plain and simple. It has been demonstrated on this site on a daily basis. The answers you seek can be found in the videos of planes flying into the Twin Towers on 9-11, and al-Qaeda's own statements and history prior to and after that. The end. You merely need the courage to see it.
You got another theory with some evidence? Bring it. Suggestions, questions and malavolent implications of your political enemies are not "evidence" of anything but your desperation.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
'Depleted' Uranium weaponry is illegal under the terms and conditions of the Geneva Convention. Under the Geneva Convention, it is illegal to leave harmful materials on a battlefield after the conflict has ceased.
Wrong again. Try and cite that. Come on! I dare ya!
You see the term "Depleted" refers to the removal of uranium-235, but the process for its removal is called "Enrichment." It is Enrichment because what remains is uranium-238, a highly potent radioactive carcinogen that emits alpha particles.
NO YOU IDIOT! GAH! It's "enrichment" because it's PRIMARY PURPOSE is to produce ENRICHED URANIUM! The DEPLETED uranium is a waste product! Your above sentence is like saying that the primary purpose of internal combustion engines is to generate carbon!
And U-238 is NOT "highly potent". It has a halflife of 4.4 BILLION years! Do you know what that means? It means that the radiation produced by it escapes at such a slow rate that 4.4 billion years from now it will be half as radioactive as it is today. Do you have any concept of how slow that is?? For comparison, U-234 has a halflife of 244,500 years. Now THERE is a "potent" radioactive material.
In addition, you say "emits alpha particles" as if it were some horrid thing. Alpha and Beta particles are weak enough to be stopped by skin! It's gamma radiation that's the real danger, and U-238 produces it in VERY low quantities.
GAH! Why can't you CT dirtbags at least be EDUCATED and insane. This combination of ignorant and insane is truly aggrivating.
Stop saying "Depleted Uranium, and call it what it is, "Enriched Uranium.
Idiot. I'd sooner stop calling you retarded and refer to you as an "ultra intellectual braniac".
and besides, who the hell cares about legality. how about it just ain't right?
That's only your opinion, and it's based on poor information and preconceived biases. As such, we're certainly not going to let it guide the way we conduct warfare.
Goddamit, I just realized I didn't adress even a quarter of the lies in that bullshit post of yours. I have NEVER seen an "article" that full of lies and misinformation. And trust me, I've come across a LOT of nonsense "research" on DU from the usual anti-America crowd. You've just set a new record.
would you use DU on American soil, if an enemy attacked.
If they attacked with armor, you betcha.
Absolutely, since I'm not American :D
To answer your question the way you intended it though, yes I would absolutely use DU over Canadian soil if we were invaded.
Oh, and about this part:
All this site does is slander and debunk the most obvoious errors. Can you answer any of the questions I laid out earlier?
You do realize that we get the exact same phrase all the time from every nutbar out there, don't you? Then we answer their questions, they disappear into the woodwork, and some new twerp pops out and proceeds to complain that all the questions we've answered were "obviously wrong", but he bets we can't answer HIS questions. It's a never ending cycle, man! I could spend the rest of my life answering CT questions, and STILL get accused of only answering the "easy ones".
I have to say, even by the standards of truther science, 911mysteries is posting some real garbage here.
I do disagree with y'all on DU tho. I wouldn't contaminate the environment, no matter how insignificant the effects may seem (given that they last so long) for short term gain, especially on American soil. I would only use it if it were the only way to win the war. But that's me. And you have every right to your opinion. I just wonder what a poll might produce as results.
Here's the thing: Every day, companies, farms and people pollute via exhaust systems, trash, and other disposal, tons of stuff that is much harsher for the environment than DU.
Now consider your invasion. Truth to be told, DU is not fire willy-nilly. It is specifically an anti-armor shell. It might work against blockhouses, but I'm not certain about thaty. Either way, unless several dozen tank battallions magicly appear on US soil, there aren't going to be too many DU rounds fired.
Now consider this: DU rounds may not end a war, but using them can sure as heck make war shorter by defeating the enemy faster.
Do you think prolonging a war is good for the environment? War is exceptionally nasty on the environment. For the sake of an imaginary threat, you want to cause an even bigger threat to be extended.
This ignores the human suffering, BTW.
Your opinion is a classic example of penny-wise/pound-foolish, and your wisdom with the penny ain't that great.
I don't post much, I usually just read and observe.
I do have to say, without a shadow of a doubt, 911 Mysteries is far and away the most level headed of the Looser crew I've seen on here.
9-11, Someone made a good comment earlier(apologies for not naming, my head hurts).
Questions are good and necessary, but "the world isn't perfect, and this isn't a James Bond Movie". It's such a good point.
Lastly, as much as it seems this board goes on the attack and the posters are high and mighty, the other side is just as bad, if not worse, but i get the feeling you realize that.
Jack, are you really that dumb?
Lead will kill you just as much from poisoning as depleted uranium. Nobody made a big deal when we were firing lead at people.
You all tend to miss that key word "depleted".
Don't you not know that birth defects are up 400-600% in Iraq?
You gonna show babies with harlequin ichthyosis and pass it off as DU birth defects? Because that's what the people holding the signs and David Icke try.
Think about it for a second. It there is a one world government, who would the army fight?
You'd have a hard time keeping dozens, if not hundreds, of rebel groups suppressed.
Just wait until your son is born with one working eye, haft an arm, six toes, and a slit for a mouth. Maybe then you will reconsider your statements.
DEPLETED uranium.
Alliant Techsystems makes depleted uranium shells for use in U.S. tanks, armored personnel carriers, and howitzers. The use of these rounds is the subject of great controversy because of their impact on the environment and human health, both in the long and short term.
Straight from wikipedia. Now please tell us which howitzer system uses these alleged shells.
Also please tell me what links in wikipedia support DU howitzers. The only one I see is discussing tank cannon shells.
67% of the service man who served in the gulf war have childern with birth defects.
Bull.
Do you even *know* any Gulf War vets who had kids? I've known plenty and if 2/3 of them were having birth defects you think they'd show somwhere.
The rest of your DU crap is laughable. You really have no clue about science except what the scare sites tell, do you?
Bingo, buddy.
So why bring up your little one-world government nonsense?
Now connect the facts. WHat happened?
Saddam had a fondness for chemical and nerve agents.
You're always trying to boost yourself up by putting another man down.
I do so hate this defense. It's just nonsense they teach you in grade school so the kids who get picked on feel better about themselves.
Du is radioactive. Lead is not.
Hmm didn't get my point. I was saying that both will poison you in the same fashion (as in it won't really harm you unless you get hit by bullets). Lead isn't exactly harmless, don't you know.
Bull shit, you were backed into a corner and wanted to do a switch-a-roo to change the subject.
Buddy, the day you manage to back me into a corner will be the day I accept forced retirement. You argue as if you've left half of your brain sitting on a shelf somewhere.
Ah the truth! You don't give a damn about the danagers or the polloution, or the effect it has on the people who live on the land you're bombing! You'll kept believing that DU is keeping you and you buddy alive.
Technically right. I know that the "dangers or the polloution [sic]" are almost non-existent, so no I really don't give a damn about them. Considering the number of middle-eastern people I see smoking, if they get cancer it won't be from DU.
Just wait until your son is born with one working eye, haft an arm, six toes, and a slit for a mouth. Maybe then you will reconsider your statements.
Yeah, if he turned out like you I really would start to worry.
Ummm, hello? Anyone home? Du is radioactive. Lead is not.
And the radiation is only dangerous if DU is ingested. And if it's ingested it's about as harmful as lead, because both are toxic, and the metal poisoning is more likely to cause adverse health effects than the radiation. You're really not getting this are you?
Now connect the facts. WHat happened?
You and your buddies invented a bunch of statistics?
And stop trying to sound like a bloody intelectual. I think Randy Milholland was talking about you when he said:
"Typos are very important to all written form. It gives the reader something to look for so they aren't distracted by the total lack of content in your writing."
Oh, BTW telescopemerc, I wouldn't be surprised if there really were DU shells for howitzers. That's why earlier I said that I could see how they'd be useful, but I've never heard of anyone making them. We do direct-fire shoots with howitzers on occasion. Dunno how familiar you are with military terminology so I'll dumb it down:
Indirect fire is what you normally think of when you think artillery. The shells are lobbed on a high trajectory, so they lose most of their muzzle velocity by the time they reach the target.
Direct fire if what you'd use against vehicles at close range, especially AFV's and tanks. Shells are launched on a low trajectory meaning they impact the target with a great deal of kinetic energy. Ofcourse, if you're doing this chances are you're already screwed, but it's better than nothing as a last line of defence. DU penetrators would be nice for direct fire. But like I said, I've never seen them nor have I heard of any western nation employing them.
Thanks Alex, I didn't know they still used howitzers for direct fire. That was the only reason I could think of they would need DU. But nothing I know of mentioned direct fire usage by modern howitzers.
Truth sucks doesn't it.
Yes, it'd suck if it were true. It isn't. I make fun of people because either A. they deserve it or B. it makes me laugh. It has nothing to do with my own self-esteem.
That was until I shoved some facts right up your ass and rotated it.
Jesus Christ do you just ignore everything in here? Lead is poisonous, too, if you eat it. Where are all the studies and hoopla about the lead bullets we've been using for years? You'd figure after World War II, Europe would be a poisonous hellhole using the logic you employ with the DU shells.
You don't understand that correlation does not imply causation. You're accepting that use of DU = increase cancer and birth defects. That ignores other factors like Saddam's aforemention affinity for chemical/biological/nerve agents and/or shoddy sampling.
Do you even *know* any Gulf War vets who had kids? I've known plenty and if 2/3 of them were having birth defects you think they'd show somwhere.
That is simply an outright lie. Gulf war vets are not any sicker then vets who did not go to the gulf, and two thirds of their children do not have birth defects. Is there any issue at all that you people do not lie through your teeth?
Hey, I'm just repeating the facts experts. found while doing a study. I guess you folks only support experts that support you, huh?
No, what you're doing is quoting "research" as interpreted by individuals who have a clear bias. How many experts actually agree with that conclusion? You approach to the study of DU illness is exactly the same as your approach to the 9/11 twoof movement: conclusion first, then misquote experts, make up facts, and invent statistics!
In late 2000 and early 2001, various news reports, mostly European, reported allegations of an increase in leukemia cases related to exposure to DU while serving in the Balkans. Subsequent independent investigations by the World Health Organization, European Commission, European Parliament, United Nations Environment Programme, United Kingdom Royal Society, and the Health Council of the Netherlands have all have discounted any association between depleted uranium and leukemia or other medical problems among Balkans veterans.
More light reading about DU
67% increase in number of service men who served in the gulf war compare to other wars have childern with birth defects.
Evidence?
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/veterans/default2b.htm
and
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/336/23/1650
Results During the study period, 33,998 infants were born to Gulf War veterans and 41,463 to nondeployed veterans at military hospitals. The overall risk of any birth defect was 7.45 percent, and the risk of severe birth defects was 1.85 percent. These rates are similar to those reported in civilian populations. In the multivariate analysis, there was no significant association for either men or women between service in the Gulf War and the risk of any birth defect or of severe birth defects in their children.
Conclusions This analysis found no evidence of an increase in the risk of birth defects among the children of Gulf War veterans.
before the gulf war
Oh, so depleted uranium (which you keep ignoring doesn't harm you unless you're shot by it or ingest it, just like lead) sits around forever hurting everyone but no chemical/biological/nerve agent residue sat around to harm anyone?
That's the ticket! Can't deny the results, deny the method used to get the results!!
See Kinsey, Lancet Iraq survey
But it's clear that your pride simply can't accept the fact that you wonderful do no wrong country dropped over 4000 tons of radioactive waste on country where the people living in the country are getting sick from it.
Hmm I don't deny dropping two atomic bombs or firebombing hundreds of thousands of people but I deny them shooting fairly harmless rounds (unless you're struck by them) sixty years later? Almost makes sense...
And yeah, they just got a bunch of sludge and poured it over the country. Again, jack, you're arguing as if DU is the same thing as you'd find in a reactor or a bomb. You still haven't picked up on the fact that they aren't the same.
That is simply an outright lie.
I assume, B.A., rhat you were trying to reply to jack, and not me?
I post this: ... And you think I don't understand the different?
You certainly don't grasp the difference.
Jack, you're making a fool of yourself.
What you haven't picked up on is that there was already uranium all over Iraq. Uranium is a naturally occurring mineral - and more dangerous in its natural form than when it has been depleted. I mentioned this before, you quickly filed it in the "inconcenient information" bin.
"It list a butch of groups saying DU had no affect on the cacner rates, but does not supply any information, foot notes, or links about those stuides."
I gave you a link to a 300 page study. You ignored it and then a few posts later "Gosh, has anyone seen any studies?" What is the point of this?
But here you go - another report you can ignore. (Debunkers on the other hand - enjoy)
http://www.fumento.com/military/depleteduranium.html
Yes, in Japan it takes 15 years for radiation from an atomic bombs to cause cancer. Yet in Iraq, where most people live nowhere near where DU was used, apparently leukemia rates rose 600% immediately. Information courtesy of Saddam's Health Ministry, of course. Now who would be gullible enough to believe that.....?
And by the way, here's a suggested code of conduct for truthers who don't want to get insulted:
1. Stay on topic. There's no excuse for "yeah but [random irrelevant comment]" here just because CTer was proved wrong.
2. If you are "just asking questions" make sure you looked for answers YOURSELF first. Otherwise you're going to get a RTFM type answer, and you're going to deserve it. This is not a question answering service for the lazy. Come here when you HAVE TRIED but can't find a satisfactory answer yourself. Have some courage to stand behind your questions, they shouldn't be disposable.
3. Do not post laundry lists of unanswered questions you copied from somewhere else. You will almost certainly violate rule 2. Especially do not do it as a way to distract from a successful debunking, as then you would be violating 1. and 3.
4. Being a debunker doesn't mean we voted for Bush, like Bush, or think Bush is honest. It doesn't mean we believe everything we read. It doesn't mean we accept whatever the MSM says. You can tell that to your buddies in the conspiracy forums, but here it the best way to burn the welcome mat. The knowledge here does not come from passively watching Fox News, it comes from a great deal of reading and debate.
Any other suggestions?
5. Cut & Paste does not impress anyone. If you can't put the arguement in your own words, don't bother. trust us, we can tell when you are cutting and pasting. C&P is an annoyance and overwhelm tactic with the sole goal of trying to overwhelm the opposition.
6. Look at the arguements and tactics Creationsist (or Intelligent Design if you must) use in their 'arguements'. If you see any similarity between what you try and what they do its time to rethink your position.
7. Neo-Cons, Bush lovers, Conservatives. We've all been accused of being this. The truth is that only a few regualrs here like Bush and we span the political spectrum. We have one ting in common in that we don't like the lies being spread by 9/11 'truthers'
Dang, my seven duped your four. How did I miss that?
Are lead bullets covered with a copper shell? If so, your argument about lead being poisonous is not valid.
Then why is it that shooting ranges require so many environmental controls? Citizen shooters aren't firing DU rounds out of their shotguns and hunting rifles.
For the record: Military rounds are typcally jacketed in copper. This does make the lead go away. Fire a few rounds at a hard target and the copper jacketing will be smashed, letting the lead out.
If you've been hit by a DU round, chemical & radiation poisoning ar the least of your worries. Those things are designed to penetrate tank armor. Think spaghetti sauce ... the lumpy kind.
yeah but we're talking about being hit by a DU round vs being hit by a lead/copper round ...
Are we? Well, all right then:
Odds are, the DU round will go right through you. Its an armor piercing round. Its not the best choice for anti-personell work.
The copper round may or may not break its jacket when it hits you.
so then your argument goes something like "War is bad so we need no rules" ?
No, where the heck did you get that? Try reading what we write for a change.
Think of it this way - if it wasn't a DU round, it would have been an explosive one. In which case you would not have survived.
And by the way, there are studies of what happens to people with DU shrapnel permanently embedded in their bodies (pretty much the worst possible scenario): apparently nothing.
From: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/faq_depleted_uranium.shtml
"The most definitive study of DU exposure is of Gulf War veterans who have embedded DU shrapnel in their bodies that cannot be removed. To date none has developed any health abnormalities due to uranium chemical toxicity or radio toxicity."
Now how is it that you can have a chunk of it stuck permanently in your body with no effect a decade or more later, yet somehow Iraqis hundreds of miles away instantly develop leukemia (according to Saddam Hussein's Ministry of Health)? I wonder.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
add "leted_uranium.shtml" to the end of it.
What did you think of the UNEP PCAU report?
yeah but we're talking about being hit by a DU round vs being hit by a lead/copper round ...
Have you ever SEEN what happens to someone hit by a 30mm slug? Whether it's lead, tungsten, or depleted uranium is pretty much irrelevant as far as "damage to soft target" goes. There's a video you can google of an Apache helicopter lighting up a couple vehicles...and the people around them. Now the whole thing is taped under IR so you can't see details too well, but what you CAN see is hat before they fire each burst, there's one big glowing blob in the center of the screen...and AFTER each burst, there are many, many small glowing blobs all over the screen. I'll leave the rest to your imagination.
But as I keep saying, natural uranium, which is more dangerous, is already present in the environment and always has been.
Well, first I'll show you how far back the use of uranium goes. Keep in mind uranium is MORE radioactive than depleted uranium:
The use of uranium, in its natural oxide form, dates back to at least AD 79, when it was used to add a yellow color to ceramic glazes (yellow glass with 1% uranium oxide was found near Naples, Italy).
As for Depleted Uranium:
In the 1970s, The Pentagon reported that the Soviet military had developed armor plating for Warsaw Pact tanks that NATO ammunition couldn't penetrate.
...
Thus, from the late 1970s, the U.S., the Soviet Union, Britain and France, began converting their stockpiles of depleted uranium into kinetic energy penetrators.
...
Photographic evidence of destroyed equipment suggests that DU was first used during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war.
So yeah, it's been around for a while. That's the official record, although there's some evidence to suggest DU munitions were initially researched and developed in the mid 60's. In any event they weren't actually used in war until 1973, and have been used fairly regularly since then.
U-234 produces gamma rays. While the content of it in DU is low, it's still there.
And there's more gamma sources just from standing in a field.
I think this should be a concern for anyone who values their health, the health of their loved ones, and the health of our planet. .
There are about a lots of other environmental concerns that should be concerned before we waste energy on a non-starter like DU.
Of course you must love to care, and most people lack love and fill the void with hate of themselves and/or others
No, we just realise that this is not one of the top million environmental concerns. But thanks for trying to poison the well.
Post a Comment
<< Home