Possibly Iraq/Taliban connection before 9/11?

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Sourdoughman, Jul 6, 2006.

  1. Frogleg

    Frogleg Registered Best

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,262
    Likes Received:
    1,965
  2. Ch0sn0ne

    Ch0sn0ne At the Track

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,362
    Likes Received:
    178
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    Yeah thats the article I Googled up too. It is full of allegations but no proof that this "discovery" was confirmed by anyone official. I looked through three pages of googleness and didn't find a single citation from an official source. The article did not answer the questions:

    1. What government agency discovered the uranium and when?
    2. Where is it now if it exists?
    3. Why hasn't the bush administration posed for photos atop the giant pile of uranium with a sign that said "Mission Accomplished"?

    I think this "discovery" is an unconfirmed rumor.
     
  4. LSUsupaFan

    LSUsupaFan Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    8,787
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    Seeing how that article is over a year old I don't think anything came of the alleged discovery.
     
  5. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
  6. marcmc99

    marcmc99 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,923
    Likes Received:
    31

    Good thing these fools didn't have enough sense to come to America to plan their attack.

     
  7. MCab

    MCab Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    11
    <Rod Sterling> Picture if you will a repressive and expansionistic regime run by a power mad tyrant. Also, it possesses the 3rd largest oil reserve, but due to sanctions, cannot export most of it. With much of his military force destroyed, with no power projection ability, how can he lift such sanctions? Mind you, it has WMD's (ask the Kurds), and it has used them before </Rod Sterling>
     
  8. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    i thought about this alot, and i figure an attack on the hudson tubes could be truly destructive. the tubes are cast iron and laid out basically between my apartment on the river in new jersey underwater to the bottom of the world trade center site, which used to be 7 stories underground, but now is open air. the tubes are not underground below the river but actually on the bottom of the river. if a hole were blown into the tubes, i think water would flow all the way through the tubes and flood where the tubes emerge in jersey city out towards newark, as well as the entire world trade site. potentially the deep hole in the ground at world trade would completely level up with water from the river, and maybe even flow into the new york subways connecting at world trade. and that would really be something, becuuse that could flood tunnels all the way to harlem and brooklyn. i think a tube puncture could be far more damaging than the brooklyn bridge threat, because of how far floods could go in the tunnels. then again, the hudson tubes are for path trains only, so unlike theholland tunnel, you cant drive bombs in, so i have no clue how these fellas thought they could blow through cast iron tubes with bombs they would have to physically carry in the stations on their backs.

    ok that was boring but it interests me to think of it.
     
  9. NoLimitMD

    NoLimitMD Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2004
    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    366
    Their intent was to flood the financial district, apparently. Now as I recall (and I could be wrong, as it's been a couple years since I was there), isn't the financial district ABOVE the Hudson River, elevation-wise? I'm no civil engineer, but I'm pretty sure that water doesn't flow upward. Sure, it could destroy a chunk of Newark, but I can't think of anybody who would be particularly distraught about that. :hihi:
     
  10. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    True enough. There could be no street flooding above river level in Manhattan. The Holland Tunnel basically just comes to the surface and wouldn't flood much else.

    But the the train tunnels are very different, as martin points out. They don't come to the surface but have underground stations where they connect with the subway system. People who haven't spent time in New York sometimes don't realize just how extensive the tunneling under New York is--and how deep some of it is. The subways alone run 231 miles plus multiple railroad tunnels, utility tunnels, sewers, storm drains, and sub-basements. Plus there are many miles of abandoned transit tunnels. The electric power is underground, the sewer pumps, and the fresh water aquaducts go as deep as 800 feeet.

    If that labyrinth were flooded it would fug up New York seriously.
     

Share This Page