North Korea - how serious should we take them?

[Efbe]

dazwalsh said:

I'm actually less worried as time goes on, because their direct threats have come to nothing apart from flying by some planes around and launching missiles into the sea. So now it's just a pissing match between two idiots who have no intention of following through with their threats and it's getting tiresome.

There is an important point you are missing though, Without ever wanting to defend KJU, his threats have solely been around retaliation against the US should they attack NK.
Whilst the US is threatening NK for doing something that could one day give it a chance to attack somebody else.

[robinessex]

Globs said:

Understanding 911's place in history to see how we ended up threatening NK today:

Cobnapint said:

But to suggest the Yanks arranged to have airliners flown into World Trade 1, World Trade 2, The Pentagon, and Washington DC (crashed before designated target after passengers fought the Al Qaeda hijackers), just so they could pick a fight somewhere is fking ridiculous.

You start out well here, although no one really accused the 'Yanks' in the video.
You also missed out WTC7 collapsing and the bizarre case of the Pentagon's damage and the cleanup crew's attire. Oh and Flight 93 which was not actually for DC, it was for WTC7. Did you know the officials claimed that soft ground had swallowed up Flight 93?

Perhaps you can point out any errors or factual and historical mistakes - if it's all rubbish that should be easy right? Start at 57 minutes in for the actual problems with the event itself, or at the beginning if you want to dispute the documented historical events and statements leading up to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3MtYuazrow

Perhaps you'd like to start out explaining how they found nano thermite which to my knowledge is not a construction material used in either steel framed building or modern jet airliners.

So prove you are confident that 911 was as advertised and debunk the video - should be a piece of cake right?

Er, how do you manage to keep the 1000's of people needed to pull this off, from blabing all over the place?

[Evangelion]

It's like all the other crap conspiracy theories, Elvis is alive, McCartney is dead, CIA killed Kennedy, moon landings were faked.

The number of people you'd have to gag would run into the millions.

[Cobnapint]

@Globs

What these said...^^

[skyrover]

Efbe said:

There is an important point you are missing though, Without ever wanting to defend KJU, his threats have solely been around retaliation against the US should they attack NK.
Whilst the US is threatening NK for doing something that could one day give it a chance to attack somebody else.

North Korea has been making unprovoked threats for years... It's part and parcel with their domestic propaganda and so called "fearless leadership"

[aeropilot]

Efbe said:

There is an important point you are missing though, Without ever wanting to defend KJU, his threats have solely been around retaliation against the US should they attack NK.

Oh yeah.....that'll explain him lobbing IRBM's over Japan

The ONLY reason USA is/will attack NK is precisely because of the Nuc and missile tests, and would only be to try and newter this activity.

If Fatty stooped being a dick, he'd be left alone........

But, then that wouldn't suit his agenda of the pretence of being the great leader to his fked over population.........so he has to play these games to stay top fat boy.

[Roofless Toothless]

Cobnapint said:

@Globs

What these said...^^

On Tuesday Globs claimed that only 1.5 million died in the Holocaust. I hope he doesn't include Holocaust denial among his portfolio of conspiracy theory topics.

[skwdenyer]

aeropilot said:

Efbe said:

There is an important point you are missing though, Without ever wanting to defend KJU, his threats have solely been around retaliation against the US should they attack NK.

Oh yeah.....that'll explain him lobbing IRBM's over Japan

The ONLY reason USA is/will attack NK is precisely because of the Nuc and missile tests, and would only be to try and newter this activity.

If Fatty stooped being a dick, he'd be left alone........

But, then that wouldn't suit his agenda of the pretence of being the great leader to his fked over population.........so he has to play these games to stay top fat boy.

It isn't "being a dick" to want a nuclear deterrent IMHO.

Don't forget that, if the US had had its way, the UK would not have one (they shut us out of the Manhattan Project after we helped them get going). Nor would China, India, Pakistan, etc. Would the world be a safer place?

[aeropilot]

skwdenyer said:

aeropilot said:

Efbe said:

There is an important point you are missing though, Without ever wanting to defend KJU, his threats have solely been around retaliation against the US should they attack NK.

Oh yeah.....that'll explain him lobbing IRBM's over Japan

The ONLY reason USA is/will attack NK is precisely because of the Nuc and missile tests, and would only be to try and newter this activity.

If Fatty stooped being a dick, he'd be left alone........

But, then that wouldn't suit his agenda of the pretence of being the great leader to his fked over population.........so he has to play these games to stay top fat boy.

It isn't "being a dick" to want a nuclear deterrent IMHO.

Deterrent to what?

They are the ones technically still at war with the south, which is why SK and the USA still have plan for defending against any further attempt at a move south. NK could have ended the war and moved on....but it doesn't want to. It still wants to play silly buggers and blame everyone else.

[skwdenyer]

Funkycoldribena said:

Globs said:

You start out well here, although no one really accused the 'Yanks' in the video.
You also missed out WTC7 collapsing and the bizarre case of the Pentagon's damage and the cleanup crew's attire. Oh and Flight 93 which was not actually for DC, it was for WTC7. Did you know the officials claimed that soft ground had swallowed up Flight 93?

Perhaps you can point out any errors or factual and historical mistakes - if it's all rubbish that should be easy right? Start at 57 minutes in for the actual problems with the event itself, or at the beginning if you want to dispute the documented historical events and statements leading up to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3MtYuazrow

Perhaps you'd like to start out explaining how they found nano thermite which to my knowledge is not a construction material used in either steel framed building or modern jet airliners.

So prove you are confident that 911 was as advertised and debunk the video - should be a piece of cake right?

I'm not going to attack you,everyone is entitled to their opinion. However there's an equal amount of videos debunking the conspiracy theorists.
There were 136 witnesses to an aeroplane hitting the Pentagon for a start.
Were they all fibbing?

Governments don't always help themselves.
The FBI went around and gathered-up all of the CCTV footage of the Pentagon plane, then refused to release it.
The official FAA investigation into the Pentagon plane does not fit the established facts (plane in wrong place - there were lamp standards knocked down that were not on the flight path released by the FAA, and witness testimony doesn't line up).
The actual impact site is all-but impossible to reach (where are the engines hitting the grass, as the impact is so low on the facade?)

Clearly something quite large did some damage to the Pentagon. But quite what / how / etc. seems open to reasonable discussion.

I think I'd prefer open and honest disclosure of all of the data myself.

As regards WTC7, I'm a Mechanical Engineer by background. I spent years driving Abaqus (finite element software) to do quite interesting things. I've watched the AE911 brigade and their work (using Abaqus, hence the relevance). I've read the NIST report. I think there are questions that are very definitely unanswered.

I have no problem in accepting that fire brought down WTC7, if fire brought down WTC7. But nobody has shown how it was possible yet - certainly not NIST whose report was a wash in this respect. Since steel-framed buildings are a big part of our built environment, I think it matters more than a little to understand how a fire (not a "towering inferno") managed to bring it down, with / without the involvement of WTC1/2, etc.

It doesn't have to be "nano thermite" to be very much "not as described."

Here in the UK, some cladding has gone up on a residential tower. Lives were lost, terribly. An immediate research project has happened, in public, to determine the cause, and to establish the extent to which other buildings are at-risk. Gas supplies are being shut off in some buildings as a result, and so on. Building regulations are being urgently reviewed. And so on. That is as it should be.

But a steel-framed building collapsed, apparently, after a fire that should not have caused it to collapse. Nobody can explain how or why, no ongoing research has been carried-out to establish how or why, and no building codes have / are being reviewed as a result.

If the model doesn't match the reality, the model must be wrong. NIST's model is clearly wrong. AE911 may find a model that works, and it may be a model that doesn't require thermite. But find it we must.

Only in the polarised mind of politicians and tabloid writers must a refusal to blindly accept the flawed official story automatically mean one must instead accept any and all conspiracy theories. "Truth" is what is being sought, whatever that "truth" may be.

[Efbe]

skyrover said:

North Korea has been making unprovoked threats for years... It's part and parcel with their domestic propaganda and so called "fearless leadership"

they have been threatening retaliation. it's a small difference, and doesn't make them right, but there is a distinction there.

aeropilot said:

Oh yeah.....that'll explain him lobbing IRBM's over Japan

The ONLY reason USA is/will attack NK is precisely because of the Nuc and missile tests, and would only be to try and newter this activity.

If Fatty stooped being a dick, he'd be left alone........

But, then that wouldn't suit his agenda of the pretence of being the great leader to his fked over population.........so he has to play these games to stay top fat boy.

But therein lies the issue. Plenty of other countries that weren't allies of the US went down the route of not having nukes and also not threatening the US, and got walked over. NK has nukes and mouths off and has survived. Whether this is the reason or not doesn't really matter. NK thought it would work, tried it, and they have survived, even if just to live in a barely third world barbaric hole.

Do you really think if tubs shut up and stopped the nuclear programme they would be left alone? there have been so many instances evidenced in this thread in which it has not worked for other countries.

[aeropilot]

Efbe said:

But therein lies the issue. Plenty of other countries that weren't allies of the US went down the route of not having nukes and also not threatening the US, and got walked over. NK has nukes and mouths off and has survived. Whether this is the reason or not doesn't really matter. NK thought it would work, tried it, and they have survived, even if just to live in a barely third world barbaric hole.

Do you really think if tubs shut up and stopped the nuclear programme they would be left alone?

Yes, as they have been for the previous decades since 1953.....

The issue with NK has no relation to the USA's dabbling in events the Middle East, as NK doesn't have anything the USA wants

[skwdenyer]

aeropilot said:

Deterrent to what?

They are the ones technically still at war with the south, which is why SK and the USA still have plan for defending against any further attempt at a move south. NK could have ended the war and moved on....but it doesn't want to. It still wants to play silly buggers and blame everyone else.

At the expense of mentioning it again, Israel still holds "occupied territory" and remains in a state of war with neighbouring countries. Shouldn't that be resolved, too?

Returning to Korea, some important points:

- the division of Korea was a US-Russian move (just like Germany);
- partition was never popular amongst any Koreans, nor were moves to hold "free" elections (so long as no communists were allowed...);
- war was never declared by any party;
- the Korean "war" was at least as much about power-politics by China and Russia'
- an armistice was declared, and held until 2013;
- since 2013, NK has declared itself no longer bound by the armistice.

Just as in Germany, Israel, Iraq, and all manner of other places, the mess we see today was essentially created by the chess-playing of the "superpowers" of the 1940s/50s. And now the USA - who are happy to see Cuba, say, languish in abject poverty for no reason other than a desire to "break" communism once and for all - are playing the same game all over again.

Those games have never worked. They will never work. But, unfortunately, politicians don't stay in office long enough to realise that, and the vested interests are always happy to feed their desire to "do something" with promises that it can be done...

[aeropilot]

skwdenyer said:

But a steel-framed building collapsed, apparently, after a fire that should not have caused it to collapse.

Rubbish.

As a Structural Engineer, those buildings performed exactly as expected in the circumstances. No way given the way they were designed/built were they NOT going to collapse........the question was just how long they were going to last.

Our office was watching live at the time, and I still recall my Chief Engineer saying "They can't last much longer surely".....less than 10 mins later the first went.

[skwdenyer]

aeropilot said:

skwdenyer said:

But a steel-framed building collapsed, apparently, after a fire that should not have caused it to collapse.

Rubbish.

As a Structural Engineer, those buildings performed exactly as expected in the circumstances. No way given the way they were designed/built were they NOT going to collapse........the question was just how long they were going to last.

Our office was watching live at the time, and I still recall my Chief Engineer saying "They can't last much longer surely".....less than 10 mins later the first went.

As I've said, I'm quite happy for somebody to explain *how* WTC7 would collapse, and I haven't seen that yet. And, yes, I've read the NIST report. I'm not talking about WTC1/2 which are clearly different.

I have little time for conspiracy theorists, but lots of time for people who want to understand things

[Funkycoldribena]

skwdenyer said:

Governments don't always help themselves.
The FBI went around and gathered-up all of the CCTV footage of the Pentagon plane, then refused to release it.
The official FAA investigation into the Pentagon plane does not fit the established facts (plane in wrong place - there were lamp standards knocked down that were not on the flight path released by the FAA, and witness testimony doesn't line up).
The actual impact site is all-but impossible to reach (where are the engines hitting the grass, as the impact is so low on the facade?)

Clearly something quite large did some damage to the Pentagon. But quite what / how / etc. seems open to reasonable discussion.

I think I'd prefer open and honest disclosure of all of the data myself.

As regards WTC7, I'm a Mechanical Engineer by background. I spent years driving Abaqus (finite element software) to do quite interesting things. I've watched the AE911 brigade and their work (using Abaqus, hence the relevance). I've read the NIST report. I think there are questions that are very definitely unanswered.

I have no problem in accepting that fire brought down WTC7, if fire brought down WTC7. But nobody has shown how it was possible yet - certainly not NIST whose report was a wash in this respect. Since steel-framed buildings are a big part of our built environment, I think it matters more than a little to understand how a fire (not a "towering inferno") managed to bring it down, with / without the involvement of WTC1/2, etc.

It doesn't have to be "nano thermite" to be very much "not as described."

Here in the UK, some cladding has gone up on a residential tower. Lives were lost, terribly. An immediate research project has happened, in public, to determine the cause, and to establish the extent to which other buildings are at-risk. Gas supplies are being shut off in some buildings as a result, and so on. Building regulations are being urgently reviewed. And so on. That is as it should be.

But a steel-framed building collapsed, apparently, after a fire that should not have caused it to collapse. Nobody can explain how or why, no ongoing research has been carried-out to establish how or why, and no building codes have / are being reviewed as a result.

If the model doesn't match the reality, the model must be wrong. NIST's model is clearly wrong. AE911 may find a model that works, and it may be a model that doesn't require thermite. But find it we must.

Only in the polarised mind of politicians and tabloid writers must a refusal to blindly accept the flawed official story automatically mean one must instead accept any and all conspiracy theories. "Truth" is what is being sought, whatever that "truth" may be.

So how do you explain the 136 witnesses?
Where did the plane and its passengers go if it was a missile? A tad ridiculous don't you think?
As to wtc7,surely the only way to bring it down on purpose would be explosives?
Now I'm no expert but that makes a lickle bit of noise yet no one reported hearing anything.

[Captain Smerc]

Back to 911 , Shirley the impact of the planes at 300/400 + mph must have seriously weakened the towers , then the intense fuel fires doing the rest ?

[aeropilot]

skwdenyer said:

As I've said, I'm quite happy for somebody to explain *how* WTC7 would collapse, and I haven't seen that yet. And, yes, I've read the NIST report. I'm not talking about WTC1/2 which are clearly different.

Aah.....sorry didn't realise you were talking about WTC7.

So, want don't you understand about the NIST report?

[Efbe]

aeropilot said:

Yes, as they have been for the previous decades since 1953.....

The issue with NK has no relation to the USA's dabbling in events the Middle East, as NK doesn't have anything the USA wants

I think the US has had much more involvement around the world. Rather than me listing the rather long list...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_interventio...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involv...
There's a huge number of countries that didn't do what the US wanted there and paid the price for it. Diplomacy is not on their cards, brute force and forced regime change is.

And pre KJU there were plenty of NK-US incidents. A plane shot down, a ship being captured, people being murdered in the DMZ alongside some pretty persistent leafleting by the US in NK.
Knowing a little of how the US acted during the cold war with communist countries, I have no doubt there will be plenty more going both ways.

[WestyCarl]

aeropilot said:

Efbe said:

But therein lies the issue. Plenty of other countries that weren't allies of the US went down the route of not having nukes and also not threatening the US, and got walked over. NK has nukes and mouths off and has survived. Whether this is the reason or not doesn't really matter. NK thought it would work, tried it, and they have survived, even if just to live in a barely third world barbaric hole.

Do you really think if tubs shut up and stopped the nuclear programme they would be left alone?

Yes, as they have been for the previous decades since 1953.....

The issue with NK has no relation to the USA's dabbling in events the Middle East, as NK doesn't have anything the USA wants

Yeah, and I bet the Afgan Government and Sadam thought they were OK when the CIA were providing arms....

Fact is, if I was a crazy dictator, having watched how things went in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, I'd be doing everything I could to get myself some insurance in case the spotlight came upon me.