Conspiracy thread

[mwcolk]

If the U.S. wanted to find Bin Laden a few days after 9/11 they could have, but they didnt. A few years after, in the mountains on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan they had him on their crosshairs, a Delta team of 5 or 6 troops could have killed him right then and there, but instead the U.S. Military had got themselves into a gunfight about 10 minutes east and the Delta team were FORCED to go and back them up, even after the leader of the Delta team had asked for more troops for his own operation. The Bush administration let him leave.

Watch Zeitgeist, the last part about the Federal Reserve, or YouTube "zeitgeist Federal reserve" and it'll surely pop up first link. It says, fact, that the Federal Reserve is about as reserve as FedEx. Both are owned my individuals with power. The Federal Reserve print money at 25% interest meaning America is in never ending debt... The more money the print, the more they owe. Vicious Cycle... one of the founding fathers of the Federal Reserve was Prescott Bush, George and George W.'s father and grandfather respectively. America need war because thats how they make money. So they need an excuse to prolong war... not only to invade the oil rich countries, but to make money too by other means. hey, Jeremy Clarkson got from the South of Vietnam to the North on a Vespa... you dont think the Americans in their tanks could do it ? That war was never meant to be won... just sustained for more and more money for the people that own the FedReserve i.e. Rockefeller, Murdoch, J.P Morgan etc... The Americans lost that war and used the humiliation as a reason to avenge ghosts of the past to start the Gulf war in 1990. The Americans also needed a reason to get involved in the 2nd World War... how? they gave away free tickets ona cruise liner from New York to The U.K called the Lusitania... knowing it would cross into German Occupied waters and get shot and sunk. The German Embassy in New York also issued a warning to all passengers that they are putting their lives at risk. That is how they got involved in the war when originally Roosevelt had said America was not to get involved even though it had a close alliance with the Motherland England.

Watch Zeitgeist, it will blow your mind. The end is scary, all to do with the New World Order... the ultimate goal after the E.U is the N.A.U - the North American Union - Mexico, America and Canada with a currency - Amero. After that, is an African Union, then an Asian Union... what for, an eventual World Government, Governed by Americans. This was on the news for a short period of time... and then guess who got it pulled from the news... the money printers... the Murdoch Tribe...

any questions about 9/11 i'll answer them all and prove that it was all planned by the American Government. Watch the towers fall and try and convince me it doesnt look like a controlled detonation... and explain why the plane at the Pentagon vapourised 500degrees Celsius before it was supposed to and that prior to the 'plane' hitting it there was mysterious chalk lines indicating where the missile should hi the building.

 

[Mike.]

I weep at the above post

 

[mwcolk]

I weep at the above post

meaning ?

 

[Ride The Walrus]

Any particular reason why you don't believe it?

The Apollo Hoax

 

[Mike.]

meaning ?

1 zeitgeist is not proof of anything

2 luisitania was not the sole reason to enter the 1st world war, several other ships were sunk. nt to mention that it was sunk in 1915, and the us joined the war in 1917 as a natural progression of escalating help over two years

3 vespa: tiny motorbike; US tank: 30 ton beast that finds it hard to move through dense jungle, not mention us were unprepared foe the ultimate guerilla war. it could have been won had it not been for massively negative public opinion at home. they wuoldnt have even needed to give tickets away, it would have crossed anyway as it was carrying shells for the british

vietnam war not even linked to the iraq war by any means of policy, so not sure how you can even argue that the former was the precursor for the latter

 

[Lee]

If the U.S. wanted to find Bin Laden a few days after 9/11 they could have, but they didnt. A few years after, in the mountains on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan they had him on their crosshairs, a Delta team of 5 or 6 troops could have killed him right then and there, but instead the U.S. Military had got themselves into a gunfight about 10 minutes east and the Delta team were FORCED to go and back them up, even after the leader of the Delta team had asked for more troops for his own operation. The Bush administration let him leave.

Watch Zeitgeist, the last part about the Federal Reserve, or YouTube "zeitgeist Federal reserve" and it'll surely pop up first link. It says, fact, that the Federal Reserve is about as reserve as FedEx. Both are owned my individuals with power. The Federal Reserve print money at 25% interest meaning America is in never ending debt... The more money the print, the more they owe. Vicious Cycle... one of the founding fathers of the Federal Reserve was Prescott Bush, George and George W.'s father and grandfather respectively. America need war because thats how they make money. So they need an excuse to prolong war... not only to invade the oil rich countries, but to make money too by other means. hey, Jeremy Clarkson got from the South of Vietnam to the North on a Vespa... you dont think the Americans in their tanks could do it ? That war was never meant to be won... just sustained for more and more money for the people that own the FedReserve i.e. Rockefeller, Murdoch, J.P Morgan etc... The Americans lost that war and used the humiliation as a reason to avenge ghosts of the past to start the Gulf war in 1990. The Americans also needed a reason to get involved in the 2nd World War... how? they gave away free tickets ona cruise liner from New York to The U.K called the Lusitania... knowing it would cross into German Occupied waters and get shot and sunk. The German Embassy in New York also issued a warning to all passengers that they are putting their lives at risk. That is how they got involved in the war when originally Roosevelt had said America was not to get involved even though it had a close alliance with the Motherland England.

Watch Zeitgeist, it will blow your mind. The end is scary, all to do with the New World Order... the ultimate goal after the E.U is the N.A.U - the North American Union - Mexico, America and Canada with a currency - Amero. After that, is an African Union, then an Asian Union... what for, an eventual World Government, Governed by Americans. This was on the news for a short period of time... and then guess who got it pulled from the news... the money printers... the Murdoch Tribe...

any questions about 9/11 i'll answer them all and prove that it was all planned by the American Government. Watch the towers fall and try and convince me it doesnt look like a controlled detonation... and explain why the plane at the Pentagon vapourised 500degrees Celsius before it was supposed to and that prior to the 'plane' hitting it there was mysterious chalk lines indicating where the missile should hi the building.

I was going to write something but you wouldn't listen anyway so just read/listen to these links if you want...

The North American Union
World Trade Center 7: The Lies Come Crashing Down
The Twin Towers: Fire Melting Steel


---------


Those Chalk Lines are something I haven't heard about before, you got a link to them? Or even better, a link to someone drawing them onto the side of the building.

 

[ajt09]

Interesting about the moon landing "hoax". However:

1. It is not difficult to understand the reason why the stars have not been captured in the photographs taken by the astronauts. All the Moon landings had taken place during the daytime on the Moon. Ordinarily the sky appears completely black from the Moon even in daytime because there is no atmosphere to light up the sky by scattering the Sun’s rays. Therefore, the stars should be visible in the pitch-black sky even in daytime.

However, the photographs taken by astronauts did not capture the stars as shiny dots in the background sky because the activities of the astronauts and their equipments that were being photographed were under the dazzling light of the Sun. This called for minimum aperture and high shutter speed. Longer exposures might have captured the stars but would have reduced the pictures of the astronauts to white silhouettes.

Our eyes also function like a camera. The pupils become smaller in the bright light and larger in the dark. The astronauts engaged in the construction of the space station cannot see the stars having low or medium brightness. The photographs taken from the space station have not been able to capture the stars. In short, with the same shutter speed and aperture setting employed by the astronauts on the Moon it is not possible to take photographs of the stars from the Earth also.

2. The second allegation: Why the shadows seen in the photographs are not wholly black? Reply: Atmosphere-less Moon is not only bright, its surface also reflects considerable proportion of the sunlight falling on it. Lunar rocks, stones, shingles and dust all reflect the sunlight falling on them. Therefore, it should not come as surprise if the sunlight reflected by the ground somewhat lights up Lunar module’s side in the shade. The shadows of the astronauts are not entirely black in some photographs due to reflection light by Lunar module.

3. The exhaust blast of Lunar module’s rocket engine was not sufficiently powerful to form a pit or hole in the ground at the time of touch-down. Although rocket engine could produce thrust up to 10,000 lbs it had been reduced to 3,000 lbs for smooth landing. Further, the rocket engine’s nozzle had area of 2,300 square inches so the pressure of jet would have amounted to less than 1.5 lbs per square inch. Airless environment on the Moon would dissipate the blast and the resulting pressure quickly hence, there is no question of the rocket engine’s blast making hole in the ground.

4. What made the American Stars and Strips planted by Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin flutter in the Moon’s atmosphere-less environment? Two reasons were responsible for this. Folded nylon flag was already attached with the flag pole. The flag pole also had a horizontal tube attached with it to hold the upper edge of the flag all along its length. Both the flag poles as well as the horizontal tube were foldable like telescope. When the astronaut pulled out the horizontal tube the flag opened up. But inadvertently it was not pulled out to the fullest extent hence the folds in the flag did not get smoothed. Although it was possible to stretch the horizontal tube to make the flag taut the astronauts found that the flag with folds gave the impression as if it was fluttering. As the scene appeared natural they left it undisturbed.

The reply to the question, why did the lower portion of the flag undulate like a wave when it unfolded is also quite simple. Specially designed flag pole could be driven in the ground by turning it like a screw. The rotation movement imparted for planting flag pole invariably gave rise to vibrations in the fabric of the flag. Wouldn’t quickly repeated tugging on one end of a curtain create a wave like movement in the fabric up to the other end? It was the vibrations received by the fabric that created wave like movements. Air had no role to play in this phenomenon.

5. The similarity between two photos of the mountains is also quite easy to understand. The Lunar module is visible in the first photograph but not in the second. Keeping in mind the fact that the environment on the Moon is not like the environment on the Earth will help understand the mystery of the missing Lunar module in the second photograph. Thick atmosphere of the Earth makes distant objects and physical landmarks appear somewhat hazy. The human eye tries to gauge the distance of the object in terms of blurriness of the picture. (No doubt, apparent size of the object also helps in this process.) Absence of atmosphere on the Moon makes very distant objects appear very clear and sharp. Hence, it becomes difficult to gauge the distance. It is not possible to estimate accurately whether 1 cubic meter sized boulder on the Moon is 100 meters away or 100 cubic meters sized rocky outcrop is 10 kilometers away.

In case of the two photographs showing mountains in the background it had so happened that Lunar module was 20-30 meters away so it was included in the first photograph. Thereafter, the astronaut shifted a few hundred meters left or right and took another photograph. As he had shifted by a degree or two there is no visible difference in the perspective. Further, the mountain was actually quite far hence it appeared identical in both the photographs. This scientific explanation disproves the allegation that NASA had surreptitiously filmed the Moon landing somewhere in the USA and had got the set made having that mountain.

6. What is the mystery behind the exhaust blast of Lunar module’s rocket engine not blowing away the dust from the landing spot as well as the footprints of the astronauts? There is no mystery except the fact that Moon is an entity quite different from the Earth. Take the example of wheat flour and a blow of one’s breath instead of the Moon’s dust and exhaust blast of the rocket engine to understand this phenomenon better. Almost weightless and microscopic particles of flour are blown by a blow of air from the mouth. They travel quite far floating in the air before settling. These particles do not travel in the air on their own but the air blow given from the mouth pushes them. Can particles of dust on the airless Moon get transported like those of flour? The question does not arise. The blow of rocket engine from its 54” diameter nozzle would certainly affect and displace dust particles beneath it. In fact the dust blown by it had settled around the base of Lunar module and made imprints of the astronauts’ boots clearer.

7. It is only natural that the shadows on the Moon are not parallel to one another. They will always appear like that when three dimensional objects are presented on two dimensional photographs. The perspective invariably undergoes a change. Peruse accompanying diagram for clarification. The bodies of both the persons shown in the standing pose are parallel but not their shadows. Their shadows are due to the sunlight. Hence, the source of light is one, not two. Assume for the time being that two sources of light were employed to shoot the scenes of fabricated Moon landing as maintained by the skeptics then there should be two shadows of astronauts – i.e. four shadows in all. Why only one shadow of each astronaut is seen in the photographs? The skeptics have to answer to this question.

8. The argument that severe radiation of highly charged subatomic particles in Van Allen belts surrounding the Earth would have charred the astronauts is also not tenable. Not only did the astronauts pass through these belts in 45 minutes but they remained safe and sound in Apollo spaceship made of special alloys of great strength. A person not having adequate protection would have invariably perished in these belts but the astronauts were fully protected in their cocoon.

9. Exhaust flames were not seen coming out from the nozzle of the rocket engine when Lunar module took-off from the Moon at the end of the Apollo astronauts’ visit because conventional rocket fuel was not used for the rocket engine. Hydrazine was used as fuel and dinitrogen tetroxide was used as oxidizer (substance that gives oxygen). Coming together of both these chemicals automatically starts combustion but without any visible flare.

10. What is the element of truth in the allegation that the samples of Moon rocks were gathered from Antarctica? Consider the quantity of rock samples. Various Moon missions brought back 382 kilograms of rock samples in all. This is a substantial quantity when compared with the recovery of less than 30 kilograms Moon rocks that have fallen on the Earth as meteors. Although scientists have been exploring Antarctica for many years they have been able to recover only a few specimens. When the entire quantity of the Moon rocks is only 30 kilograms where did the weighing 382 kilograms come from? Where else but from the Moon.

Having given 10 rebuttals to 10 allegations of the skeptics holding that the Moon landings are figment of imagination there remains one final point which is also very important. If 30 billion dollars spent by the American government on the Moon landing missions had not been actually spent on them then it would not have remained secret in that country’s highly transparent system of governance. More than 4,00,000 persons were engaged in myriad activities connected with this project Obviously it is neither possible to include so many people in the conspiracy nor keep them in doubt about it. Some portion of the live telecast of the Moon landing was relayed from Australia whereas the control stations of NASA in different countries relayed the remaining portions with the help of the local networks of those countries. Had the Moon landings been mere dreams staged by NASA, wouldn’t they have been unmasked in different countries involved?

The most important evidence in favor of the Moon landings is provided by Russia, albeit indirectly. Russia had observed each Moon landing very closely with the best electronic surveillance equipments at its disposal. Had Russia found anything doubtful wouldn’t it have informed the whole world?

Although foregoing arguments demolish the allegations of the skeptics it must be noted that the needle of suspicion that has been pointing towards the Moon landings for all these years will keep on pointing in that direction for years to come. The reason lies in human psychology. The evidences in favor or against a case are rejected by the opposing parties – and no dispute ever comes to an end unless the evidence is accepted. Hence, the question, ‘Did the astronauts really go to the Moon?’ is going to remain evergreen.

Taken from Did Neil Armstrong really go to the Moon or NASA had faked the Moon landings?

 

[raul93-fan]

The Apollo Moon landing isn't fake.

They couldn't fake the radio signals picked up all around the world.

 

[mwcolk]

1 zeitgeist is not proof of anything

2 luisitania was not the sole reason to enter the 1st world war, several other ships were sunk. nt to mention that it was sunk in 1915, and the us joined the war in 1917 as a natural progression of escalating help over two years

3 vespa: tiny motorbike; US tank: 30 ton beast that finds it hard to move through dense jungle, not mention us were unprepared foe the ultimate guerilla war. it could have been won had it not been for massively negative public opinion at home. they wuoldnt have even needed to give tickets away, it would have crossed anyway as it was carrying shells for the british

vietnam war not even linked to the iraq war by any means of policy, so not sure how you can even argue that the former was the precursor for the latter

1.) never said Zeitgeist was proof, just interesting and for me, it was mind blowing.

2.) fine, could have got the facts wrong.

3.) Tanks are extremely maneuverable vehicles that surely can plough through a variety of terrain. Fine, maybe not as maneuverable as a Vespa but a tank can get from A to B with minimal fuss. The tickets were given away to American Citizens so that the administration could claim that the Germans had murdered innocent vacationing Americans in cold blood.

4.) yeah, Vietnam war by no means linked to the GULF war... not IRAQ war + plus i never said it did. it was a huge embarrassment for the Americans and felt the need to flex their muscles during the 1st Gulf War. Thats it, it was the American Armed forces trying to make themselves feel better by showing the world how their army was apparently the most well trained in the world.

America during its time of neutrality and isolation had traded with nations involved in the war, which is against the International Wartime Law. Lusitania was hit and sunk due to "unrestricted submarine warfare, introduced by the Germans on January 9th, 1917, was the primary issue that caused Woodrow Wilson to ask Congress to declare war on Germany on April 2nd. Four days later, America joined World War One on the side of the Allies."

 

[Mike.]

America during its time of neutrality and isolation had traded with nations involved in the war, which is against the International Wartime Law. Lusitania was hit and sunk due to "unrestricted submarine warfare, introduced by the Germans on January 9th, 1917, was the primary issue that caused Woodrow Wilson to ask Congress to declare war on Germany on April 2nd. Four days later, America joined World War One on the side of the Allies."

u boats had been sinking ships like that since 1915, Germany had made it very clear lobe before that they would sink ships suspected to be carry arms (like the luisitana was) even if it was carrying passengers. They wouldn't have had to give out free tickets, as sooner or later there would have been an incident like that, and there were several. no need to for a conspriacy there

tanks find it EXTREMELY difficult to manouver through dense jungle, where they have to slow to a crawl, or stop to have trees cut down, where they are easy prey for ambushes from anti tank mines and weapons.

 

[mwcolk]

u boats had been sinking ships like that since 1915, Germany had made it very clear lobe before that they would sink ships suspected to be carry arms (like the luisitana was) even if it was carrying passengers. They wouldn't have had to give out free tickets, as sooner or later there would have been an incident like that, and there were several. no need to for a conspriacy there

tanks find it EXTREMELY difficult to manouver through dense jungle, where they have to slow to a crawl, or stop to have trees cut down, where they are easy prey for ambushes from anti tank mines and weapons.

you seem to believe that over on this side of the world its all 'dense jungle.' How about the warfare in the small towns and cities... we do have those over here you know.

The tickets on this cruise were given out to encourage this inevitable event. They needed to get involved... and quick. the Lusitania (not spelt Luis... its not a hybrid between Nani and a cruise liner) was the reason they had... end of discussion. its an actual fact that due to the sinking of the ship, America decalred war less than a week later. ITS FACT.

 

[Shaneckham]

He died shortly after 9/11 america just used him to go get the oil.

 

[GodCubed]

you seem to believe that over on this side of the world its all 'dense jungle.' How about the warfare in the small towns and cities... we do have those over here you know.

Yeah, moving through linear streets with ample cover for guerilla fighters who know the town well, as well as bottlenecks for booby-traps and restricted means of movement. Sounds ideal for a tank.

As any mug with even a basic understanding of military theory (and I assure you I am rather more than that; heck, I support a football club with a general manager who developed three block war theory) would tell you, a tank's best friend is open spaces and movement. Likewise, urban areas are one of the worst possible places to use a tank.

The tickets on this cruise were given out to encourage this inevitable event. They needed to get involved... and quick. the Lusitania (not spelt Luis... its not a hybrid between Nani and a cruise liner) was the reason they had... end of discussion. its an actual fact that due to the sinking of the ship, America decalred war less than a week later. ITS FACT.

If they needed to get involved quickly and decided to use the Lusitania as a tool for that, they failed pretty epically considering it was three years from the sinking until they entered the war. I love the way you've said "ITS FACT" when actually a quick google search would tell you that they declared war two and a half years later rather than a week.

 

[mwcolk]

Yeah, moving through linear streets with ample cover for guerilla fighters who know the town well, as well as bottlenecks for booby-traps and restricted means of movement. Sounds ideal for a tank.

As any mug with even a basic understanding of military theory (and I assure you I am rather more than that; heck, I support a football club with a general manager who developed three block theory) would tell you, a tank's best friend is open spaces and movement. Likewise, urban areas are one of the worst possible places to use a tank.



If they needed to get involved quickly and decided to use the Lusitania as a tool for that, they failed pretty epically considering it was three years from the sinking until they entered the war. I love the way you've said "ITS FACT" when actually a quick google search would tell you that they declared war two and a half years later rather than a week.

America and World War One

"America entered World War One on April 6th, 1917. Up to that date, America had tried to keep out of World War One – though she had traded with nations involved in the war – but unrestricted submarine warfare, introduced by the Germans on January 9th, 1917, was the primary issue that caused Woodrow Wilson to ask Congress to declare war on Germany on April 2nd. Four days later, America joined World War One on the side of the Allies."

Again youre jumping to conclusions... when did i say anything about linear streets or dense jungle, or that all Vietnamese know their way around all the cities... or are you jumping to your next conclusion that ALL Vietnamese from ALL cities and towns were fighting against the Americans... you live over on this side then and tell me how this place works... what with your linear streets etc... oh. quick google search for how successful tanks were in Nam...

"Vietnam War
In the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese NVA used T-54s against the South Vietnamese ARVN and US forces.
The NVA and ARVN engaged each other for the first time during Operation Lam Son 719, in February 1971. During that battle, 17 M41 light tanks of the ARVN 1st Armored Brigade destroyed 22 NVA-tanks, 6 T-54 and 16 PT-76, at no loss to themselves.[19]
On Easter Sunday, 2 April 1972, the newly activated ARVN 20th Tank Regiment, consisting of approximately 57 M48A3 Patton tanks (ARVN regiments were equivalent to US battalions, and ARVN squadrons were equivalent to US companies or troops)[20] received reports of a large NVA tank column moving towards Dong Ha (the largest South Vietnamese city near the DMZ at the 17th parallel). At about noon, the crewmen of the ARVN 1st Squadron observed enemy armour moving south along highway 1 towards Dong Ha, and concealed their tanks on high ground with a good vantage point. Waiting for the NVA column to close to between 2,500 and 3,000 meters, the 90-mm guns of the Pattons opened fire, quickly destroying nine PT-76 light tanks and two T-54 medium tanks.[20] The remaining NVA armour, unable to see their enemy, turned about and withdrew.

On 9 April 1972, all three squadrons of the 20th Tank Regiment fought enemy armour, firing upon tanks accompanied by infantry, again while occupying the high ground. The Pattons opened fire at approximately 2,800 meters. A few answering shots from the T-54's fell short, and the NVA tanks began to scatter. By the end of the day, the 20th had destroyed sixteen T-54 and captured one Type 59, at no loss to themselves.[20]
NVA armour units equipped with the T-54 tank achieved one of their greatest victories in April 1972, when the NVA 203rd Armored Regiment attacked the ARVN 22nd Infantry Division at Tan Canh, which dominated a main route into the city of Kontum. After a two-day artillery barrage, eighteen T-54 tanks from the 203rd regiment attacked the 22nd Division at dawn from two directions, breaking the ARVN unit, which quickly abandoned its positions.[21]

On 30 April 1975, T-54 tank No. 390 of the NVA 203rd Armored Regiment went crashing through the gates of the South Vietnamese presidential palace, signalling the end of the war."

 

[Mike.]

lam son, was most fought down a valley, most of the vietman war was not fought in condition like these, and even then the lam son terrain was difficult. overall tanks found it hard going in the vietnam war so your initial comparison to a VESPA of all things is moot

 

[Lee]

He died shortly after 9/11 america just used him to go get the oil.

Guess what, the majority of Americas Oil doesn't come from conflict zones. Guess what, I'm going to link to a skeptoid article again... Blood for Oil

 

[mwcolk]

it was a simple analogy. you chose to take it as literal as possible. which... obviously is stupid.

 

[Mike.]

it was a simple analogy. you chose to take it as literal as possible. which... obviously is stupid.

no you presented it as a pint. next time dont use a silly analogy, make a proper argument instead

 

[mwcolk]

no you presented it as a pint. next time dont use a silly analogy, make a proper argument instead

it was a point... it happened. it was on Top Gear. and i dont see how "my argument" was any less "proper" than yours.

 

[GodCubed]

America and World War One

"America entered World War One on April 6th, 1917. Up to that date, America had tried to keep out of World War One – though she had traded with nations involved in the war – but unrestricted submarine warfare, introduced by the Germans on January 9th, 1917, was the primary issue that caused Woodrow Wilson to ask Congress to declare war on Germany on April 2nd. Four days later, America joined World War One on the side of the Allies."

First off, you quote what looks like a laughably amateurish website designed for kiddies.

Secondly, what you quoted supported my argument. You said, and I quote,

"They needed to get involved... and quick. the Lusitania (not spelt Luis... its not a hybrid between Nani and a cruise liner) was the reason they had... end of discussion. its an actual fact that due to the sinking of the ship, America decalred war less than a week later. ITS FACT."

In that you are directly saying that THE reason America joined the war was because of the sinking of the Lusitania, and said that they joined the war less than a week after sinking it. The Lusitania was sunk in May 1915. America joined the war in January 1917. That is two and a half years. There aren't just holes in your argument, it doesn't exist. If you wanted to say that unrestricted submarine warfare contributed to the US entering the war, go ahead. That'd be fine, but it'd also be the truth and not a conspiracy theory, nor what we are debating in the first place.

Again youre jumping to conclusions... when did i say anything about linear streets or dense jungle, or that all Vietnamese know their way around all the cities... or are you jumping to your next conclusion that ALL Vietnamese from ALL cities and towns were fighting against the Americans... you live over on this side then and tell me how this place works... what with your linear streets etc... oh. quick google search for how successful tanks were in Nam...

*OBVIOUS WIKIPEDIA COPY AND PAST ON A BATTLE HERE*

When did I say anything about dense jungle? You didn't say anything about linear streets, no, but that's what a city essentially is, a cluster of buildings with linear streets around them.

At no point did I say all Vietnamese know their way around all cities; rather, that the local residents of those cities know their way around them, a perfectly correct point. Ironically, you then jump to a conclusion and then accuse me of, um, jumping to a conclusion.

Seeing as your pathetic attempt at an argument consisted of a wiki page, I should ignore it, but I know a fair deal about the Vietnamese war, so: Operation Lam Song was an exercise on why tanks AREN'T good in an urban area. Hilariously, you've managed to pick the best battle possible to illustrate the counterpoint to your argument, especially when considering the side with less tanks won. If I quote from your little excerpt alone, we can see.

At about noon, the crewmen of the ARVN 1st Squadron observed enemy armour moving south along highway 1 towards Dong Ha, and concealed their tanks on high ground with a good vantage point. Waiting for the NVA column to close to between 2,500 and 3,000 meters, the 90-mm guns of the Pattons opened fire, quickly destroying nine PT-76 light tanks and two T-54 medium tanks.[20] The remaining NVA armour, unable to see their enemy, turned about and withdrew.

So basically, in an urban environment, one combatant was well-prepared and able to lay a trap for another. This happened many times over the course of the war, but mostly to the US (and the allies it supplied) as time and again they charged into a town and were ripped to shreds by concentrated fire and traps.

The MBT of the US Army at the time, the Patton, was an excellent tank that did all it was designed to do - support troops in open battles, provide mobile armour - extremely well. What it did not do well was attack urban areas (in the early stages of the war, before the Americans wised up. Oh, and that's another bit of proof if you need it), not because it was a bad tank, but because it was a TANK. Tanks just do not go well with urban areas.

it was a point... it happened. it was on Top Gear. and i dont see how "my argument" was any less "proper" than yours.

So, Jeremy Clarkson managed to travel the length of Vietnam (cheating half the way btw) on a Vespa, with NOBODY challenging him or stopping him with their bare hands let alone an IED or anti-tank rifle. And then, when he gets to the end, he sarcastically points out they'd achieved what the US never had. And you claim this apparently means it's all a massive conspiracy? What an utterly ******* stupid argument.


Boom, sit down son.