That worthless toilet, Afghanistan???

Good,thread OP! S&F for you Ruey,I get the same responses when it comes to the CIA and the Contras drug smuggling back in the 80's in LA and the rest of the nation.Despite all the evidence and all the reports to the contrary.

Great post Rewey S&F for you. Some food for thought here regarding Opium..

1). The Runway 69 club in Queens.

2). What it was renowned for?.

3). Who owned it?.

Yet another coincidence?, I think not.

Originally posted by Seventh
Great post Rewey S&F for you. Some food for thought here regarding Opium..

1). The Runway 69 club in Queens.
2). What it was renowned for?.
3). Who owned it?.
Yet another coincidence?, I think not.

1) it was a strip club that opened in Queens in 1993

2) the locals plus some politicians picketed it mercilessly into closing becuase they didn't want a strip club in their neighborhood.

3) A guy named John Scialpi, VP of Goldfingers International

It's not my place to say, but if you truthers are getting so outer space desperate to prove 9/11 was an inside job that you're now suspecting there are secret gov't plots behind NYC strip clubs, then maybe it's time to abandon that sinking ship you're on and find some other conspiracy to be mongoring in.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I am responding to GoodOlDave but I can ask the OP and all others - what exactly is your definition of a "toilet of a country?" It seems to me, and I may be wrong as I often am, but you all keep talking about the obvious when none have mentioned the Afghani people. Are they themselves "toilets"? Have you all any decency whatsoever? Clearly, and this simply cannot be argued, the discussion of "reality" for you all doesn't include innocent human beings. I've been to many "toilets" around the world and never once did I leave them with sh*t on me. I left with the amazement that those who controll the armies and so called governments are the true outhouses and the people, the PEOPLE for God's sake are left to suffer. And suffer they do - but laughter and longing and love continue...it always continues - even as you discuss a pipeline.
Argue about the Taliban and Karzi and the CIA payroll all you like - furthermore stay at your computer and never leave your home. You will never understand that the human spirit is THE most valuable commodity in existince. Other than that, carry on.

ColoradoJens

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

I am responding to GoodOlDave but I can ask the OP and all others - what exactly is your definition of a "toilet of a country?" It seems to me, and I may be wrong as I often am, but you all keep talking about the obvious when none have mentioned the Afghani people. Are they themselves "toilets"? Have you all any decency whatsoever?

Such an outstanding response. Thank you for sharing that...


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8ce85b15c500.jpg[/atsimg]

I can see the official government response now... "Hmmm... an 8 year old child, you say? Nope. We've checked our 'military intelligence' twice - we've definitely got you down as an al Quaeda footsoldier. Maybe you should think twice about living in a toilet. Bombs away!"

Heartless. Absolutely heartless.

And I'd say absolutely pointless if it wasn't for the small issue of the trillions of dollars worth of oil mentioned earlier... Like this kid gives a crap...

Rew

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Oh, and if I may ask, just what do you think WE are trying to do in Afghanistan, now?

Golly, I just can't keep up - it changes so often...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a41659e172fc.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Your own post of that modern shopping plaza shows we're tryign to bring it into the 21st century.

Really? Is that what you're doing there now? Bringing it into the 21st century? Spreading freedom and democracy the American way? I'm not sure a carpet of bombs is the best tool to bring a nation into the 21st century, is it? You know... Hearts and Minds?


HEARTS:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cea89a4a7b07.jpg[/atsimg]


and MINDS:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a33ace7bf30a.jpg[/atsimg]

Caption: Opium farmer Haji Abdul Khan shows off damaged poppies to U.S. Marines on March 22, 2009. The opium poppy field was damaged when a U.S. Air Force airdrop of supplies blew off target, landing on some of Khan's crops and crushing them. The Marines assured Khan they would pay him for his damaged poppy crop in compensation for the accident.

That sure sounds like a nation hell-bent on crushing those opium-trading warlords, doesn't it? "Sorry - we'll pay for those..."

Be sure to pick up some duty free shopping on the way home...

Rew


[edit on 13-11-2009 by Rewey]

reply to post by Rewey


Thanks Rewey, I realize I was and am inflamed by the human condition. I know I was off post but I realize the intention of your arguments and I want to hear GoodOlDave's repsonse. Sorry for off post and thank you for immediately, and non-confrontationally continuting your well thought out post.

ColoradoJens

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Talk about good timing... this news story broke today:

Diaries of Stalin's horrors on display

Welsh journalist Gareth Jones entered Ukraine in March 1933, at the height of an artificial famine engineered by Soviet dictator Josef Stalin as part of his campaign to force peasants into collective farms.

Millions starved to death between 1932 and 1933 as the Soviet secret police emptied the countryside of grain and livestock.

As starvation and cannibalism spread across Ukraine, Soviet authorities exported more than a million tonnes of grain to the West, using the money to build factories and arm its military.

Historians say that between four million and five million Ukrainians perished in what is sometimes referred to as the Great Famine.

That was just from the famine. Many millions more died from execution and in gulag.

Thought you could refer to that when you explain to everyone why you claim Hitler was WAY WORSE than Stalin.

Rewey

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Becuase A) the ones in charge of the opium are the local warlords...

From here:

Afghan government officials are now believed to be involved in at least 70 percent of opium trafficking, and experts estimate that at least 13 former or present provincial governors are directly involved in the drug trade. Furthermore, up to 25 percent of the 249 elected members of parliament are also suspected of being involved in the drug trade.

When referring to Afghanistan’s Ministry of Interior, Syed Ikramuddin, Afghan’s Minister of Labor, said: “Except for the Minister of Interior himself, all the lower people from the heads of department down are involved in supporting drug smuggling.” For example, in a single raid, nine tons of opium were recovered from the offices of the Governor of Afghan’s Helmand Province. While the governor was eventually replaced, no punitive action was taken against him, and he moved on to a high-level position in parliament. 34 This case is not unusual, with corrupt officials
routinely being simply reassigned rather than removed from office.

That's a really good document to have a read of, by the way...

Rew

Originally posted by Rewey
You guys love to jump on truthers who refer to Operation Northwoods, claiming it’s stupid as a reference as it never got past its conception phase. But this proves that it is not incomprehensible to people in power to sacrifice their own people, or meddle with the running of other nations purely to advance their own political agenda. So again, whilst I’m not claiming 9/11 was ‘faked’ for that reason, it is certainly not absurd to consider it. Stranger things have happened.

I'm not criticisimg it becuase it's stupid to use as a reference. I'm criticing them becuase they are deliberately misrepresenting the facts like they do everything ELSE they spoon feed us, misquoting this, intentionally omitting that, in order to trick people into believing what they want people to believe. All you need to do is read the Northwoods report to see the conspirators DIDN'T want innocent people killed. They wanted people to live in order to make them into witnesses to report supposed Cuban aggression. Moreover, once the plan left the planning circle, the gov't was so horrified that the plan was shelved and the guy who came up with it was sacked.

The truthers using this in attempt to prove the gov't WOULD murder innocent civilians, and that they WOULD have the nerve to carry our such a false flag operation, is in my opinion deliberatel misrepresentation to give their claims false credibility. What they never, never, NEVER want to discuss is the fact that Northwoods would almost certainly have failed. All the reporters needed to do is trace down the nonexistant relatives of the nonexistant passengers of the nonexistant planes shot down by nonexistant Cuban fighters to cause the plan to unravel. That tells me right there that any so-called 9/11 secret plot would have faled for one unanticipated reason or another, as well, particularly the absurd, unnecessarily complex and convoluted conspiracies the truthers are insisting upon.

…when you, yourself, claim there is co-operation between the US and the opium producers? What’s the result of this ‘co-operation’?

Increased intelligence on the activities of the insurgency. We certainly don't trust the warlords becuase their loyalties are mostly to themselves, and they don't trust us becuase they know we'll chance our minds and begin persecuting them at a moment's notice, but each side tolerates the other as long as the insurgency is a common enemy to both sides.

The U.N. report makes the dramatic claim that as much as 75 percent of the heroin sold in the United States and Canada could now be coming from Afghanistan…

As one of your fellow posters here once said, you can fit all the troops we've stationed in Afghanistan ion one football stadium. There simply is not enough manpower there to police the entire country...not that we ever really could. You forget that the Soviet Union stationed entire armies there and they couldn't stop weapons for the mujahadeen from being smuggled in.

Hmmm… that seems to be an awfully lot just ‘slipping through’, thanks to ‘co-operation’. But what would they know – they’re just the United Nations. They also said not to invade Iraq because there were no WMD’s – what would they know?!?

I give no credibility to innuendo dropping. You should know that.

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
I am responding to GoodOlDave but I can ask the OP and all others - what exactly is your definition of a "toilet of a country?" It seems to me, and I may be wrong as I often am, but you all keep talking about the obvious when none have mentioned the Afghani people.

All right, allow me to me answer your question with another question. Imagine someone gave you a dollar bill smeared corner to corner with wet, smelly, human feces (with a few pieces of corn stuck in it for good measure). Would you...

a) wash it off and reclaim the dollar, or

b) immediately toss your cookies and flush it down the toilet becuase dealing with the associated filth isn't worth the trouble of reclaiming the dollar.

Yes, Afghanistan has a lot going for it, but it's detracted by too many negatives. If the gov't had some secret agenda to frame some weak country to pillage its natural resources, there are many, many better choices to frame than Afghanistan I.E. Venezuela, the land of oil AND coc aine, as well as Iraq, the country we wound up invading anyway.

A crude example, I admit, but it gets the point across.

Originally posted by Rewey
That was just from the famine. Many millions more died from execution and in gulag.

Thought you could refer to that when you explain to everyone why you claim Hitler was WAY WORSE than Stalin.

All right, look, dude, I'm not making anything up when I say that FDR and Churchill made an alliance with Stalin becuase they considered Hitler to be the worth threat. I'm saying they considered Hitler to be the worse threat becuase they really DID consider Hitler to be the worse threat. That's the opinion I subscribe to becuase it wasn't Russian bombers leveling London, and it wasn't Russian submarines sinking everything on our Atlantic seaboard. I personally stood on the deck of a sunken German u-boat a few miles off our coast so I know full well Hitler wasn't playing games. If you want to argue about it, then I invite you to build a time machine and go back to 1940 and convince FDR and Churchill that they needed to back Hitler against Stalin instead.

All I will say that if this bit is some tactic to support your case that there's some secret gov't conspiracy afoot, then I suggest you get to the point soon, before the moderators start yanking your posts for being off topic.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
I am responding to GoodOlDave but I can ask the OP and all others - what exactly is your definition of a "toilet of a country?" It seems to me, and I may be wrong as I often am, but you all keep talking about the obvious when none have mentioned the Afghani people.

All right, allow me to me answer your question with another question. Imagine someone gave you a dollar bill smeared corner to corner with wet, smelly, human feces (with a few pieces of corn stuck in it for good measure). Would you...

a) wash it off and reclaim the dollar, or

b) immediately toss your cookies and flush it down the toilet becuase dealing with the associated filth isn't worth the trouble of reclaiming the dollar.

Yes, Afghanistan has a lot going for it, but it's detracted by too many negatives. If the gov't had some secret agenda to frame some weak country to pillage its natural resources, there are many, many better choices to frame than Afghanistan I.E. Venezuela, the land of oil AND coc aine, as well as Iraq, the country we wound up invading anyway.

A crude example, I admit, but it gets the point across.

Thanks for the response. I have no idea what you mean. You seem to feel that invading a country and the consequences that follow are as simple as 1+1. I hope I am not right and simply don't grasp what you mean.

ColoradoJens

Hey GoodOlDave congratulations you seem to have made an impression. You have a whole thread dedicated to you

Instead of the title being That worthless toilet, Afghanistan???
Shouldn't it be...

Why I think GoodOlDave is a tool or Here's what GoodOlDave said and then begin the ranting and mud slinging?


Why is this personal attack thread allowed to continue?

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
Thanks for the response. I have no idea what you mean. You seem to feel that invading a country and the consequences that follow are as simple as 1+1. I hope I am not right and simply don't grasp what you mean.

ColoradoJens

Ummm, I'm not certain what that means either. The point is, that if there's going to be some secret conspiracy, then it's going to be goal driven. The goal of Northwoods was to get a war instigated against Cuba. The goal of Whitewater was to dredge up dirt on the Democrats to guarantee Nixon's election. The goal of Iran-Contra was to help free hostages and get money for the Contras. The goal of the secret bombings of Cambodia was to destroy the NVA supply lines for the north's war effort in the south. And so on.

These 9/11 conspiracies, on the other hand, are the most random event, NON-goal driven stories I've ever heard. The gov't supposedly staged a false flag operation to invade Iraq...by framing Afghanistan. The gov't supposedly planted bombs in the WTC and used planes to cover them up...even though bombs were used in 1993. The gov't supposedly made a fake crash site in Shanksville to fool us into believing flight 93 crashed there...and then covered up the fake crash site they made to fool us. The gov't supposedly crashed a cruise missile into the Pentagon and planted armies of witnesses to get us to believe it was a passenger jet...despite the conspirators definitely having two or more disposable passegner jets they crashed into other buildings. Good grief, the conspirators coming up with all these secret plots sound like a bunch of stoned high school kids. I can see right away the truthers are ideliberately trying to connect the dots to form the pretty picture they themselves want to see in all this.

If reway wants to bicker over whether Hitler or Stalin was the worst dictator, he can go right ahead, but it still doesn't change the fact that these conspiracy stories are rubbish.

Originally posted by darkwing81
Instead of the title being That worthless toilet, Afghanistan???
Shouldn't it be...

Why I think GoodOlDave is a tool or Here's what GoodOlDave said and then begin the ranting and mud slinging?

Why is this personal attack thread allowed to continue?

HA HA HA!

Seriously, I don't care if people call me stupid, or if I'm a slave to gov't puppet masters, or if I kick pregnant dogs. All I care about is if anyone can show why anything I say is incorrect. My philosophy is that the truth never has to run away from lies. It's lies that always has to run away from the truth.

I have the facts on my side, so I don't need to hide from anyone.

Originally posted by darkwing81
Why is this personal attack thread allowed to continue?

Firstly, everything posted on this thread has been a response to something GoodOlDave has claimed. Isn't that the entire point of an internet forum? Someone makes a claim or presents a hypothesis, and people discuss or debate its validity?

Secondly, GoodOlDave has far thicker skin than you seem to give him credit for. I fully expect, or hope, to shake hands with him on the conclusion of this thread, and meet him again in other threads for further debate. There has been no malice raised on either side in this thread...

Rewey

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
... I suggest you get to the point soon, before the moderators start yanking your posts for being off topic.

How is anything I’ve posted ‘off topic’? That’s something other people say as a cry to help from the moderators when they’ve talked themselves into a corner they can’t defend. I wouldn’t expect that from you, Dave. Everything I’ve posted has been in direct response to a claim you’ve made:

1. That Afghanistan is a toilet of a country
2. That people are stupid to think that 9/11 was staged as a reason to occupy Afghanistan
3. That I should be condemned for apparently ‘supporting’ (read: not feeling the same way you do about) the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan
4. That Hitler was way worse than Stalin
5. That it’s only in my head that military action in Afghanistan could be about ANYTHING other than catching bin Laden

I’ve merely responded with my views that:

1. Armed forces are either dying for a ‘toilet of a country’, or they hope to make some financial gain in the future – possibly from access to $46 trillion dollars of oil, or 236 trillion cubic feet of gas. Not to mention 92% of the world’s opium supply – which could (in the future) be used by powerful drug companies for medicinal purposes, as well as illicit production.

2. All those numbers stack up to an awfully tempting carrot to dangle. I don’t think it’s at all absurd to consider that as a potential impetus for invading another country. The US has done it for far less…

3. Despite the inherent anti-Communist bias in western history sources, the Soviets were invited by the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan to help quash increasingly-violent uprisings by traditional hard-line Islamists who wanted to return Afghanistan to a fundamentalist Islamic state.

4. Again, despite the inherent bias in western history sources, Hitler was not ‘way worse’ than Stalin. It’s just written that way to help justify why we fought on the same side.

5. I’ve provided plenty of sources to suggest that this may not be the case.


Do I think this is ‘GoodOlDave bashing’? No, because I think if you want people to accept your claim that people are stupid for even considering that 9/11 could have been created/staged/used as a reason to invade Afghanistan, it’s important to see how your other claims stand up to scrutiny. To me, they don’t. But that’s just me, and I don’t claim to speak for anyone else on ATS.

After all, it’s the veracity or robustness of one’s claims which give birth to a person’s credibility, right? If it appears as though all of your other claims have been biased or tainted by ‘pro-western thinking’, how does this affect other claims you make?

Again, I’m not saying that it’s your fault that you think that way – it comes from years of schooling in a western society, in which “history is written by the victors”, (a quip often attributed to Churchill, although incorrectly, in all probability).

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I give no credibility to innuendo dropping. You should know that.

I do, which is why I usually enjoy the robustness of your posts. Please accept my comment as nothing more than tongue-in-cheek.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
If the gov't had some secret agenda to frame some weak country to pillage its natural resources… as well as Iraq, the country we wound up invading anyway.

Interesting you would say that. I posted a clip on another thread, from a doco (I think it was called ‘The World According to Bush’, but I’ll have to check – it’s been a while). It included an ex-senior official from the CIA who was called by the Whitehouse on the morning of September 12 and told to find a way to ‘pin this on Iraq’. He told them that Iraq had nothing to do with it, but was asked to anyway.

To me, that’s ANOTHER reason to at least consider the events of 9/11 as a reason for invading Afghanistan, OTHER than to find bin Laden. After all, we KNOW Iraq had nothing to do with it, but someone from the Whitehouse TOLD a senior CIA employee to pin it on them anyway.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The point is, that if there's going to be some secret conspiracy, then it's going to be goal driven… These 9/11 conspiracies, on the other hand, are the most random event, NON-goal driven stories I've ever heard.

OK. Leaving all the other stuff behind, let’s consider something else. Ignoring all the ‘theories’ which are clearly nonsensical (laser beams, controlled demolition, thermite, radio-controlled planes, etc), consider the LIHOP school of thought for a moment.

If 9/11 WAS an example of LIHOP, would all the things posted in this thread be considered enough incentive to LIHOP, in your opinion? Would it then be a government conspiracy which is clearly driven by more than one goal?

Rewey


[edit on 15-11-2009 by Rewey]

Originally posted by Rewey
How is anything I’ve posted ‘off topic’? That’s something other people say as a cry to help from the moderators when they’ve talked themselves into a corner they can’t defend. I wouldn’t expect that from you, Dave.

On the contrary, I myself have had two of my posts yanked by the moderators for being off topic and/or inflammatory. I felt it wasn't with what I was saying, but with how I said it, so I reposted it in different terms and the moderators accepted it.

I am mentioning this becuase I honestly have no idea how dragging the discussion away from 9/11 conspiracies and into debates over whether Hitler was a worse dictator than Stalin or vice versa has any relevence to the topic of the thread. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're going somewhere with this train of thought, rather than simply arguing for arguments' sake.

All those numbers stack up to an awfully tempting carrot to dangle. I don’t think it’s at all absurd to consider that as a potential impetus for invading another country. The US has done it for far less…

I don't have a problem with "considering" it, per se. I have a problem with the circular logic that it involves. You accuse the gov't of having evil ulterior motives by accusing the gov't of intentionally fostering Opium production. You're not proving anything with this. You're simply expanding the original "the gov't is bad" argument to explain itself.

Do I think this is ‘GoodOlDave bashing’? No, because I think if you want people to accept your claim that people are stupid for even considering that 9/11 could have been created/staged/used as a reason to invade Afghanistan, it’s important to see how your other claims stand up to scrutiny.

I have never, in any post anywhere, said that people are stupid for believing in 9/11 conspiracies, and on more than one occasion I specifically said they were for the most part intelligent and articulate people. I have always made my opinion plain- the people who are into these conspiracies aren't stupid, they're simply being suckered by all these damned fool 9/11 conspiracy web sites that are putting out rubbish in order to get them all paranoid over shadows. They themselves are merely the victims of a pack of con artists.

After all, it’s the veracity or robustness of one’s claims which give birth to a person’s credibility, right? If it appears as though all of your other claims have been biased or tainted by ‘pro-western thinking’, how does this affect other claims you make?

It depends on the "taint". If I went around claiming that black people are all criminals, or all hispanics are on welfare, you'd have a legitimate point, but I doubt you're going to get too many allies here to argue against the idea that Hitler was worse than Stalin. Most people either truly believe Hitler was worse than Stalin, they are equally as bad and the difference isn't worth arguing over, or they're wondering what the heck Hitler and Stalin have anythign to do with anything.

To me, that’s ANOTHER reason to at least consider the events of 9/11 as a reason for invading Afghanistan, OTHER than to find bin Laden. After all, we KNOW Iraq had nothing to do with it, but someone from the Whitehouse TOLD a senior CIA employee to pin it on them anyway.

...which is a de facto admission that the attack was NOT staged by the US gov't, but rather, a legitimate terrorist attack that the gov't used to its own advantage. True, US leaders are attempting to use the attack for their own ulterior political purposes, but that's not what's getting the 9/11 conspiracy people all hot and bothered. .

If 9/11 WAS an example of LIHOP, would all the things posted in this thread be considered enough incentive to LIHOP, in your opinion? Would it then be a government conspiracy which is clearly driven by more than one goal?

If the entire argument that was driving the 9/11 conspiracy movement was LIHOP minded, then yes, I would concur it would be too legitimate of a concern to discount. That said, I haven't seen too many people who support LIHOP, most probably becuase for such a horribly spectacular attack the conspiracy supporters want an equally horribly spectacular reason for it, and LIHOP isn't sexy sounding enough. It's the MIHOP people who make up the bulk of the 9/11 conspiracy people, or at least, the most vociferous.

You are in the LIHOP camp, I presume?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
It's the MIHOP people who make up the bulk of the 9/11 conspiracy people, or at least, the most vociferous.

I believe there are far more people in the real world who would lean towards LIHOP, but the MIHOP bunch are obviously the ones who get active on internet forums, arguing black and blue that there were no planes, and it was all CGI… Sadly, there’s not a lot that can be done to address that.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You are in the LIHOP camp, I presume?

As I have said on numerous threads, I believe the ‘truth’, whatever it may be, will be much more close to the ‘official story’ than a lot of people will be comfortable with.

I am in the LIHOP camp, but there are still a few elements of the 9/11 events which speak of a little more complicity than simply ‘look the other way’. Again, that’s obviously my opinion. If I had concrete evidence, we’d all be discussing this in court.

There are a few reasons I lean towards LIHOP…

Firstly, there are a number of events which it seems have been ‘allowed’ to happen in years gone by, the most notable being the WTC bombing in 1993. I’m not going to start a debate in this thread as to the level of prior knowledge the government had, but there is certainly enough debate out there to strongly suggest it. I can’t simply put it down to ‘too many alphabet agencies, too many leads’.

Secondly, as I’ve raised in this thread, there is WAAAAY too much incentive, which seems a little too much for coincidence. The oil reserves I listed earlier equate to something like 5% of the world’s reserves. A number of sources claim that if the US did not become a stakeholder in these reserves, they would most likely have been snapped up by China or Russia. Despite Obama’s rhetoric yesterday, China is still very much the ‘bad guy’. Importantly, the installation of Karzai occurred well before 9/11, which means that there was clear intention to become involved in the region at some point. And the US wanted more from Iraq than to get back Detroit’s ‘key to the City’.

Also, if the US government genuinely believed that Iraq was getting 'yellowcake' from Nigeria, why was there no military involvement in Nigeria? Theoretically, they could still be selling it to other enemy states or groups. That, in itself, screams that they knew the info was dud.

Thirdly, the level of co-ordination required for some of the MIHOP theories beggars belief. Not just the co-ordination, but the larger the conspiracy, the bigger the ‘circle of friends’ is required to be.

But like I said, there are still a number of elements which don’t add up to simply ‘looking the other way’…

One I’d like to look at further is the damage to the basement. I’ve seen the photos of the damage down there, and quite frankly, it’s enormous. Now, I know the ‘OS’ says the jet fuel travelled down the elevator shafts and ignited in the basement. However, this ignores the Coanda effect, better known as ‘wall attachment effect’. In short, the cloud/mist/rain of jet fuel would come into contact with the sides of the elevator shaft, and continue travelling down in liquid form (like rain on a windshield). By the time it reached the bottom, it would not be in the aerosolised/vapour/fragmented form required for jet fuel to combust.

Another is Shanksville. I’m not saying the plane never landed there, nor am I claiming that it did. But I believe the full story is far from the ‘Let’s roll’ version that we’ve been saturated with. Crucially, I believe that regardless of intent, the Government needs everyone on the same page in regards to their feelings towards their perceived aggressors. That, in itself, gives birth to a wide range of media domination and saturation which I believe does nothing but cloud the issue.

But that’s something for another thread…

Rew