Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

9/11 Truth Movement Gaining Scientific Credibility

page: 14
71
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by seethelight
 


Sure, there are PLENTY of things in the WTC that would burn HOTTER than Charcoal. But there are a lot of things in ANY OFFICE that burn very, very hot.

So hot, that Jet Fuel, doesn't actually burn hotter than a typical office fire.


Charcoal, might be used by a Smith to bend or heat Wrought Iron -- in a FORGE, made of MORE IRON and BRICKS. Pumping in pure air, too feed coal and at a very enclosed point, it gets ENOUGH HEAT LOAD, to bend an iron bar. Your point about "charcoal" has the same problem; "Temperature does NOT equal HEAT LOAD." For instance, your oven, gets really hot - up to 600 degrees. However the TEMPERATURE of the heating elements in it that get over a 1,000 degrees -- wow, hotter than Jet Fuel!

Under your logic, nobody could have an oven in their house, because it is enclosed in Steel, and it has heating elements hotter than jet fuel, and if you ever burnt some food in there -- it ALSO has charcoal.

So, I'd call anyone a FRAUD or illiterate in terms of Heat Engineering if they think that a 15 minute burn from Jet Fuel is going to reduce the strength of steel cylinders in a 100 story building that has floors that could comfortably fit a football game.

The WTC already had a fire two weeks before it opened (and before Fire Extinguishers were put in), and it already had a massive bombing in the basement -- BOMBS, are much hotter than Jet Fuel -- but there is NOT enough TIME to build up a heat load that would weaken the structure.

Did you know that metal conducts heat? That's why we all have steel ovens and our houses don't burn down -- this experiment is conducted a billion times a day -- but you think 3 times in history, is "logical." Good luck with that magic heating theory.




posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by seethelight
Sorry, but there's plenty of people that say they saw molten steel without knowing WHICH metal it was.

Sorry if you're youtube video isn't proof to me,

Um, they show the actual pieces of molten steel. If the actual pieces along with the witness testimony isn't enough for you, then the only other conclusion that can be drawn is that you're either too blinded by denial or you're just here to troll regardless of evidence.



Originally posted by seethelight
The thing is though, that even if there were some molten steel, it doesn't mean anything.

This right here shows your level of intelligence. Molten steel does absolutely mean something. It means there was some other form of incendiary/accelerant in those buildings because jet fuel, aka kerosene, and normal office fires cannot melt steel, period.





>> We have BETTER proof than that. If you look at the videos of "WHITE HOT" molten metal -- that can ONLY be Aluminum. You can tell it's temperature AND the type of metal it is by the color when heated because, scientists and engineers know the fluid temperature and color of that metal. It isn't Nickel or Einsteinium, because that's not going to be in the building.

When you see the YELLOW-hot metal, that's molten Steel, and that is a LOT hotter than molten Aluminum. Both metals, are way beyond what you would see in an office fire -- of which, Jet Fuel, which is designed for safety and a LOW BURNING TEMPERATURE, isn't any hotter than what you get from the petroleum products in carpets, sofas, drapes and a thousand other volatile chemicals in products that we have in every building. You can make a Wood Fire almost as hot as Kerosene -- so what's the point, saying "JET FUEL!" really loud and "HUGE PLANE" is supposed to explain everything because you've said it a lot, and in a way that says; "Everybody Knows a Plane would destroy a building." ONCE AGAIN, HERE IS EASY TO FIND PROOF THAT FACTS ARE WITH ME

Well, a huge military plane didn't destroy the Empire State Building in the 1940's -- and that wasn't even DESIGNED to be hit by a plane. Concrete

What Everybody Knows is usually WRONG in my experience. Like "Christopher Columbus was NOT arguing that the world was round when he set off to find a new passage to India." What everybody KNOWS today, about great minds thinking the world was flat -- was completely wrong. Columbus thought the world was HALF the circumference of the Smart People -- and they thought he'd starve to death before he made it to India. He almost did, but he bumped into some Islands off the coast of a new Continent. Why do you think native Americans were called "Indians?" Christopher Columbus was a brutal idiot who got lucky. He's a great explorer because he was luckier than smart.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


Here's why my argument is valid.

People claim that a specific number, 1000, engineers, is meaningful.

They trumpet this number all over the internet.

They even hold a press conference to celebrate the meaningfulness of this number.

However, this number doesn't exist in a vacuum. This number is absolutely relative to the whole number of the group.
...
This is a FRINGE movement, within the engineering community.

That is plain to see.



You are very much in Denial. There are 1,000 people putting time, energy, and their REPUTATIONS on the line -- and that is no small thing, when not having healthcare and a job can kill you in the USA, and getting blacklisted can definitely happen.

As others have pointed out, there are not a 1,000 engineers signing YOUR BUSH CONSPIRACY THEORY and using the "new Physics" books you've been cribbing from.

Touting 1,000 engineers, is ONLY to show that there are people with jobs, willing to put it all on the line. That is pretty dang significant. The number of engineers, does NOT however, make their questions any more or less well thought out. But other engineers can refute them with MATH AND MODELS that are reproducible.

They have not. Even though Popular Mechanics came up with an article, that COULD possibly explain the Government Theory -- there is no actual, model showing the physics and engineering that MAKE it possible -- it's an opinion piece. I wrote a 25 page opinion that they were full of hot air -- so there -- it's EQUIVALENT, right?

If we want to go with the number of subscribers to Popular Mechanics, over MY Opinion -- then of course, the National Enquirer wins.



>> You've come up with no Science to refute their soundly-based QUESTIONS like how does a FALLING BUILDING project tones of steel and bury it in other buildings over 600 feet away? And your point about the number of people on the planet with Engineering Degrees who don't work for George Bush, not saying a dang thing one way or the other concerning 9/11, is another, intellectually dishonest comparison.


Try again. I'm sure someone with a college degree can give us more compelling reasons why we should not investigate the very, very corrupt Bush Administration.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
I can agree the hologram theory is a bit far fetched, but the pod theory is not. It makes perfect sense to mount a remote control pod beneath a plane's belly

Yeah, it doesn't matter what "makes perfect sense". What matters is what actually happened.

Fake disinfo "pods" debunked:

www.questionsquestions.net...


I get so frustrated with people coming up with THEORIES of how it happened. Do pods on a plane make the world Flat? No, they do not. They have nothing to do with the shape of planet earth -- nor do they have one bit of influence PRO OR CON, with they theory that two planes brought down three buildings -- or why everything accidentally came into alignment so that untrained pilots with box cutters could carry it off and remove evidence without a LOT OF HELP.

Modern commercial airplanes can be flown by remote already -- so it's easier to assume someone got the FAA codes to do it, rather than attached pods. Is that what happened? How should I know -- but I'd be willing to waterboard Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld until they told me. Honestly, if we can grab some Taxi Driver "in case" he knows something, than people who approved this treatment, can endure it so we can make sure "just in case" they didn't use their positions of power to Let It Happen On Purpose or Make It Happen. I don't get where the rights of the guilty are more than the rights of the innocent -- since Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld think the security of the USA trumps ANYONE'S RIGHTS and they have more to gain, and more evidence against them than the guy we "CANNOT PUT ON TRIAL" -- well, let's see what they may or may not know....


And just because someone talks about Holograms -- it doesn't have anything to do with the world NOT being Flat either. No matter how many people who might say something foolish or clever - it's only proof that there are idiots and smart people who speak -- it doesn't effect what REALITY IS. Reality and truth are independent functions from what people might say.

There is no support for the Bush Government Theory of 911 and their behavior suggests a coverup. Their actions following, suggest that they wanted to undermine security and economic prosperity in the United States. They are also, un-prosecuted war criminals as Dick Cheney has ADMITTED TO APPROVING TORTURE. Remember when the LIED ABOUT TORTURE and it was all a conspiracy theory? Then of course, their apologists now say; "What's wrong with torture?" Along with the Big Lie, we've got people moving the Goal Posts on morality.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


snort.

That's completely ridiculous and not based on anything but some wishful thinking.

So, how'd they figure out how much explosives to use?

what would they have done if a plane missed?

Why did no one report the timed explosions necessary for a demo to work?

Why would you just make stuff up you have no proof of?
It's funny you say that because:


Originally posted by seethelight
Russia Today is NOT a credible source.

So 1/10th of 1% of the worlds engineers think 9/11 was a demo, that isn't actually very impressive.

Statistically, that means NO engineers do, because most surveys/studies have a margin of error of AT LEAST 1%.

So less than a 10th of that is meaningless.

Russia Today = Fail
Statistically insignificant number of engineers = fail

And on and on...

Where's your proof that Russia Today is not a credible source? Where's your proof that only a 1000 engineers think 9/11 is a demo?

And my post was nothing more than a idea. I'm not an expert on demolition, but I'm pretty sure that when you have a giant plane crash into a skyscraper at high speeds, they're probably not going to need as much explosives to bring it down as would for a standard demolition. However, I could be wrong, so if there are any experts on this sort of thing viewing this thread, feel free to tell me.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by technical difficulties
I'm pretty sure that when you have a giant plane crash into a skyscraper at high speeds, they're probably not going to need as much explosives to bring it down as would for a standard demolition. However, I could be wrong, so if there are any experts on this sort of thing viewing this thread, feel free to tell me.

The planes didn't do very much structural damage from the impacts. We only saw a loss of 13%-15% of columns in the impact zones, and that isn't significant enough to worry about any type of collapse. Add that onto the fact that fire has never brought a steel-structured highrise down before.

Then you have to start looking at other factors like the molten steel which can't happen in office fires or by jet fuel (kerosene). So then you have to start looking at what could have caused the molten steel such as incendiaries or accelerants.

As you can see, there is a process to go about when looking at facts and evidence. One thing leads you to another until you have workable theories and hypotheses leading to what actually happened.




[edit on 1-3-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I have to congratulate _BoneZ_ and give a worthy mention to K J Gunderson. They've done a damn fine job of winning the debate hands down and convincing many readers of this thread that the OS story is total BS.

As for seethelight and dereks, please don't be discouraged. I can see that you're both new to this, take a look around, have a good read and one day what's been discussed in this thread will make a lot more sense. Most importantly try not to lose your initial enthusiasm for debate; many good posters once started with the same belief as yourselves.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


Here's why my argument is valid.

People claim that a specific number, 1000, engineers, is meaningful.

They trumpet this number all over the internet.

They even hold a press conference to celebrate the meaningfulness of this number.

However, this number doesn't exist in a vacuum. This number is absolutely relative to the whole number of the group.
...
This is a FRINGE movement, within the engineering community.

That is plain to see.



You are very much in Denial. There are 1,000 people putting time, energy, and their REPUTATIONS on the line -- and that is no small thing, when not having healthcare and a job can kill you in the USA, and getting blacklisted can definitely happen.

As others have pointed out, there are not a 1,000 engineers signing YOUR BUSH CONSPIRACY THEORY and using the "new Physics" books you've been cribbing from.

Touting 1,000 engineers, is ONLY to show that there are people with jobs, willing to put it all on the line. That is pretty dang significant. The number of engineers, does NOT however, make their questions any more or less well thought out. But other engineers can refute them with MATH AND MODELS that are reproducible.

They have not. Even though Popular Mechanics came up with an article, that COULD possibly explain the Government Theory -- there is no actual, model showing the physics and engineering that MAKE it possible -- it's an opinion piece. I wrote a 25 page opinion that they were full of hot air -- so there -- it's EQUIVALENT, right?

If we want to go with the number of subscribers to Popular Mechanics, over MY Opinion -- then of course, the National Enquirer wins.



>> You've come up with no Science to refute their soundly-based QUESTIONS like how does a FALLING BUILDING project tones of steel and bury it in other buildings over 600 feet away? And your point about the number of people on the planet with Engineering Degrees who don't work for George Bush, not saying a dang thing one way or the other concerning 9/11, is another, intellectually dishonest comparison.


Try again. I'm sure someone with a college degree can give us more compelling reasons why we should not investigate the very, very corrupt Bush Administration.


RT is World wide and is hosted on two servers in Russian Federation even though the hostname implies Tuvalu. Trustworthiness of this site is good. (more on reputation).It is not listed in any blacklists.It has 3 organic keywords. It has 82 inlinks



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
so let's say the truth of 9/11 comes out. what then? the us government says yes we were involved were sorry and yadayadayada. some will go to jail some are too high up to even have their names mentioned. the next day people will go back to their starbucks and facebook.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brian1709
so let's say the truth of 9/11 comes out. what then? the us government says yes we were involved were sorry and yadayadayada. some will go to jail some are too high up to even have their names mentioned. the next day people will go back to their starbucks and facebook.

That may be, but the powers-that-be will also think twice about pulling a hoax on the American people again because we will be watching.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   


Thank you NIST for providing the proof that 9/11

was an inside job / false flag attack.




posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


You only deal in facts and yet you call 1/10th of 1% of engineers, the majority.

And the organization you've put your faith in also believing in mind control.

Do you believe in mind control?

Wouldn't that be closer to holographic planes than hard fact?

And didn't publicly state that anyone who believed in weird stuff like that wasn't a real truther?

So the head of the organization that you're pimping isn't a real truther?



Ever hear of cognitive dissonance?

Or maybe you're more of a doublethink kinda guy.


Even though you've stayed off topic with this one... here's some proof that the U.S. government has been involved with mind control (Clinton apologizing for MK Ultra program (mind control)):
www.youtube.com...
This just means that you can't suggest your government is not capable of mind control on unwitting citizens. Mind control can just mean fabricating a story to pass off as truth to the masses.
You still haven't answered my question: How many structural engineers can you find that agree with the official story? (Again, feel free to express that as a percentage of all of the structural engineers in the world)



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mumbotron

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


You only deal in facts and yet you call 1/10th of 1% of engineers, the majority.


You still haven't answered my question: How many structural engineers can you find that agree with the official story? (Again, feel free to express that as a percentage of all of the structural engineers in the world)


Right now, I doubt if seethelight and ImAPepper could even get any of the NIST charlatans and frauds to sign on to their Architects and Engineers Against 9/11 Truth let alone send any lucrative donations.




posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE
 


Dave,

Thanks -- but I'm not really saying that Russian Times is bogus. My point is; It doesn't REFUTE the evidence. If the National Enquirer, covered the 9/11 Truth Movement -- it doesn't mean that the points made are BOGUS. It only means that NE covered it...

... I was just hammering on the FALACY. Unless someone ENGINEER can make a model that PROVES a falling building can shoot a steel girder 600 feet and embed it in another building -- it doesn't matter if there is one or a million engineers. The great thing about science is that it doesn't depend on popular opinion.

MOST people do not understand Einstein's Theory of General Relativity including many physicists -- it does NOT however, have any bearing on GR being proved over and over again, and adopted as a bedrock of modern physics.


>> MOST "Believers" of the Bush Explained Everything Collapsed According to Unlikely Systemic and Erroneous Baseless Stories Without Observing Rightwing Constitutional Sabotage (BEECAUSE-BS-WORKS for short) -- seem to notice ANY flaw possible in order to dismiss anything you've said.

You have to pose LESS information, in simpler ways and repeat it. "Without an explosion -- how do steal girders fly?" and of course the response is; "Of course, a building like the WTC would have a kitchen, and a propane tank blew up," and the response is; "Other buildings made of steel supports have had kitchens and volatile items," and of course the reply is; "Some dummy talked about Holographic Projections -- who can take you Truthers seriously." Do you see what happened?

The honest debate, turns into "change the subject and ridicule." I like to remember to preface any "theory" for how it happened with; "If I were evil and trying to engineer this disaster, this is what I would do..." Of course, any and all things ever said that are not quite right, will be used to defend the BEECAUSE-BS-WORKS theory where NOTHING is right.

*sigh*

>> Oops, if I really want my Acronym to sweep the nation, I've got to fix one thing;
Bush Explained Everything Collapsed According to Unlikely Systemic and Erroneous Baseless Stories Without Observing Rightwing [B]Konstitutional[/B] Sabotage (BEECAUSE-BS-WORKS for short) -- either that, or I've got to spell WORCS, I think Konstitutional is a better fit.


[edit on 2-3-2010 by VitriolAndAngst]



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

Originally posted by Mumbotron

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


You only deal in facts and yet you call 1/10th of 1% of engineers, the majority.


You still haven't answered my question: How many structural engineers can you find that agree with the official story? (Again, feel free to express that as a percentage of all of the structural engineers in the world)


Right now, I doubt if seethelight and ImAPepper could even get any of the NIST charlatans and frauds to sign on to their Architects and Engineers Against 9/11 Truth let alone send any lucrative donations.



Preston -- star and Flag!

What I was trying to point out earlier, by trying to calculate the speed of fall and TALK about pancake collapse passing enough energy -- was to get to the point you just made. A graphic of course, tells it better.

Another POINT about a pancake collapse is how they look later (layers of pancake), and that the entire force of the building falling DOES NOT arrive all at once, and the structures below can hold up 2-4 TIMES the weight of the building. MOST of the mass above, has to FALL on the lower levels -- so a pancake would happen with a "whomp, whomp, whomp" and take a bit of time and likely fall over to the point of least resistance (because the weight and mass will build up quickly).

What we SAY, was the floors collapsing AS the wind and dust was just blowing into it -- the MASS of the building, was still in free-Fall. It took REACTION TIME, like any demolition, to fall. ALL DEMOLITIONS, take slightly more time than free-fall to collapse.

What we saw, could NOT POSSIBLY BE A PANCAKE, because those take a lot longer, require the mass of the building to fail each layer, and are irregular -- you'd be getting choppy bursts of dust and debris outward, instead of a smooth collapse.

Maybe it's just that my brain is really good at modeling forces -- when I "SEE" a pancake in my head, it's pretty easy to see what it would look like. -- which is kind of impossible to google just a regular video because it's all tied up in 9.11. But anyway, just by the thickness of the floors, you'd have an 1/8th of the building still standing, and the core would rip free, and it would TAKE MORE TIME.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Mumbotron
 


Nobody has to believe me, but I talked directly to a Doctor who was recruited for something just like this project during the '80s.

He was a Pscyhopharmicologist -- a person who researches drugs for the brain.

He told me of his trip to Washington, where he met people he identified as "having some sort of '___' programming" -- meaning, they never sat still or let anyone near them, and were constantly watchful. They only spoke to him with their mouths covered by their hands while in the car as it was moving. Then again in a room where they aimed two speakers with two different radio programs on them at the windows.

The Doctor explained to me, that they explained to HIM, that it was because a laser can be used to detect sounds off of solid objects like the _ 10 years later, we read about it.

They never mentioned the name of their group, but they were ultra-patriots and not directly accountable to any government agency, thought they said they worked for the US. They would give him all the money he wanted and give him nearly unlimited access to people to experiment on that they would "import" from other countries. They wanted to make people unafraid of death, but lucid -- able to think.

The Doc said; "thanks but no thanks" and returned. He did show me a titanium pen that actually when pressed pushed out a stiletto -- it was a gift.

I asked him why he turned down the offer -- he said; "I've been working my whole life trying to correct flaws in people's minds and make them better -- this does the opposite. I told them I didn't know how, but I could make a gas and sit it on this table, and you'd want to kill your best friend -- you wouldn't be rational. The problem with their scheme is that it is possible and I don't want any part of that."


>> So, not saying that this was THE MKULTRA -- just saying that someone was trying to get a very capable doctor to do just that and they had lots of funding and were in Washington. They probably tried to recruit a few doctors but never in any way that could be proven or traced back. I'm pretty sure, the Doc I know, never told a newspaper about it.

So yes, consider MK-ULTRA and Operation Northwoods as not far-fetched.

Does anyone forget Iran/Contra already? What was that exactly; Ship weapons and arm radicals who are against US interests in Iran, so that they can wipe out Moderates who might not be opposed to the US -- and in exchange they grab US hostages so we can embarrass Carter and get power in the White House. Meanwhile, folks like Ollie North, Negroponte, and Abramoff are hiring death squads to kill off anyone standing in the way of American business interests and paying for the whole scheme by flying coc aine into the USA and dropping it off at "CIA Drop Points" which are airbases like those in Alabama, Arkansas, and Jupiter Florida where nobody checks the luggage. You thought that was about Communism -- no, it was about Workers Unions. People trying to organize labor and get rid of sweat shops are still getting killed today. Chiquita Banana hires mercenary force LINK

Remember Delta Force that lost a lot of people in Helicopters flying into a sand storm -- who do you think gave the recommendation and go-ahead for them to fly? Pappy Bush.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Hello,

Reading multiple threads about 9/11 on this site I've come to realize that the debate will go on forever. I know, nothing groundbreaking. I see great arguments from both sides. In this thread, the argument leans towards the conspiracy. But in other threads it's sometimes kooky, and incredible. Like when photos are presented, that clearly have plane wreckage in them, and are being used to support a "no plane" argument. Anyway, that's not why I'm posting. Not to debate, or discredit either faction. I want answers. I want to know what happened that day. Why we lost thousands of Americans. And thousands more to war because of. What is the ultimate way to prove or disprove the story told to us by our gov't?

Has a scale model ever been produced to support either theories? If not, is there anyone here, or out there, that can build one? What about an Massive letter writing attack on the Mythbusters guys? I doubt they'd go anywhere near this "myth", but perhaps worth a try.

I just want the end all. I live in NY, and I was down there that day. I saw the planes, the buildings fall. I don't want to see people waving "Truth" flags in the faces of mourners on anymore 9/11's.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Planes hit the towers.

Planes did not hit the pentagon, building 7, or crash in pen.

The planes hitting the towers, AT THE TOP, could not cause the buidlings to collapse at the bottom. Even if the planes were powerful enough to make the buildings collapse, they would break in half. Everything above the planes, would fall off the building, everything under the planes, would remain intact. Everything under the planes, WAS ALREADY SUPPORTING THE WEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS. It is physically impossible for those buildings to collapse. Even if there was fires. The fires were at the top of the buildings. There was no structural damage at the bottoms. Unless of course, convenient explosives were put there to weaken the buildings.

Building 7 was never hit by a plane. Even if it was on fire, on a couple of floors, in the middle, Would not cause a massive building to collapse to rubble. Even when a wooden house catches fire, and it burns to the ground, most of the time, there is even still wood left standing. Yet, the three buildings that collapsed in ny that day, which were made of steel.... Collapsed completely, with molten metal so hot, they couldn't even clean up until it cooled. Molten metal, found even in building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane.

There is no evidence that a plane even existed, that hit the pentagon. The angle which the plane supposedly hit, is impossible to pilot. The plane would have crashed into the ground, before being able to turn up on a high enough degree, to hit the pentagon.

You do not even need scientific proof to see these things. It's common sense, and it embarasses me, knowing there are so many stupid americans out there that believe what they told, instead of what they see with their own eyes. The iraq war is pointless, no evidence of saddam ever having weapons of mass destruction, making it an unjustified war. When they realised that their scapegoat osama bin laden wasn't going to play out as they planned, they bring in a new guy, shiek, to take the fall. Only after going to afghan to do what? Stop terrorism? Control, oil and opium?

Well look around. Since the year of 9/11, relations with countries around the world have only gotten tenser. Everything right now, is pointing to the inevitability of a world war. China, and russia, aren't happy with the US. Iran is acting weird, which is pissing off israel. Europe is smack dab in the middle.

Wake up people.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Whats the matter with you guys? 9\11 was proven to be an inside job BEFORE it happened..mars 2001 rockefeller informed aaron his friend that there were going to be some events in 2001 and upcoming.he informed about 9\11,afganistan\iraq\haiti\Getting cheves out of the picture,and due that placing a tactical war strategy in haiti\venezuala. In may 2001 i said to myself..nah its only hoax..But many years later the cia file is released..in the movie Zeitgeist you can hear Aaron talk about it. How come i knew about this and you people still are talking about it? Because what i knew was a hoax?No -because its all happening just under your noses.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
"I have read so many un-credible things:"

Well, maybe you should stop reading these "un-credible things", since they are obviously influencing your perception.





new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join