9/11 Journey for Truth

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by karen61057
 


Do you trust the government that much? Do you trust the government not to kill you if that's what it takes to maintain the illusion of peace and propserity they cherish in their country? The prosperity is already crumbling, you can see it every day. Wait until the illusion of peace is threatened. If that goes down, our country is screwed.


Conversely, do you really trust a religiously zealous people who for centuries not only slaughtered innocent people, but each other? PLUS, who have had a history of committing acts of terror exactly like this already?

Islamis fundamentalists have been hijacking passenger aircraft for decades. Islamic fundamentalists have been killing innocent civilians for decades. Islamic fundamentalists have been staging suicide attacks for decades. Islamic fundamentalists even invaded the Olympics in 1972 and slaughtered a bunch of athletes, simply to make a statement. Plus, let's not forget Islamic fundamentalists already attacked the WTC in 1993, and the guy behind that was the nephew of the guy who sent out the hijackers on 9/11.

I simply do not understand why you would be so overly forgiving of the one group uniquely qualified and experienced in staging attacks exactly like the one on 9/11 and then turn around and imagine it was some unknown shadowy group of secret gov't agents who were responsible. It's akin to coming home one evening and finding your favorite slippers chewed up and covered with dog drool and with bits of slipper hanging off your dog's mouth, but insist it's all fake evidence planted by leprechauns. Believing that the gov't is rotten as hell AS WELL AS believing Islamic fundamentalists are murderous sociopaths doesn't cancel each other out, you know.




posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
reply to post by JeZeus
 


What I don't understand is that if planes actually hit those buildings how they they seemed to slice right into them like a hot knife threw butter. What should have happened in real physics would be most of the plane would bounce off and would fall to the ground below. Basic physics tells us this is the reaction that would happen. You take two hard objects one hitting the other at speed, if the other object is harder then the other would bound off. The building is only "concrete and steel". It certainly wouldn't somehow pass in between a floor the way they try and depict it. That's only like 10 ft of space gap, plus steel beams all over. But people are stupid and thats' how they get away with stuff like this.


I'd like to address some of what you post here by adding a few of my own thoughts and some pics.

I want to do a little rough comparison between planes hitting big hard metal and concrete things.

I'd like to start with this Kamikaze pic:


The plane punctured the hull but how far in did it go? (This is important to note) Did some pieces fall off into the water? I think most likely since the wing marks to the left and the right indicate that they never made it in.

Next, the Empire State Building:


This clipping shows that though the plane (like the Kamikaze) punctured the "outer skin/wall/hull" it didn't cause devastating structural damage. And though "pieces" of each may have entered the building/ship, how far in did even the furthest in pieces get?

And though it completely punctured the skin/wall/hull it left ample clear evidence of itself.

The Empire State Building damage:


Here is a shot of the hole in the building where you can clearly see one floor edge and as well smashed up pieces of plane hanging out of the hole.

Again I want to emphasize "pieces" here because that's what we're dealing with. The Kamikaze plane was in pieces and only some pieces entered the ship. The airplane that hit the Empire State Building broke into pieces and only some of the pieces fully entered the building. Some fell to the street (see below) and some flew across the way and hit the roof of another building.

Yes, some "pieces" entered the building, even the elevator shaft, but again caused no serious "structural damage" to the skyscraper.

Another view of wall and steel damage:


Some of what fell to the street below:



Now let's turn our attention to the North Tower:



Here's where it starts to get interesting and strange.

You see any floor edges in that hole? I don't.
You see any airplane "pieces" hanging out of that hole? I don't.

There's no sign of wreckage, so what, did the WHOLE PLANE go in there?

I don't think so.

Why don't I think so?

For starters there's still stuff in the way (left of center hole, above center hole, far left and right wing areas) so the whole plane never got past that.

You couldn't stuff a Cessna in there without tearing some pieces of it off.

And speaking of "pieces", look, just because we see a plane shaped hole and no plane debris doesn't mean the entire plane went in there whole, because what do we know from the two examples I cited above of the Kamikaze plane and the crash into the Empire State Building.

That's right.

PLANES BREAK INTO "PIECES" WHEN THEY HIT HARD THINGS LIKE BATTLESHIPS AND BUILDINGS. (And they leave ample evidence of themselves.)

I don't care how fast it's going it's not going in the hole whole. We know this (see above).

So if we see a plane shaped hole and no whole plane and no "pieces" hanging out anywhere, what does that mean really?

It means no 767 crashed in there.

And yes that photo of the wheel stuck in the steel wall section is trotted out, not photos of lighter more fragile pieces of airplane like, I don't know - MOST OF IT.

You'd think a wheel assembly travelling as fast as they claim would not fall to the street but enter the building. The only thing that picture proves is that the 'plane' did not go into the tower whole because the wheels were presumably up and stored when it hit and that was in the belly of the so called 'plane'.

So since we know it had to be in "pieces" at about the middle of the 'plane' and yet we see no wreckage in the hole, no "pieces" falling to the street, or any on the street itself...

I'd say that that only seems to indicate that that wheel in steel was planted.

You can't have the plane going in whole and have a wheel "piece" FROM THE MIDDLE down on the street all by itself.


I got a few more 'angles' to mention but I'll leave it till later.


Cheers



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 



PLANES BREAK INTO "PIECES" WHEN THEY HIT HARD THINGS LIKE BATTLESHIPS AND BUILDINGS. (And they leave ample evidence of themselves.)[/ex

You are right - the planes do get shredded in the passage through the building Some of the heavier pieces
will retain enough momentum to punch completely througt the building and emerge out other side to land on
street

Remember that engine of B25 which hit Empire State? It not only punched clean through the building it had
enoungh energy to travel a city block

Here is some of the debris

Map of debris from WTC impacts



[img]Church and Vesey. We were coming across and we walked down. We had to go down to the command center. We carried all our tools, the bottles, everything, and as we're walking down, part of the plane engine was sitting right in the street, still burning. I said, look, this is the plane. FDNY firefighter Paul Hyland[/img]

Jet engine



Section of landing gear





Wonder how explained this to insurance company.....





More aircraft debris







This one has a part number



Some of the aircraft debris raining down injured and mained people on the street


Once we started taking off, I guess 30 feet in front of us, there was a lady on the ground by the curb and she was just waving her arms. That's all she could wave. Her legs were crushed. Apparently she got hit by part of the landing gear, one of the tires of the airplane. There was a large tire next to her. FDNY EMT Orlando Martinez

...we started making our way to NYU Downtown Hospital, Beekman, to drop off our first set of patients when we got flagged down for another lady who got hit by the landing gear of the first plane. FDNY EMT Frank Puma




Vesey and Church, Vesey and Church right there. We stepped off the rig, and there were plane engine parts and people yelling and screaming. FDNY firefighter Bertram Springstead



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



Conversely, do you really trust a religiously zealous people who for centuries not only slaughtered innocent people, but each other? PLUS, who have had a history of committing acts of terror exactly like this already?



I thought I could trust this country not to be hit by another Pearl Harbor. And considering the pheneomenal power of our military, it's highly doubtful that a handful of third world terrorists could just waltz in on an aircraft and be completely free to take down a business center in one of the busiest cities our nation has to offer.

If your angle is that obvious, then surely our security couldn't be so completely stupid as to make that large of an oversight. You are proving my point.



I simply do not understand why you would be so overly forgiving of the one group uniquely qualified and experienced in staging attacks exactly like the one on 9/11 and then turn around and imagine it was some unknown shadowy group of secret gov't agents who were responsible.


The exact reasons I have already listed in previous posts. Feel free to review them. If we can walk in and kick their butts so easily, how were they able to black our eye? We are a superpower that got suckerpunched by a third world country. That's like a third grader stabbing a Marine. Especially if that Marine knows the third grader is unstable.


Believing that the gov't is rotten as hell AS WELL AS believing Islamic fundamentalists are murderous sociopaths doesn't cancel each other out, you know.


Who says our government isn't working with those Islamic fundamentalists so as to take advantage of our fear? You know, for being citizens of one of the most powerful nations in the world, we're pretty easily frightened. Especially when we turned around and kicked down their front door, killed their tyrannical leader, overhauled their government AND killed the guy who was supposedly responsible in the first place.

We can so easily complete our vengeance, but preventing the cause is beyond our ability? No. No way. At the very least, a hundred people should have been fired that day. Al Gore even claims to have warned them, or known of an imminent attack.

So you trust our government more than the Islamics? Interesting. Here's how I look at that: the Islamics are a hundred thousand miles away. They have to go through multiple borders to even have a chance at hurting you. All the government has to do is send in the FBI or CIA and within 15 minutes, you're gone forever. No one will ever know what happened to you, and anyone who asks questions could disappear too.

So, again - who do you fear more? The enemy across the ocean, or the potential enemy in your backyard? Because remember...we are a superpower. If our government turns on us, if our leaders decide to betray us for "our own good", no one can save us. Anyone who tries, dies.

You may want to rethink your argument.



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
I thought I could trust this country not to be hit by another Pearl Harbor. And considering the pheneomenal power of our military, it's highly doubtful that a handful of third world terrorists could just waltz in on an aircraft and be completely free to take down a business center in one of the busiest cities our nation has to offer.

If your angle is that obvious, then surely our security couldn't be so completely stupid as to make that large of an oversight. You are proving my point.


Conversely, you are proving MY point that despite the desire of the conspiracy theorists to point out the lies of "the official story" not a single one of them has actually read the 9/11 commission report to even know what these supposed lies actually are. The report documents all the failures that directly and indirectly led to the 9/11 attack, from poor airport security to intelligence agencies refusing to share information with each other to orders not beign handed down properly to even people copping out in their responsibilities...and these are only the failures people are actually admitting to.

Besides, Pearl Harbor isn't a realistic comparison. There were no Al Qaida ambassadors lulling us with fake words of peace only to turn around and say SURPRISE!. There were no al Qaida carriers at anchor off the US coast. Plus, the destructions of the WTC didn't shift any balance of power to al Qaida anywhere in the world. A better comparison would be of a large scale Munich Olympics massacre, where a mindless act of violence meant for shock value alone succeeded because there weren't any practical security procedures in place that could have stopped it.



The exact reasons I have already listed in previous posts. Feel free to review them. If we can walk in and kick their butts so easily, how were they able to black our eye? We are a superpower that got suckerpunched by a third world country. That's like a third grader stabbing a Marine. Especially if that Marine knows the third grader is unstable.


You already know the answer to that. These Islamic terrorists didn't attack any well fortified military base or a US carrier attack group surrounded by missile frigates. They attacked soft civilian targets who by definition were defenseless. How well armed was the World Trade Center, again?


Who says our government isn't working with those Islamic fundamentalists so as to take advantage of our fear?


It is Occam's razor that is saying that isn't what is happening. It says the answer that requires the fewest assumptions is usually the correct answer, and it only requires a single assumption to presume that an attack that bears every hallmark of being staged by islamic fundamentalists was actually staged by Islamic fundamentalists.


So you trust our government more than the Islamics? Interesting. Here's how I look at that: the Islamics are a hundred thousand miles away. They have to go through multiple borders to even have a chance at hurting you.


And yet that hasn't seemed to stop them from trying to blow up Times Square, the capitol building, and a christmas tree lighting ceremony in Utah.
edit on 2-11-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by karen61057
 


Do you trust the government that much? Do you trust the government not to kill you if that's what it takes to maintain the illusion of peace and propserity they cherish in their country? The prosperity is already crumbling, you can see it every day. Wait until the illusion of peace is threatened. If that goes down, our country is screwed.


Conversely, do you really trust a religiously zealous people who for centuries not only slaughtered innocent people, but each other? PLUS, who have had a history of committing acts of terror exactly like this already?


Exactly like "9/11" ? .....WTF are you even talking about ?

I hate religion , every single religion , so muslims and christians are EXACTLY the same in my eyes , i dont trust muslims ... and i certainly dont trust christians .... but are you aware of the fact that Christians are the biggest cult of murderers in the history of man-kind ?


Islamis fundamentalists have been hijacking passenger aircraft for decades. Islamic fundamentalists have been killing innocent civilians for decades. Islamic fundamentalists have been staging suicide attacks for decades. Islamic fundamentalists even invaded the Olympics in 1972 and slaughtered a bunch of athletes, simply to make a statement. Plus, let's not forget Islamic fundamentalists already attacked the WTC in 1993, and the guy behind that was the nephew of the guy who sent out the hijackers on 9/11.


Chrisitain and Jewish fundamentalists have been ordering the hijacking of planes for decades. Christian and Jewish fundamentalists have been killing innocent civillians for decades. Christian and Jewish fundamentalists have been setting up suicide attacks for decades. Christian and Jewish fundamentalists even invaded Iraq and Afghanistan simply to make a statement. Plus , lets not forget Christian and Jewish fundamentalists already staged an attack on the WTC in 1993 , and tried to blame it on Iraq back then



I simply do not understand why you would be so overly forgiving of the one group uniquely qualified and experienced in staging attacks exactly like the one on 9/11 and then turn around and imagine it was some unknown shadowy group of secret gov't agents who were responsible.


Unknown ? no .... CIA . They admitted creating and funding Al-Qaeda , they trained Bin Laden and got him an education , which is probably where he got that wack ass birth certificate



It's akin to coming home one evening and finding your favorite slippers chewed up and covered with dog drool and with bits of slipper hanging off your dog's mouth, but insist it's all fake evidence planted by leprechauns.


Yeah , remind me why i`m supposed to take you seriously again ?



Believing that the gov't is rotten as hell AS WELL AS believing Islamic fundamentalists are murderous sociopaths doesn't cancel each other out, you know.


I dont even think YOU know what the hell you just said there.


edit on 2-11-2012 by JeZeus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by JeZeus

Exactly like "9/11" ? .....WTF are you even talking about ?

I hate religion , every single religion , so muslims and christians are EXACTLY the same in my eyes , i dont trust muslims ... and i certainly dont trust christians .... but are you aware of the fact that Christians are the biggest cult of murderers in the history of man-kind ?


Yes I am, specifically the Catholic church, the same bunch who brought civilization "The Dark Ages", "The Crusades" and "The Inquisition", not to mention, bright ideas like "Let's put that Galileo guy on trial for daring to claim the Earth revolved around the sun". What's your point?


Plus , lets not forget Christian and Jewish fundamentalists already staged an attack on the WTC in 1993 , and tried to blame it on Iraq back then


I would very much like you to back up the claim that "christian and Jewish fundamentalists bombed the WTC in 1993" , because from day one the evidence pointed to Islamic terrorists, and the capture of Ramzi Yousef- and Ramzi Yousef ADMITTING he was behind the bombing at his trial- pretty much proved it was the work of Islamic terrorists.


Unknown ? no .... CIA . They admitted creating and funding Al-Qaeda , they trained Bin Laden and got him an education , which is probably where he got that wack ass birth certificate


Of course you are stretching the facts to absurdity here, since when you say "created and funded al-qaida" what you're really saying is "the CIA gave Pakistan secret funding to support the mujahadeen to fight the Soviet occupation by proxy and al-Qaida was a mujahadeen group set up by Bin Laden before he even became a terrorist". You left that part of it out.

You're welcome.


Yeah , remind me why i`m supposed to take you seriously again ?


Becuase I say things you are unable to refute...?



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


Conversely, you are proving MY point that despite the desire of the conspiracy theorists to point out the lies of "the official story" not a single one of them has actually read the 9/11 commission report to even know what these supposed lies actually are.


well (#$@) Dave....the 9-11 Omission was NOT scientifically charged to investigate HOW and why 3 buildings fell on 9-11.....NIST was bestowed by an Act of Congress to do that....deception on your part?...[that is something a shill would do].

and what is with your posting?????

all you have to do to shut us ALL UP is PROVIDE your supporting evidence.....simple!

the 'truth' movement consists of demanding the evidential support for the hypothesized claims that ARE the official story....and that hypothesis comes from NIST......but YOU bring in the Omission report????....why????

not to change the subject, but it's all related...funny, you can go to ANY science/physics text/website that deals with Gravitational Acceleration, and it states that the 'standard' method for measuring the acceleration rate of Gravity, is, at sea level,, toward the earth, and *WITHIN a VACUUM*.....and that rate of descent is...9.8m/s^2.

how is it possible to see that SAME rate of descent occurring GLOBALLY and UNIFIED within WTC7 starting at 1.75seconds INTO the collapse, [when kink forms], to 4.0s, 105 feet of unobstructed descent...oh, and if your going to argue the "unobstructed", here is what Shyam Sunder says at the WTC7 Tech briefing...."free fall acceleration can ONLY occur when there is NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS BELOW IT"..and that is true, for how can there be acceleration if there is something there....

so...at 1.75 seconds INTO the GLOBAL unified collapse of WTC7....there is NOTHING there for 105 feet....why don't YOU tell us how FIRE ALONE did all that work!

oh...my reference besides basic science...the WTC7 report.

-[NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 9.8m/s^2, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

[NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]"It is likely that much of the burning took place beyond the views of the windows"

I particularity find this quote strange....NIST measured the global acceleration from the facade, which is a cosmetic non-load bearing application that is ATTACHED to the perimeter vertical support where there is NO FIRE to effect it to collapse globally??? ...NO fire there to do the work...and NO scientific testing to support he OFFICIAL CLAIM that "NO explosives or accelerants were used"


"NIST did not test for the residue from explosives or accelerants" wtc. nist. gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006. htm

[NCSTAR1A-3.2]
"The fires were fed by ordinary office combustibles"

care to comment DAVE!!!



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


How do you know all of this? Who told you? How do you know you were told the truth? Surely you don't know everything the FBI or CIA knows? They have sectors even the President isn't aware of.

Keeping secrets and maintaining their golden nation is what they do - even if they have to kill civilians to do it. Whatever you know, or whatever you THINK you know, you're utterly clueless compared to what they know. You are told the official story. Whatever you know, it's because they want you to know. The information you have, the ideas you have, aren't a threat to their plans. You don't have any of their confidential files, you don't have any of their data. You are out of the loop as surely as the rest of us. So don't pretend you know what you're talking about. You don't know a damn thing.

Or else, you'd already be dead.



all you have to do to shut us ALL UP is PROVIDE your supporting evidence.....simple!


Perhaps I wouldn't state it so harshly, but I agree with this person's sentiment.
edit on 3-11-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by maxella1
Reality check for debunkers. People will not let this go without answers.


Until truthers stop making up rubbish such as "evidence that indicates explosives and incendiaries were placed inside the buildings." they will get nowhere.

Care to show the evidence explosives and incendiaries were found?


care to show they were NOT, as officially claimed....seems to me the burden of proof rests on the ones CLAIMING NONE were there, stemming from a SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION..

Presenting an OFFICIAL CLAIM within a scientific context by using NO actual experiment, testing or INVESTIGATION to validate the said CLAIM, is called BULL@#$%

no matter WHO says it


why don't you prove it is more than just a statement designed to SHUT PEOPLE UP!



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by JeZeus
 


My friend, the war in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001. The primary driver of the invasion was the 9/11 attacks, not even a month before. Iraq was invaded on March 19, 2003. Using your powers of deduction, which came first?



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by hgfbob
 




care to show they were NOT, as officially claimed....seems to me the burden of proof rests on the ones CLAIMING NONE were there, stemming from a SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION..

That's absurd. That's not the way any investigation works.
By your logic they would have to prove:
That there were no nukes in the basement.
That there were no space rays.
etc.

The only place where the thought of these 'wacky' ideas exist is in the internet.




Presenting an OFFICIAL CLAIM within a scientific context by using NO actual experiment, testing or INVESTIGATION to validate the said CLAIM, is called BULL@#$%

They did do experimental testing to see how the floor buckled due to the fire.
Did you even look?
It's on the web with pictures and time lines.

Non experts can't believe the events because they have no reference knowledge to guide them. Therefore there must be something else behind the events.

Here's an example for you.
In May of 2008 a vending machine fire on the 6th floor of an Architecture Building in Delft University lead to a complete collapse of ALL the floors in a major portion of the building.
A simple vending machine.
You might think that after 911 things might be re-thought concerning fire.



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by hgfbob
 




That's absurd. That's not the way any investigation works.


uhm..this was a scientific investigation, and from that SCIENTIFIC investigation came the official claim that "NO explosives or accelerants were used to assist"....see the operative word bunkie..."science"...all I asked is the SCIENCE behind that claim....and YES, they DO have to show HOW they arrived at that claim


By your logic they would have to prove:
That there were no nukes in the basement.
That there were no space rays.
etc.


did they OFFICIALLY claim "NO nukes"???

did they OFFICIALLY claim "NO death ray"???

if they did, they would be required to show HOW they arrived at that decision...





They did do experimental testing to see how the floor buckled due to the fire.
Did you even look?
It's on the web with pictures and time lines.


sure bunkie...NIST subcontracted U. L. to test complete truss assemblies.....NONE failed from the fires present...






Here's an example for you.
In May of 2008 a vending machine fire on the 6th floor of an Architecture Building in Delft University lead to a complete collapse of ALL the floors in a major portion of the building.
A simple vending machine.
You might think that after 911 things might be re-thought concerning fire.


lol...bunkie.....how can YOU compare...your "PARTIAL" collapse of the Architecture Building in Delft University to the TOTAL GLOBAL unified collapses that occurred on 9-11?

...not even close bunkie!!!



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by hgfbob
 





sure bunkie...NIST subcontracted U. L. to test complete truss assemblies.....NONE failed from the fires present...


You didn't read the entire document did you?
Try reading section 1.1 .





lol...bunkie.....how can YOU compare...your "PARTIAL" collapse of the Architecture Building in Delft University to the TOTAL GLOBAL unified collapses that occurred on 9-11?

...not even close bunkie!!!

You fail to see how uncontrolled fires can cause the complete collapse of concrete and steel multi story buildings.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlindBastards
reply to post by JeZeus
 


My friend, the war in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001. The primary driver of the invasion was the 9/11 attacks, not even a month before. Iraq was invaded on March 19, 2003. Using your powers of deduction, which came first?




U.S. spy drone missing over Iraq- 9/11/2001

The official Iraqi News Agency reported on Tuesday that Iraq's anti-aircraft forces shot down a U.S. spy plane near the southern port city of Basra.

The Pentagon confirmed it had lost contact with a $3.2 million RQ-1B Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).




Did you ever consider the possibility of the Afghan War being a stepping stone towards the Iraq war? Or did that slip your mind?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


I'm curious.....what is your purpose from bringing up the history that we had had aircraft patrolling around Iraq ever since 1991?

Just a question....



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by homervb
 


I'm curious.....what is your purpose from bringing up the history that we had had aircraft patrolling around Iraq ever since 1991?

Just a question....



Originally posted by BlindBastards
My friend, the war in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001. The primary driver of the invasion was the 9/11 attacks, not even a month before. Iraq was invaded on March 19, 2003. Using your powers of deduction, which came first?


^--- to show that Bush had his eye on Iraq the whole time. Whether the Afghan war came first or not, it's more than obvious. They weren't monitoring Iraq to asses what type of threat they were to the US, it was all about the invasion. Hence the reason for the Bush administration releasing 935 lies about Iraq's WMDs, Iraq's biochemical weapons, and Iraq's false connection to Al-qaeda & 9/11. Remember, this wasn't bad intelligence, this was full out LIES.




You have Bush establishing a presence in Afghanistan on one side of Iran. You then have him moving over to Iraq which is on the other side of Iran. And now you have our government claiming:

a.) Iran has Weapons of Mass Destruction. Iran Could Have Nukes by Next Summer, Netanyahu Warns U.N.

and

b.) Iran was responsible for 9/11 Judge to al Qaeda, Iran, Taliban: Pay $6B for 9/11

See a pattern here? If not, I don't know what else to say. Except, if the US really wanted bin Laden then they could have easily had him if there were indeed FACTS backing up the official story.



We won't hand over bin Laden, say defiant Taliban

"The Americans should show control, conduct an investigation and show us proof before they attack. The United Nations and Organisation of Islamic Conference should also investigate," he said.


The US media was stating bin Laden was behind the attacks while the attacks were still going on, yet they can't manage to provide proof of it in order to capture him. Do you understand how many lives and how much money would have been saved if the US would have just gave the Taliban their "proof"? Does this not upset you in the least bit? The whole "war on terrorism" campaign the first few years after 9/11 was ALL about finding bin Laden, mean while the people who harbored him just wanted proof of guilt in exchange for him. How do you not see the ulterior motive that was taking place on behalf of the US government? Please explain to me the logic you see behind the government's actions from 9/11 up until this day. Tell me why the government wouldn't take up this deal with the Taliban. I'm open to whatever you have to say, and I'm not going to be a douche about it. There's so many people who come to this forum to argue the events of that day, but I have yet to hear an explanation of the government's actions after 9/11.

From the same article:



"America has decided to attack Afghanistan and will not accept whatever flexibility the Taliban show. We are sad about the American line and condemn it," said a student.
He said Washington should have given the Taliban time to ask bin Laden to leave, saying that if they had then showed themselves not to be serious, Afghans would have backed the US position.
"But without any discussions, rejecting it means imposing its stupid policy on us. Without any deliberation about the issue and then attacking will only rally support behind the Taliban and with this the US is laying an axe to its own leg," he said.

A pharmacist said: "People are fleeing because they fear an American attack and when the Taliban somehow want to provide an opportunity to avoid it, America turns it down.


Why are people in the Middle East able to see what's wrong with the picture but people like yourself who aren't in the Middle East struggle to see what's really going on?
edit on 5-11-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


In that case, you have failed. That drone was not there because "Bush" had his eye on Iraq. It was there because we had our eyes on Iraq since 1991.....as part if the Gulf War.cease fire.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by hgfbob
care to show they were NOT


Please explain how you prove a negative....

care to explain how it was not bought down by invisible pink unicorns....



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by homervb
 


In that case, you have failed. That drone was not there because "Bush" had his eye on Iraq. It was there because we had our eyes on Iraq since 1991.....as part if the Gulf War.cease fire.



Yeah, the same time when his father was president. But then again I doubt this would ever raise your eye brow in the slightest suspicion.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join