In Plane Site 9/11 Wow...just Wow.

[callhimar]

Please, tell me what makes sense.
The United States and Western powers in general have a very recent history of imperialism in the Middle East. The split up the territory of the Ottoman Empire and divide it amongst themselves, and put people in power who served the interests of the imperial power, and not the people of the country. After World War 2 this was brought to a halt by the collapse of imperialism and the great European empires, but before this could happen there were a number of uprisings that were absolutely crushed by these large powers. A good example of this would be the Iraqi revolt of 1920. From this, a great deal of anger brewed deep within these societies and there was very little trust for Western powers/intervention in the affairs of many Middle Eastern nations. 

Fast forward to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in '79. Bin Laden was already an important figure in recruiting fighters for the "jihad" against the Soviet forces. He found an ally in the United States who's main goal at the time was to embarrass the Soviets whenever they could. The U.S. along with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia trained and armed the Mujahideen in their fight. This obviously led to the Soviets being defeated and leaving. However instead of attempting to stabilize a volatile situation in Afghanistan the United States left too. This led to a long, bloody civil war that ended with the Taliban taking control of most of the country, allowing Al Qaeda to take up residence. 

Bin Laden needed this because he'd dug himself a hole. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in '90 Saudi Arabia was worried they were next. Bin Laden went to them and said "Don't worry, we can use the fighters we used in Afghanistan to protect the holy land" to which Saudi Arabia said "

". They instead decided to take the help of the Americans. This infuriated Bin Laden as he saw them as the Western enemy who was going to occupy the Holy Land, which was somewhat true because we had begun showing interest in having bases in Saudi Arabia. This was seen as unacceptable to Bin Laden and led him to carry out attacks, which ultimately ended in his exile from Saudi Arabia and his family cutting ties with him. The same thing happened when he went to Sudan, after a while they couldn't deal with the pressure put on them to get rid of him so they sent him out. Afghanistan was all he had left.

Bin Laden is seething with anger at this point obviously. He sees the United States building bases across the Middle East (actually happened/still happening), he sees the United States sanctioning Iraq throughout the '90's leading to many dying from lack of medicine, etc (also happened, was exacerbated by Saddam himself to make America and the world look worse, but did happen), sees Americans carrying out an attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant which supplied many necessary drugs to the entire country and led to the deaths of thousands (actually happened), he sees continued, unquestioned, support of Israel and the use of American made weapons on Palestinian civilians (still happens to this day) along with many, many other American policies seen as a continued tampering in the affairs of Arabs (i.e. propping up dictators, etc). So THIS is why terrorism was used against the United States in the Cole bombing, the embassy bombings and subsequently the 9/11 attacks. You may not agree with the use of terrorism, but there are certainly a great deal of legitimate political gripes there, not just some simple "they hate us because we're free" nonsense. 

Now, think about this logically, if a building is hit by a plane traveling at roughly 400 mph, with enough fuel to go from one end of the country to the other, there is going to be a long burning fire. Also, the fire would be so far up that nothing could be done to effectively put it out. Is it not logical that the structural integrity of the building would be compromised, causing it to collapse? 

A plane is heading toward a building that is essentially five rings of reinforced concrete. Is it not logical that when it hits there wouldn't be much left of it and it wouldn't penetrate that far through?

Say this is all just an elaborate scheme to go to war in the Middle East and take their resources, would it not be logical that when the war becomes too costly and a complete DRAIN on the countries economy they would say "Hey wait a minute, we should probably end this charade before it gets any worse here." What sense does it make for a country to drag itself to economic ruin with two extremely costly wars? It doesn't, at all. 

So this, or the conspiracy theories people come up with in their basements?

I hope I've addressed everything here.

 

[shaunhillftw49]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Please, tell me what makes sense.
The United States and Western powers in general have a very recent history of imperialism in the Middle East. The split up the territory of the Ottoman Empire and divide it amongst themselves, and put people in power who served the interests of the imperial power, and not the people of the country. After World War 2 this was brought to a halt by the collapse of imperialism and the great European empires, but before this could happen there were a number of uprisings that were absolutely crushed by these large powers. A good example of this would be the Iraqi revolt of 1920. From this, a great deal of anger brewed deep within these societies and there was very little trust for Western powers/intervention in the affairs of many Middle Eastern nations. 

Fast forward to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in '79. Bin Laden was already an important figure in recruiting fighters for the "jihad" against the Soviet forces. He found an ally in the United States who's main goal at the time was to embarrass the Soviets whenever they could. The U.S. along with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia trained and armed the Mujahideen in their fight. This obviously led to the Soviets being defeated and leaving. However instead of attempting to stabilize a volatile situation in Afghanistan the United States left too. This led to a long, bloody civil war that ended with the Taliban taking control of most of the country, allowing Al Qaeda to take up residence. 

Bin Laden needed this because he'd dug himself a hole. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in '90 Saudi Arabia was worried they were next. Bin Laden went to them and said "Don't worry, we can use the fighters we used in Afghanistan to protect the holy land" to which Saudi Arabia said "

". They instead decided to take the help of the Americans. This infuriated Bin Laden as he saw them as the Western enemy who was going to occupy the Holy Land, which was somewhat true because we had begun showing interest in having bases in Saudi Arabia. This was seen as unacceptable to Bin Laden and led him to carry out attacks, which ultimately ended in his exile from Saudi Arabia and his family cutting ties with him. The same thing happened when he went to Sudan, after a while they couldn't deal with the pressure put on them to get rid of him so they sent him out. Afghanistan was all he had left.

Bin Laden is seething with anger at this point obviously. He sees the United States building bases across the Middle East (actually happened/still happening), he sees the United States sanctioning Iraq throughout the '90's leading to many dying from lack of medicine, etc (also happened, was exacerbated by Saddam himself to make America and the world look worse, but did happen), sees Americans carrying out an attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant which supplied many necessary drugs to the entire country and led to the deaths of thousands (actually happened), he sees continued, unquestioned, support of Israel and the use of American made weapons on Palestinian civilians (still happens to this day) along with many, many other American policies seen as a continued tampering in the affairs of Arabs (i.e. propping up dictators, etc). So THIS is why terrorism was used against the United States in the Cole bombing, the embassy bombings and subsequently the 9/11 attacks. You may not agree with the use of terrorism, but there are certainly a great deal of legitimate political gripes there, not just some simple "they hate us because we're free" nonsense. 

Now, think about this logically, if a building is hit by a plane traveling at roughly 400 mph, with enough fuel to go from one end of the country to the other, there is going to be a long burning fire. Also, the fire would be so far up that nothing could be done to effectively put it out. Is it not logical that the structural integrity of the building would be compromised, causing it to collapse? 

A plane is heading toward a building that is essentially five rings of reinforced concrete. Is it not logical that when it hits there wouldn't be much left of it and it wouldn't penetrate that far through?

Say this is all just an elaborate scheme to go to war in the Middle East and take their resources, would it not be logical that when the war becomes too costly and a complete DRAIN on the countries economy they would say "Hey wait a minute, we should probably end this charade before it gets any worse here." What sense does it make for a country to drag itself to economic ruin with two extremely costly wars? It doesn't, at all. 

So this, or the conspiracy theories people come up with in their basements?

I hope I've addressed everything here.

There's just  1 more  question . Who stole the jack ruby?

 

[shaunhillftw49]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Please, tell me what makes sense.
The United States and Western powers in general have a very recent history of imperialism in the Middle East. The split up the territory of the Ottoman Empire and divide it amongst themselves, and put people in power who served the interests of the imperial power, and not the people of the country. After World War 2 this was brought to a halt by the collapse of imperialism and the great European empires, but before this could happen there were a number of uprisings that were absolutely crushed by these large powers. A good example of this would be the Iraqi revolt of 1920. From this, a great deal of anger brewed deep within these societies and there was very little trust for Western powers/intervention in the affairs of many Middle Eastern nations. 

Fast forward to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in '79. Bin Laden was already an important figure in recruiting fighters for the "jihad" against the Soviet forces. He found an ally in the United States who's main goal at the time was to embarrass the Soviets whenever they could. The U.S. along with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia trained and armed the Mujahideen in their fight. This obviously led to the Soviets being defeated and leaving. However instead of attempting to stabilize a volatile situation in Afghanistan the United States left too. This led to a long, bloody civil war that ended with the Taliban taking control of most of the country, allowing Al Qaeda to take up residence. 

Bin Laden needed this because he'd dug himself a hole. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in '90 Saudi Arabia was worried they were next. Bin Laden went to them and said "Don't worry, we can use the fighters we used in Afghanistan to protect the holy land" to which Saudi Arabia said "

". They instead decided to take the help of the Americans. This infuriated Bin Laden as he saw them as the Western enemy who was going to occupy the Holy Land, which was somewhat true because we had begun showing interest in having bases in Saudi Arabia. This was seen as unacceptable to Bin Laden and led him to carry out attacks, which ultimately ended in his exile from Saudi Arabia and his family cutting ties with him. The same thing happened when he went to Sudan, after a while they couldn't deal with the pressure put on them to get rid of him so they sent him out. Afghanistan was all he had left.

Bin Laden is seething with anger at this point obviously. He sees the United States building bases across the Middle East (actually happened/still happening), he sees the United States sanctioning Iraq throughout the '90's leading to many dying from lack of medicine, etc (also happened, was exacerbated by Saddam himself to make America and the world look worse, but did happen), sees Americans carrying out an attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant which supplied many necessary drugs to the entire country and led to the deaths of thousands (actually happened), he sees continued, unquestioned, support of Israel and the use of American made weapons on Palestinian civilians (still happens to this day) along with many, many other American policies seen as a continued tampering in the affairs of Arabs (i.e. propping up dictators, etc). So THIS is why terrorism was used against the United States in the Cole bombing, the embassy bombings and subsequently the 9/11 attacks. You may not agree with the use of terrorism, but there are certainly a great deal of legitimate political gripes there, not just some simple "they hate us because we're free" nonsense. 

Now, think about this logically, if a building is hit by a plane traveling at roughly 400 mph, with enough fuel to go from one end of the country to the other, there is going to be a long burning fire. Also, the fire would be so far up that nothing could be done to effectively put it out. Is it not logical that the structural integrity of the building would be compromised, causing it to collapse? 

A plane is heading toward a building that is essentially five rings of reinforced concrete. Is it not logical that when it hits there wouldn't be much left of it and it wouldn't penetrate that far through?

Say this is all just an elaborate scheme to go to war in the Middle East and take their resources, would it not be logical that when the war becomes too costly and a complete DRAIN on the countries economy they would say "Hey wait a minute, we should probably end this charade before it gets any worse here." What sense does it make for a country to drag itself to economic ruin with two extremely costly wars? It doesn't, at all. 

So this, or the conspiracy theories people come up with in their basements?

I hope I've addressed everything here.

There's just  1 more  question . Who stole the jack ruby?

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Please, tell me what makes sense.
The United States and Western powers in general have a very recent history of imperialism in the Middle East. The split up the territory of the Ottoman Empire and divide it amongst themselves, and put people in power who served the interests of the imperial power, and not the people of the country. After World War 2 this was brought to a halt by the collapse of imperialism and the great European empires, but before this could happen there were a number of uprisings that were absolutely crushed by these large powers. A good example of this would be the Iraqi revolt of 1920. From this, a great deal of anger brewed deep within these societies and there was very little trust for Western powers/intervention in the affairs of many Middle Eastern nations. 

Fast forward to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in '79. Bin Laden was already an important figure in recruiting fighters for the "jihad" against the Soviet forces. He found an ally in the United States who's main goal at the time was to embarrass the Soviets whenever they could. The U.S. along with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia trained and armed the Mujahideen in their fight. This obviously led to the Soviets being defeated and leaving. However instead of attempting to stabilize a volatile situation in Afghanistan the United States left too. This led to a long, bloody civil war that ended with the Taliban taking control of most of the country, allowing Al Qaeda to take up residence. 

Bin Laden needed this because he'd dug himself a hole. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in '90 Saudi Arabia was worried they were next. Bin Laden went to them and said "Don't worry, we can use the fighters we used in Afghanistan to protect the holy land" to which Saudi Arabia said "

". They instead decided to take the help of the Americans. This infuriated Bin Laden as he saw them as the Western enemy who was going to occupy the Holy Land, which was somewhat true because we had begun showing interest in having bases in Saudi Arabia. This was seen as unacceptable to Bin Laden and led him to carry out attacks, which ultimately ended in his exile from Saudi Arabia and his family cutting ties with him. The same thing happened when he went to Sudan, after a while they couldn't deal with the pressure put on them to get rid of him so they sent him out. Afghanistan was all he had left.

Bin Laden is seething with anger at this point obviously. He sees the United States building bases across the Middle East (actually happened/still happening), he sees the United States sanctioning Iraq throughout the '90's leading to many dying from lack of medicine, etc (also happened, was exacerbated by Saddam himself to make America and the world look worse, but did happen), sees Americans carrying out an attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant which supplied many necessary drugs to the entire country and led to the deaths of thousands (actually happened), he sees continued, unquestioned, support of Israel and the use of American made weapons on Palestinian civilians (still happens to this day) along with many, many other American policies seen as a continued tampering in the affairs of Arabs (i.e. propping up dictators, etc). So THIS is why terrorism was used against the United States in the Cole bombing, the embassy bombings and subsequently the 9/11 attacks. You may not agree with the use of terrorism, but there are certainly a great deal of legitimate political gripes there, not just some simple "they hate us because we're free" nonsense. 

Now, think about this logically, if a building is hit by a plane traveling at roughly 400 mph, with enough fuel to go from one end of the country to the other, there is going to be a long burning fire. Also, the fire would be so far up that nothing could be done to effectively put it out. Is it not logical that the structural integrity of the building would be compromised, causing it to collapse? 

A plane is heading toward a building that is essentially five rings of reinforced concrete. Is it not logical that when it hits there wouldn't be much left of it and it wouldn't penetrate that far through?

Say this is all just an elaborate scheme to go to war in the Middle East and take their resources, would it not be logical that when the war becomes too costly and a complete DRAIN on the countries economy they would say "Hey wait a minute, we should probably end this charade before it gets any worse here." What sense does it make for a country to drag itself to economic ruin with two extremely costly wars? It doesn't, at all. 

So this, or the conspiracy theories people come up with in their basements?

I hope I've addressed everything here.

I understand your logic and where you are coming from. But I honestly don't think that the higher ups manipulating control of what happens in the world care about allegiance to a country as much as they care for power. Nowadays you have corporations that have more buying power and commerce that other countries minus all the liability of having trust of citizens. I think the old idea of believing in strict patriotism are over and has been over ever since we started fighting wars based on difference of ideals rather than for the love of our borders.

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Please, tell me what makes sense.
The United States and Western powers in general have a very recent history of imperialism in the Middle East. The split up the territory of the Ottoman Empire and divide it amongst themselves, and put people in power who served the interests of the imperial power, and not the people of the country. After World War 2 this was brought to a halt by the collapse of imperialism and the great European empires, but before this could happen there were a number of uprisings that were absolutely crushed by these large powers. A good example of this would be the Iraqi revolt of 1920. From this, a great deal of anger brewed deep within these societies and there was very little trust for Western powers/intervention in the affairs of many Middle Eastern nations. 

Fast forward to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in '79. Bin Laden was already an important figure in recruiting fighters for the "jihad" against the Soviet forces. He found an ally in the United States who's main goal at the time was to embarrass the Soviets whenever they could. The U.S. along with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia trained and armed the Mujahideen in their fight. This obviously led to the Soviets being defeated and leaving. However instead of attempting to stabilize a volatile situation in Afghanistan the United States left too. This led to a long, bloody civil war that ended with the Taliban taking control of most of the country, allowing Al Qaeda to take up residence. 

Bin Laden needed this because he'd dug himself a hole. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in '90 Saudi Arabia was worried they were next. Bin Laden went to them and said "Don't worry, we can use the fighters we used in Afghanistan to protect the holy land" to which Saudi Arabia said "

". They instead decided to take the help of the Americans. This infuriated Bin Laden as he saw them as the Western enemy who was going to occupy the Holy Land, which was somewhat true because we had begun showing interest in having bases in Saudi Arabia. This was seen as unacceptable to Bin Laden and led him to carry out attacks, which ultimately ended in his exile from Saudi Arabia and his family cutting ties with him. The same thing happened when he went to Sudan, after a while they couldn't deal with the pressure put on them to get rid of him so they sent him out. Afghanistan was all he had left.

Bin Laden is seething with anger at this point obviously. He sees the United States building bases across the Middle East (actually happened/still happening), he sees the United States sanctioning Iraq throughout the '90's leading to many dying from lack of medicine, etc (also happened, was exacerbated by Saddam himself to make America and the world look worse, but did happen), sees Americans carrying out an attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant which supplied many necessary drugs to the entire country and led to the deaths of thousands (actually happened), he sees continued, unquestioned, support of Israel and the use of American made weapons on Palestinian civilians (still happens to this day) along with many, many other American policies seen as a continued tampering in the affairs of Arabs (i.e. propping up dictators, etc). So THIS is why terrorism was used against the United States in the Cole bombing, the embassy bombings and subsequently the 9/11 attacks. You may not agree with the use of terrorism, but there are certainly a great deal of legitimate political gripes there, not just some simple "they hate us because we're free" nonsense. 

Now, think about this logically, if a building is hit by a plane traveling at roughly 400 mph, with enough fuel to go from one end of the country to the other, there is going to be a long burning fire. Also, the fire would be so far up that nothing could be done to effectively put it out. Is it not logical that the structural integrity of the building would be compromised, causing it to collapse? 

A plane is heading toward a building that is essentially five rings of reinforced concrete. Is it not logical that when it hits there wouldn't be much left of it and it wouldn't penetrate that far through?

Say this is all just an elaborate scheme to go to war in the Middle East and take their resources, would it not be logical that when the war becomes too costly and a complete DRAIN on the countries economy they would say "Hey wait a minute, we should probably end this charade before it gets any worse here." What sense does it make for a country to drag itself to economic ruin with two extremely costly wars? It doesn't, at all. 

So this, or the conspiracy theories people come up with in their basements?

I hope I've addressed everything here.

I understand your logic and where you are coming from. But I honestly don't think that the higher ups manipulating control of what happens in the world care about allegiance to a country as much as they care for power. Nowadays you have corporations that have more buying power and commerce that other countries minus all the liability of having trust of citizens. I think the old idea of believing in strict patriotism are over and has been over ever since we started fighting wars based on difference of ideals rather than for the love of our borders.

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

We did fund the Mujahideen.

The Afghani Mujahideen. Some of whom later became the Taliban. (We are fighting them today). This was already explained (did you read ? probably not)

She didn't admit they armed, trained, or funded al-Qaeda specifically, so what was the point of you posting that video other than having nothing else to respond with.

Where is your "undeniable paper trail" ?

Please don't tell me your only evidence consists of twisting Clinton's words from a minute long interview clip

"Ignorance ALWAYS shines through" 

You're 0 for 2.

I'll give you 1 more shot at giving me evidence before you strike out. Good luck son.

No thanks. I'm done with you sir. Wouldn't want to 

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

We did fund the Mujahideen.

The Afghani Mujahideen. Some of whom later became the Taliban. (We are fighting them today). This was already explained (did you read ? probably not)

She didn't admit they armed, trained, or funded al-Qaeda specifically, so what was the point of you posting that video other than having nothing else to respond with.

Where is your "undeniable paper trail" ?

Please don't tell me your only evidence consists of twisting Clinton's words from a minute long interview clip

"Ignorance ALWAYS shines through" 

You're 0 for 2.

I'll give you 1 more shot at giving me evidence before you strike out. Good luck son.

No thanks. I'm done with you sir. Wouldn't want to 

 

[tkthafm]

Isn't it funny how the most vocal, the ones who act like what they are saying is proven fact, and call who disagrees with them idiots.... are the ones whose theories collapse unto themselves after a simple request for any evidence of what they are saying ?
I didn't know "undeniable paper trail" meant:

A poster to the movie "Green Zone" and two youtube clips that have nothing to do with what we are discussing.

is this real life ? 

 

[tkthafm]

Isn't it funny how the most vocal, the ones who act like what they are saying is proven fact, and call who disagrees with them idiots.... are the ones whose theories collapse unto themselves after a simple request for any evidence of what they are saying ?
I didn't know "undeniable paper trail" meant:

A poster to the movie "Green Zone" and two youtube clips that have nothing to do with what we are discussing.

is this real life ? 

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR



Say this is all just an elaborate scheme to go to war in the Middle East and take their resources, would it not be logical that when the war becomes too costly and a complete DRAIN on the countries economy they would say "Hey wait a minute, we should probably end this charade before it gets any worse here." What sense does it make for a country to drag itself to economic ruin with two extremely costly wars? It doesn't, at all. 

So this, or the conspiracy theories people come up with in their basements?

I hope I've addressed everything here.

You had me until there. 
Wars make certain individuals/ groups a lot of profit. It's undeniable. It's crazy that we even have to talk about this. 

Even accounting for inflation, that is a huge increase in expenditures in about a decade. The number of active duty soldiers has been decreasing since the 50's (about 3MM). The increase in active duty from 2001 onward is negligible while expenditures increased nearly 100%.   That money is going somewhere. It's a gravy train; both politically and profit wise for various individuals/entities. 

There's plenty of evidence that the political elite don't give a #!*# about the country. 

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR



Say this is all just an elaborate scheme to go to war in the Middle East and take their resources, would it not be logical that when the war becomes too costly and a complete DRAIN on the countries economy they would say "Hey wait a minute, we should probably end this charade before it gets any worse here." What sense does it make for a country to drag itself to economic ruin with two extremely costly wars? It doesn't, at all. 

So this, or the conspiracy theories people come up with in their basements?

I hope I've addressed everything here.

You had me until there. 
Wars make certain individuals/ groups a lot of profit. It's undeniable. It's crazy that we even have to talk about this. 

Even accounting for inflation, that is a huge increase in expenditures in about a decade. The number of active duty soldiers has been decreasing since the 50's (about 3MM). The increase in active duty from 2001 onward is negligible while expenditures increased nearly 100%.   That money is going somewhere. It's a gravy train; both politically and profit wise for various individuals/entities. 

There's plenty of evidence that the political elite don't give a #!*# about the country. 

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Isn't it funny how the most vocal, the ones who act like what they are saying is proven fact, and call who disagrees with them idiots.... are the ones whose theories collapse unto themselves after a simple request for any evidence of what they are saying ?
I didn't know "undeniable paper trail" meant:

A poster to the movie "Green Zone" and two youtube clips that have nothing to do with what we are discussing.

is this real life ? 

I think you are finding too much pleasure out of discrediting someone rather than being interested in what is true or not. 
I will no longer contribute to giving you a boner. Seems like you're one of those kind of guys that get's a hard on disproving people in front of other people. I swear if NT didn't have an audience for this, you wouldn't even be acting like this. 

It's funny how when people like you get presenting with something new, your first reaction is to discredit it. You do know that denial is a clinically proven condition. All of a sudden a citation from a primary source in this issue get's reduced down to "Oh that's just a youtube video" or something on google. So if they released the OBL killing and someone posted the youtube vid on NT would it still just be a "youtube video"?

I could care less that you disagree with me because it inspires debate and research on both parties. but you don't bring anything to the table but your own personal disbelief. I enjoy debate, but debate is not what you are doing. You are showing out.

 

[wr]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Isn't it funny how the most vocal, the ones who act like what they are saying is proven fact, and call who disagrees with them idiots.... are the ones whose theories collapse unto themselves after a simple request for any evidence of what they are saying ?
I didn't know "undeniable paper trail" meant:

A poster to the movie "Green Zone" and two youtube clips that have nothing to do with what we are discussing.

is this real life ? 

I think you are finding too much pleasure out of discrediting someone rather than being interested in what is true or not. 
I will no longer contribute to giving you a boner. Seems like you're one of those kind of guys that get's a hard on disproving people in front of other people. I swear if NT didn't have an audience for this, you wouldn't even be acting like this. 

It's funny how when people like you get presenting with something new, your first reaction is to discredit it. You do know that denial is a clinically proven condition. All of a sudden a citation from a primary source in this issue get's reduced down to "Oh that's just a youtube video" or something on google. So if they released the OBL killing and someone posted the youtube vid on NT would it still just be a "youtube video"?

I could care less that you disagree with me because it inspires debate and research on both parties. but you don't bring anything to the table but your own personal disbelief. I enjoy debate, but debate is not what you are doing. You are showing out.

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by CallHimAR



Say this is all just an elaborate scheme to go to war in the Middle East and take their resources, would it not be logical that when the war becomes too costly and a complete DRAIN on the countries economy they would say "Hey wait a minute, we should probably end this charade before it gets any worse here." What sense does it make for a country to drag itself to economic ruin with two extremely costly wars? It doesn't, at all. 

So this, or the conspiracy theories people come up with in their basements?

I hope I've addressed everything here.

You had me until there. 
Wars make certain individuals/ groups a lot of profit. It's undeniable. It's crazy that we even have to talk about this. 

Even accounting for inflation, that is a huge increase in expenditures in about a decade. The number of active duty soldiers has been decreasing since the 50's (about 3MM). The increase in active duty from 2001 onward is negligible while expenditures increased nearly 100%.   That money is going somewhere. It's a gravy train; both politically and profit wise for various individuals/entities. 

There's plenty of evidence that the political elite don't give a #!*# about the country. 

You know what, I agree completely. Only I'd say there are a few people in government who actually care about the majority of the country, but the large majority of them don't. They care more about campaign contributions.

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by wawaweewa

Originally Posted by CallHimAR



Say this is all just an elaborate scheme to go to war in the Middle East and take their resources, would it not be logical that when the war becomes too costly and a complete DRAIN on the countries economy they would say "Hey wait a minute, we should probably end this charade before it gets any worse here." What sense does it make for a country to drag itself to economic ruin with two extremely costly wars? It doesn't, at all. 

So this, or the conspiracy theories people come up with in their basements?

I hope I've addressed everything here.

You had me until there. 
Wars make certain individuals/ groups a lot of profit. It's undeniable. It's crazy that we even have to talk about this. 

Even accounting for inflation, that is a huge increase in expenditures in about a decade. The number of active duty soldiers has been decreasing since the 50's (about 3MM). The increase in active duty from 2001 onward is negligible while expenditures increased nearly 100%.   That money is going somewhere. It's a gravy train; both politically and profit wise for various individuals/entities. 

There's plenty of evidence that the political elite don't give a #!*# about the country. 

You know what, I agree completely. Only I'd say there are a few people in government who actually care about the majority of the country, but the large majority of them don't. They care more about campaign contributions.

 

[wawaweewa]

And here is the transcript of Kirchner’s account of the conversation at a summit in Monterrey, Mexico, in January, 2004:

Kirchner: I said that a solution to the problems right now, I told Bush, is a Marshall Plan. And he grew angry. He said the Marshall Plan is a crazy idea of the Democrats. He said the best way to revitalize the economy is war. And that the United States has grown stronger with war.

Stone: War, he said that?

Kirchner: He said that. Those were his exact words.

Stone: Is he suggesting that South America go to war?

Kirchner: Well, he was talking about the United States: ‘The Democrats had been wrong. All of the economic growth of the United States has been encouraged by wars.’ He said it very clearly. ‘

 

[wawaweewa]

And here is the transcript of Kirchner’s account of the conversation at a summit in Monterrey, Mexico, in January, 2004:

Kirchner: I said that a solution to the problems right now, I told Bush, is a Marshall Plan. And he grew angry. He said the Marshall Plan is a crazy idea of the Democrats. He said the best way to revitalize the economy is war. And that the United States has grown stronger with war.

Stone: War, he said that?

Kirchner: He said that. Those were his exact words.

Stone: Is he suggesting that South America go to war?

Kirchner: Well, he was talking about the United States: ‘The Democrats had been wrong. All of the economic growth of the United States has been encouraged by wars.’ He said it very clearly. ‘

 

[tkthafm]

Wr wrote:

---

tkthafm wrote:

---

Isn't it funny how the most vocal, the ones who act like what they are saying is proven fact, and call who disagrees with them idiots.... are the ones whose theories collapse unto themselves after a simple request for any evidence of what they are saying ?
I didn't know "undeniable paper trail" meant:

A poster to the movie "Green Zone" and two youtube clips that have nothing to do with what we are discussing.

is this real life ? 

I think you are finding too much pleasure out of discrediting someone rather than being interested in what is true or not. 
I will no longer contribute to giving you a boner. Seems like you're one of those kind of guys that get's a hard on disproving people in front of other people. I swear if NT didn't have an audience for this, you wouldn't even be acting like this. 

It's funny how when people like you get presenting with something new, your first reaction is to discredit it. You do know that denial is a clinically proven condition. All of a sudden a citation from a primary source in this issue get's reduced down to "Oh that's just a youtube video" or something on google. So if they released the OBL killing and someone posted the youtube vid on NT would it still just be a "youtube video"?

I could care less that you disagree with me because it inspires debate and research on both parties. but you don't bring anything to the table but your own personal disbelief. I enjoy debate, but debate is not what you are doing. You are showing out.


We don't believe you, you need more people.

Feel free to privately PM if you do eventually find the "undeniable paper trail" since apparently I log onto NT to embarrass people. (lol ?)

PS: I'm not discrediting the video just because it's from youtube. I'm laughing at it because it does nothing to help your claim at all. It just annoys me seeing people trying to pass things off as fact and call anyone who questions it ignorant.

 

[tkthafm]

Wr wrote:

---

tkthafm wrote:

---

Isn't it funny how the most vocal, the ones who act like what they are saying is proven fact, and call who disagrees with them idiots.... are the ones whose theories collapse unto themselves after a simple request for any evidence of what they are saying ?
I didn't know "undeniable paper trail" meant:

A poster to the movie "Green Zone" and two youtube clips that have nothing to do with what we are discussing.

is this real life ? 

I think you are finding too much pleasure out of discrediting someone rather than being interested in what is true or not. 
I will no longer contribute to giving you a boner. Seems like you're one of those kind of guys that get's a hard on disproving people in front of other people. I swear if NT didn't have an audience for this, you wouldn't even be acting like this. 

It's funny how when people like you get presenting with something new, your first reaction is to discredit it. You do know that denial is a clinically proven condition. All of a sudden a citation from a primary source in this issue get's reduced down to "Oh that's just a youtube video" or something on google. So if they released the OBL killing and someone posted the youtube vid on NT would it still just be a "youtube video"?

I could care less that you disagree with me because it inspires debate and research on both parties. but you don't bring anything to the table but your own personal disbelief. I enjoy debate, but debate is not what you are doing. You are showing out.


We don't believe you, you need more people.

Feel free to privately PM if you do eventually find the "undeniable paper trail" since apparently I log onto NT to embarrass people. (lol ?)

PS: I'm not discrediting the video just because it's from youtube. I'm laughing at it because it does nothing to help your claim at all. It just annoys me seeing people trying to pass things off as fact and call anyone who questions it ignorant.

 

[fraij da 5 11]

Originally Posted by James Earl Zones

Originally Posted by AirForce1King

So I been sitting here crying for the last hour or so as I cycle through 9/11 clips on YouTube. Something that just caught my eye for the first time is WTC 7. How/Why exactly did this building fall again? It wasn't even hit by a plane or anything...

It was "pulled". Also youtube "tower 7 BBC".

Not only was it all planned by the Government, but they tipped off all the news agencies including BRITISH TV just which buildings were coming down next.

So in this thread I learned that it "would only take a couple people in positions of authority" to plan and execute this entire thing AND BBC has some priiiiiiiiiiiiiiime inside information.

YES!!! IT MAKES SENSE!!!!!11  The government gave them a script of just what was going to go down and those big British dummies spoiled the fun and read it too early!!! But WAIT! Wouldn't that mean that the entire PRESS would be in on the conspiracy? Jeez thats loony right?  Naw not loony, because theres no way that the press would just be able too look at the buildings falling and report it for themselves, they would have had to have the rough draft and outline word to 4th grade of what was about to go down in order to report it. 

I mean theres no way that 20 minutes before the collapse they caught wind from a source that the building was raging with fire and nearing collapse, then they misreported what the source had informed... Not possible, actually this is clearrrrly the more unlikely scenario.

 

[fraij da 5 11]

Originally Posted by James Earl Zones

Originally Posted by AirForce1King

So I been sitting here crying for the last hour or so as I cycle through 9/11 clips on YouTube. Something that just caught my eye for the first time is WTC 7. How/Why exactly did this building fall again? It wasn't even hit by a plane or anything...

It was "pulled". Also youtube "tower 7 BBC".

Not only was it all planned by the Government, but they tipped off all the news agencies including BRITISH TV just which buildings were coming down next.

So in this thread I learned that it "would only take a couple people in positions of authority" to plan and execute this entire thing AND BBC has some priiiiiiiiiiiiiiime inside information.

YES!!! IT MAKES SENSE!!!!!11  The government gave them a script of just what was going to go down and those big British dummies spoiled the fun and read it too early!!! But WAIT! Wouldn't that mean that the entire PRESS would be in on the conspiracy? Jeez thats loony right?  Naw not loony, because theres no way that the press would just be able too look at the buildings falling and report it for themselves, they would have had to have the rough draft and outline word to 4th grade of what was about to go down in order to report it. 

I mean theres no way that 20 minutes before the collapse they caught wind from a source that the building was raging with fire and nearing collapse, then they misreported what the source had informed... Not possible, actually this is clearrrrly the more unlikely scenario.

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by fraij da 5 11

Originally Posted by James Earl Zones

Originally Posted by AirForce1King

So I been sitting here crying for the last hour or so as I cycle through 9/11 clips on YouTube. Something that just caught my eye for the first time is WTC 7. How/Why exactly did this building fall again? It wasn't even hit by a plane or anything...

It was "pulled". Also youtube "tower 7 BBC".

Not only was it all planned by the Government, but they tipped off all the news agencies including BRITISH TV just which buildings were coming down next.

So in this thread I learned that it "would only take a couple people in positions of authority" to plan and execute this entire thing AND BBC has some priiiiiiiiiiiiiiime inside information.

YES!!! IT MAKES SENSE!!!!!11  The government gave them a script of just what was going to go down and those big British dummies spoiled the fun and read it too early!!! But WAIT! Wouldn't that mean that the entire PRESS would be in on the conspiracy? Jeez thats loony right?  Naw not loony, because theres no way that the press would just be able too look at the buildings falling and report it for themselves, they would have had to have the rough draft and outline word to 4th grade of what was about to go down in order to report it. 

I mean theres no way that 20 minutes before the collapse they caught wind from a source that the building was raging with fire and nearing collapse, then they misreported what the source had informed... Not possible, actually this is clearrrrly the more unlikely scenario.

How the hell do you "misreport" a building a collapsing? 

It's either there or it's not there. You have the live feed. 

I have no qualms about the WTC towers collapsing because their fireproof materials were stripped when the planes hit (as well as the jet fuel burning) but WTC 7 is just plain odd. 

 

[wawaweewa]

Originally Posted by fraij da 5 11

Originally Posted by James Earl Zones

Originally Posted by AirForce1King

So I been sitting here crying for the last hour or so as I cycle through 9/11 clips on YouTube. Something that just caught my eye for the first time is WTC 7. How/Why exactly did this building fall again? It wasn't even hit by a plane or anything...

It was "pulled". Also youtube "tower 7 BBC".

Not only was it all planned by the Government, but they tipped off all the news agencies including BRITISH TV just which buildings were coming down next.

So in this thread I learned that it "would only take a couple people in positions of authority" to plan and execute this entire thing AND BBC has some priiiiiiiiiiiiiiime inside information.

YES!!! IT MAKES SENSE!!!!!11  The government gave them a script of just what was going to go down and those big British dummies spoiled the fun and read it too early!!! But WAIT! Wouldn't that mean that the entire PRESS would be in on the conspiracy? Jeez thats loony right?  Naw not loony, because theres no way that the press would just be able too look at the buildings falling and report it for themselves, they would have had to have the rough draft and outline word to 4th grade of what was about to go down in order to report it. 

I mean theres no way that 20 minutes before the collapse they caught wind from a source that the building was raging with fire and nearing collapse, then they misreported what the source had informed... Not possible, actually this is clearrrrly the more unlikely scenario.

How the hell do you "misreport" a building a collapsing? 

It's either there or it's not there. You have the live feed. 

I have no qualms about the WTC towers collapsing because their fireproof materials were stripped when the planes hit (as well as the jet fuel burning) but WTC 7 is just plain odd. 

 

[fraij da 5 11]

How the hell do you "misreport" a building a collapsing? 

I mean theres no way that 20 minutes before the collapse they caught wind from a source that the building was raging with fire and nearing collapse, then they misreported what the source had informed... Not possible, actually this is clearrrrly the more unlikely scenario.
Do you not realize that every second of breaking news is a RACE between news programs? Your local news talks about having "YOUR NEWS, FIRST!".  Breaking news is not a marathon its a flat out sprint.  There are countless examples of misreported news due to either jumping the gun or receiving bad information.

This is BRITISH news on top of everything... They're probably just a little less familiar with the buildings in NY than NY news broadcasters are.  She probably had no idea that WTC 7 was still standing because she likely didnt know what it even looked like.

Source: 'WTC 7 has had a raging fire burning for hours, it is near collapse."

Have you ever played the game "telephone"??? Do you really think its not possible that news is misreported?

I dont know how WTC 7 went down any more than you do, but just use some god damn LOGIC and REASONING to come to a conclusion about what is the most likely explanation for things.

 

[fraij da 5 11]

How the hell do you "misreport" a building a collapsing? 

I mean theres no way that 20 minutes before the collapse they caught wind from a source that the building was raging with fire and nearing collapse, then they misreported what the source had informed... Not possible, actually this is clearrrrly the more unlikely scenario.
Do you not realize that every second of breaking news is a RACE between news programs? Your local news talks about having "YOUR NEWS, FIRST!".  Breaking news is not a marathon its a flat out sprint.  There are countless examples of misreported news due to either jumping the gun or receiving bad information.

This is BRITISH news on top of everything... They're probably just a little less familiar with the buildings in NY than NY news broadcasters are.  She probably had no idea that WTC 7 was still standing because she likely didnt know what it even looked like.

Source: 'WTC 7 has had a raging fire burning for hours, it is near collapse."

Have you ever played the game "telephone"??? Do you really think its not possible that news is misreported?

I dont know how WTC 7 went down any more than you do, but just use some god damn LOGIC and REASONING to come to a conclusion about what is the most likely explanation for things.