Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Loose Change
iGrandTheftAuto.com Forums > GTA4.TV/GTA-SanAndreas.com Archive > Old Forum Archive (Read Only) > General > Political & World Issues
Pages: 1, 2, 3
CaldMagi
QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Dec 7 2005, 04:54 PM) [snapback]1021600[/snapback]

QUOTE(CaldMagi @ Dec 4 2005, 07:13 AM) [snapback]1018037[/snapback]

Lol @ the Pentagon conspiracy. Even I believe an airplane hit the Pentagon. Kinda weird though, that in the world's most secured area, there is no footage of the crash whatsoever.


They actualy did have a video of the plane hitting the pentagon.

Why won't "they" show us?

QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Dec 7 2005, 04:54 PM) [snapback]1021600[/snapback]

You do not need to reach the melting point of steel for it to become structurally unsound

We know, we know. You are like a broken record.
CaldMagi
http://www.americanfreepress.net/12_24_02/...l_harbored.html
The cabal of war fanatics advising the White House secretly planned a “transformation” of defense policy years ago, calling for war against Iraq and huge increases in military spending. A “catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor”—was seen as necessary to bring this about.

A “core mission” for the transformed U.S. military is to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars,” according to the PNAC.

The strategic “transformation” of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to “a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,” the PNAC plan said.

“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”

American Free Press asked Christopher Maletz, assistant director of the PNAC about what was meant by the need for “a new Pearl Harbor.”

“They needed more money to up the defense budget for raises, new arms, and future capabilities,” Maletz said. “Without some disaster or catastrophic event” neither the politicians nor the military would have approved, Maletz said.

The “new Pearl Harbor,” in the form of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, provided the necessary catalyst to put the global war plan into effect. Congress quickly allocated $40 billion to fund the “war on terrorism” shortly after 9-11.

And,

http://www.oilempire.us/eugene.html
"We need a new Pearl Harbor"
A year before 9/11, the Project for a New American Century, a think tank composed of most of the key officials of the Bush administration, wrote a report titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" that urged the US to take over the world, starting with the oil rich areas of the Middle East. The PNAC's members stated that this would probably require a "new Pearl Harbor" to enable.
The televised nature of the 9/11 images provided a form of "shock and awe" broadcast world wide. It is obvious, yet uncomfortable to acknowledge, that without 9/11, the PNAC's goals of taking over the Middle East would have been impossible to accomplish. The psychological shock of 9/11 -- not the false claims of Saddam Hussein's mythical Weapons of Mass Destruction -- is what gave the Bush team the "political capital" required for the seizure of Iraq's oil fields, the second largest on Earth.
Lord Steve0
You still have to ask why though?

You gain some oil fields, woohoo! But you can't control them because the local people hate you and you can't spare troops to help out.

Multple theatres? The US has difficulty in Afganistan and Iraq at the moment, it could never take over the world, even with it's superior firepower.
To control the world you need troops, troops willing to go around the world. I don't see that even being something the US can dream of now. Their army is useless at everything except smashing a retreating army to bits. They can't do peacekeeping, they can barely control a few oilfields. There is simply no way they could ever take over large parts of the world.
OptimumPx
Oh goody, the American Free Press (America's last real newspaper, if they do say so themselves), a totally un-biased source with headlines like CONGRESS IN POCKET OF BIG OIL and CHENEY BENT ON INSANE PLAN TO NUKE IRAN. Yep, totally trustworthy. As is a website titled 'Oil Empire.' Both of these are obviously nothing more then Bush bashing sites. dry.gif

Anyway, on to the articles. So your saying a report written a year before 9/11 (Before Bush was President, he wasn't sworn in yet) told the US Government how to take over the world? Ya...um...like I said before, the US Government doesn't even work well together on good days, much less in something like this.

Anyway:
QUOTE
Supporters of the project reply that the PNAC's goals are not fundamentally different to other conservative foreign policy assessments of the past. American conservatives have traditionally favored a militarily strong United States, and advocated the country take aggressive positions when its interests are threatened. Supporters thus see the PNAC as the target of unfair conspiracy theories, mainly motivated by left wing politics.

Besides that, one quote in one document (the new Pearl Harbor quote) isn't proof that the US Government did anything.

Your really saying that this one document convinced everyone in the Government and Military to blow up 3 skyscrapers, knock a hole in the side of a government building, and smash an airplane into an empty field? Then made them actually work together (The CIA and FBI can’t even investigate the same thing without fighting little turf wars over it) to cause it to happen, and still have everyone involved from the highest power to the lowest intern keep completely and utterly quite and not say a word?

It basically sums up to this...is the weather nice in that little dream world? dry.gif
CaldMagi
People were asking as to why the U.S. Government would gain from orchestrating a terrorist attack against it's own citizens, or what they would gain from letting a terrorist attack happen... I answered.

I never said what I posted was proof of the U.S. Government being behind the attacks, nor did I say it was proof of the U.S. Government having sinister plans. If I did, I challenge you to quote me where I said I did claim to have proof of those things.

You, just like Qdeath, are like a broken record. How many times have you the CIA and FBI don't work together all too well? Besides, it is no proof of whether or not the U.S. Government was involved in the attacks on 9/11.

The U.S. wanted to transorm U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination. Whether or not they are capable of creating such an imperialistic force or not is not relevent to this discussion. They tried didn't they?

One last thing.. Thanks for calling my sources rubbish. I bet it would've been better if a posted a link to some fucking biased blogist who thinks he knows it all, eh?
Qdeathstar
QUOTE(CaldMagi @ Dec 7 2005, 11:40 AM) [snapback]1021644[/snapback]

QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Dec 7 2005, 04:54 PM) [snapback]1021600[/snapback]

QUOTE(CaldMagi @ Dec 4 2005, 07:13 AM) [snapback]1018037[/snapback]

Lol @ the Pentagon conspiracy. Even I believe an airplane hit the Pentagon. Kinda weird though, that in the world's most secured area, there is no footage of the crash whatsoever.


They actualy did have a video of the plane hitting the pentagon.

Why won't "they" show us?


they did show it to us, about a week or two after 9/11..
QUOTE

QUOTE(Qdeathstar @ Dec 7 2005, 04:54 PM) [snapback]1021600[/snapback]

You do not need to reach the melting point of steel for it to become structurally unsound

We know, we know. You are like a broken record.


Then why do you insist that an airplane itself couldnt have taken the towers down?


QUOTE

People were asking as to why the U.S. Government would gain from orchestrating a terrorist attack against it's own citizens, or what they would gain from letting a terrorist attack happen... I answered.


Where? I havnt seen an answer yet

QUOTE

The U.S. wanted to transorm U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination. Whether or not they are capable of creating such an imperialistic force or not is not relevent to this discussion. They tried didn't they?


No silly.

Is that why Donald Rumsfield is trying to build a smaller, sleeker, faster army that can be deployed on a minutes notice? So our military can be a impericalistic force of world domination?

No silly.

Oh wait, O.o, is this the answer? becuase they want to become an imperialistic force? O.o. How did 9/11 help that.. we moved into Afganistan and Iraq? Thats hardly imperialistic. Hell, we don't even have the will to make russia stop selling arms to China or Iran... and without that, i fail to see how we can become anything close to imperialistic.
That would require a LARGE, very large, army, something like China is ammassing.
Lord Steve0
Umm i think you're taking it a bit personally.

The sources you posted might not be unbiased. But i doubt anyone could find an unbiased source for this topic, they just don't exist.

The fact the US government wants a super-powerful massive armed forces says it all about them really. As has been proven in Iraq, having all the guns in the world won't help in todays modern warfare. You're not fighting a country these days. You are fighting a guerilla war against trained terrorists who are willing to die for their cause.
But the US can't seem to understand this and they just decide they need a new stealth fighter or ray-gun instead.
The US might be the most powerful country in the world, but they just don't understand the nature of warfare these days. For this reason they are not the powerful force people think they are.
And as a result any plan by some New World Order is foiled from the start.
I doubt the US would do this, or the PEarlk Harbour stuff. They are just not intelligent enough to do this and get away with it or be successful as a result of such action
Qdeathstar
THEY DONT WANT A LARGE ARMY. THATS WHAT THEY HAVE NOW. THEY ARE TRYING TOP BUILD A SLEEKER, FASTER, SMALLER ARMY.

For godsake.
Lord Steve0
What the hell does it matter if they want it sleeker or more powerful or even to have every man armed with a laser-gun! The fact is that it won't make a bit of difference.
The US will still go about like it rules the world, trying to kill or destry what they don't like but ultimately making a big mess because they have no idea what the hell they are doing.
The US has never hosted a proper invasion, they don't know how to fight one. Or at least they don't know what to do after they've smashed the place to bits.
Having the biggest army in the world armed to the teeth with high-tech gear is no longer the key to winning in this day. Look at Iraq, the US are being slaughtered by a bunch of rebels armed with AK-47's and a few pound of C4. Their super-tanks and planes mean nothing in this sort of warfare. Nor do super-high-tech weapons.
What they need is troops trained to look after a place after an attack, to make friends with those they "free" and to control looting and rebelions. They don't have a clue what to do in Iraq and it clearly shows.
NTC187
Well after watching "Fahrenheit 9/11" last night, have had a slight change in opinion, I still think the government wasnt behind the wole 9/11 attacks, but I think they could've done more about them than what they did, like go after Osama right after the attacks took place, not 2 months after, and how they went after Suddam Hussein who posed no terrorist threat to America and who wasnt responsible for 9/11, because the Bush/Bin Laden families are actually very close.
Obama
theres one 9/11 movie that has details that say there was bombs in the building and a missile hit the pentagon
GTA_PlAyA_728
QUOTE(Lord Steve0 @ Dec 7 2005, 04:12 PM) [snapback]1021943[/snapback]

What the hell does it matter if they want it sleeker or more powerful or even to have every man armed with a laser-gun! The fact is that it won't make a bit of difference.
The US will still go about like it rules the world, trying to kill or destry what they don't like but ultimately making a big mess because they have no idea what the hell they are doing.
The US has never hosted a proper invasion, they don't know how to fight one. Or at least they don't know what to do after they've smashed the place to bits.
Having the biggest army in the world armed to the teeth with high-tech gear is no longer the key to winning in this day. Look at Iraq, the US are being slaughtered by a bunch of rebels armed with AK-47's and a few pound of C4. Their super-tanks and planes mean nothing in this sort of warfare. Nor do super-high-tech weapons.
What they need is troops trained to look after a place after an attack, to make friends with those they "free" and to control looting and rebelions. They don't have a clue what to do in Iraq and it clearly shows.


Are you kidding me? How do they not have control over what they are doing? Only 2,000 soldiers have died in the passed 3 years in Iraq. Thats less then .1% of US troops their. More people have died in one battle in other wars then in this whole war. And your saying that they dont know what their doing? Dont you think more soldiers wouldeve died if they didnt have everything "under control?" Iraq isnt even that bad if you would stop believeing CNN and actually researched about it. All of northern Iraq is fine with no problems at all. Its just Middle and southern Iraq that has all the terrorists and shit.
Lord Steve0
Yes but the middle and southern areas are most heavily populated and as a result most important.
Plus, add in all the 1000's of civilian casualties that are a result of the unchecked terrorist attacks and it really doesn't look like the place is under control.
Trust me, i don't get my news from CNN. I have actually talked to peopel from there online and asked them what they think and what is going on. If anyone thinks the US is doing well over there or is in control then they are gravely mistaken.
NTC187
"No building in history has ever collapsed as a result of a fire"

9/11 had an Aeroplane, a 100 tonne piece of machinery, flown into the building about 30 or so floors down from the top of the building, that would mean that the plane would've done most of the damage, not the fire, crashing through steel beams and doing quite some damage, then the fire and explosion from the planes jet fuel would've topped it off.

Where the plane hit, would've left the structure unsound in that area, and when that part gave way, the 30 or what ever it was floors above, would've fallen straight down ontop of it.

It amazes me how these people seem to forget how a plane was actually flown into the building, and that there wasnt just a fire that was started, otherwise the building would'nt have collapsed.
GTA_PlAyA_728
QUOTE(Lord Steve0 @ Dec 8 2005, 04:34 PM) [snapback]1022723[/snapback]

Yes but the middle and southern areas are most heavily populated and as a result most important.
Plus, add in all the 1000's of civilian casualties that are a result of the unchecked terrorist attacks and it really doesn't look like the place is under control.
Trust me, i don't get my news from CNN. I have actually talked to peopel from there online and asked them what they think and what is going on. If anyone thinks the US is doing well over there or is in control then they are gravely mistaken.


Their have only been 25,000 civilian casualties since 2001. Does that sound like a big number to you? Only if you didnt know that their were 3 million civilian casualties in vietnam. And A LOT more during WWII.

Anybody in Iraq that disagrees with the war is a crackhead. Saddam Hussein was killing millions of inocent people before the US came for no reason. Now what would they rather have in Iraq? Would they rather have millions of people being killed by an evil dictator or 25,000 being killed trying to stop him?

My whole family is from Iraq and I know plenty of people who are from their and family members i talk on the phone to that are actually their and they say that they support the war.
Rocka91
oh man, i would so love to download this, but I have a slow internet. I guess I'll read thru the responses of the members I guess.
Qdeathstar
I watched the hole thing.. The flash, was to blurry to make anything of, and some of the angles seemd to contradict his point. YES there was a flash, but i couldnt tell if it was before or after the plane hit.

In addition, later in the movie, when the narrator is talking about the flashes seen at the first 7-10 stories, some one intervied said that for a controlled demolition to take place (and the presumption was that the twin towers were contolled demolition) you'd need to take out the bottom. SO it doesnt make since to shoot a missile on one of the upper floors..

The misterious thing on the bottom of the plane... good be a shadow.. cant tell... its hardly conclusive, ANd it's logical for boeing not to want to release information about their planes specs, IN DETAIL, which was what the narrator claimed he asked for.

Next thing I remember, is that he said was that their was an explosion in the lobby, and that if that was caused by jet fuel going into the elevators, it would have caused soot to cover the lobby, but that their was no soot, instead their was fine white power. First of all, how does he know this information? is he an expert in explosives? i think not.

In anycase, lets assume what he claimes is true, later in the movie, he narrates an article that someone had wrote in which the claim the lobby was "filled with soot".

SO which is it, filled with soot or not?


Regarding the pentagon... It seems to be people HEARD a missile, but SAW i plane. The text going back and forth was "I sall a private jet", "Im sure itwas a missle, it sounded like a missle" "it looked like a 737" "It was so loud it was like a missle"

So, no one saw a missile, they thought they heard one. But people did see a plane.

In addition, evidence for why the cars wouild have been flipped over is flimsy.

1. Thats probably the worst case scenerio. A car parked direclty behind the engines, which are running at maximum potential.

The problem with this is, that the plan was 25 feet ABOVE (Not to the side as in the example video) the cars, and it was pointing nose down, meaning that the most of the thurst would be exhausted upwards, away from the cars. In addition, theirs no reason to believe that the engines were operating at maximum potentia thrust. Objects accelerate at 9.87 metters per seconds due to gravity without thurst, so you dont need a whole lot of thrust to get going at 500mph or whatever the speed as.

In addition, it made clames about what "sliding on the ground" should look like... It would be niceto assume that the planes landed exactly the same and stuff, but thats not how it works. If the plane hit the ground 3 feet beforethe building, their wouldnt be a huge gouge in the earth, and you cant see the ground in the pictures they provided anyway because of all the foam from putting out the fire... totaly bogus...

0bs3n3
QUOTE(N.T.C @ Dec 9 2005, 09:47 AM) [snapback]1022730[/snapback]

"No building in history has ever collapsed as a result of a fire"

9/11 had an Aeroplane, a 100 tonne piece of machinery, flown into the building about 30 or so floors down from the top of the building, that would mean that the plane would've done most of the damage, not the fire, crashing through steel beams and doing quite some damage, then the fire and explosion from the planes jet fuel would've topped it off.

Where the plane hit, would've left the structure unsound in that area, and when that part gave way, the 30 or what ever it was floors above, would've fallen straight down ontop of it.

It amazes me how these people seem to forget how a plane was actually flown into the building, and that there wasnt just a fire that was started, otherwise the building would'nt have collapsed.

Yes, finally somebody realises this is just a propaganda tape. And how could you beleive those people who say they heard a missile coming towards the pentagon. They're regular citizens, as if they've ever heard a cruise missle.
Lord Steve0
Yes there are so many problems with things in that video.

1) The explosion in the loby. There was no soot, i've seen footage of the loby (made by those 2 french guys who were with the FDNY). The windows were blown to bits and there were a few people on fire there as well though they didn't film that for obvious reasons (you can hear the people though). The guys in the loby said it was fuel, or at least a blast of heat that came down the lift shafts. Any white powder could just be dust blown out of the lifts.

2) Did people see a plane or a missile? Most say they saw a plane. In fact nearly all people there say that. But some people say they heard a missile. Like Homero says, so they know what a missile sounds like? Cruise missiles are powerful too, but are they powerful enough to take out the entire side of the biggest office building in the world? I saw those bombings in Iraq on the news, those missiles had trouble blowing up small buildings in one go, the side of the pentagon is very large.

3) The flashes. These are way too blurry to make out for real. It could be anything, sun glaring off metal (are AA planes not silver?), glass breaking in windows, a glitch on the tape?

4) A controlled demolition would start att the base, and you'd need bombs on every floor too or it would not be controlled as it fell. Controlled demolitions require well placed specialist explosives, not just a few pounds of C4 shoved in a vending machine or wherever they are measnt to hide a bomb up there.

I'll add more to this later maybe.
Samurai_tbag
QUOTE(Lord Steve0 @ Dec 9 2005, 08:21 PM) [snapback]1023445[/snapback]

1) The explosion in the loby. There was no soot, i've seen footage of the loby (made by those 2 french guys who were with the FDNY). The windows were blown to bits and there were a few people on fire there as well though they didn't film that for obvious reasons (you can hear the people though). The guys in the loby said it was fuel, or at least a blast of heat that came down the lift shafts. Any white powder could just be dust blown out of the lifts.

Fuel? I take it you mean Kerosene, Incase your scientificaly uncertain with the 'Cracking' of Crued Oil, Kerosene requires its carbon bonds to be alterd, It is obtained from the fractional distillation of petroleum at 150 °C and 275 °C (carbon chains from the C12 to C15 range). This 'reaction' so to speak removes its sulfur, this along with the fact it has been treated with Merox asures the fact that when the Kerosene ignites the chemical reaction from its liquid state to its extremely flamable gas state is almost instant. Also Kerosene goes up, as does fire. There is no way that the fuel could have fallen 90 floors and still be burning. You may say the Kerosene alone could cause some heavy burn well thats incorrect, Kerosene that has been treated with Merox (Which all planes require) is unreactive to the most sensetive of human skin such as eyes. As for the dust, know it couldnt have been 'Jet Fuel' bursting down the shafts, Kerosene wont build a pressure powerful enoough to blow the lobby up, prehaps it did go in the lift shafts, the chances are it would blow open the doors but not break marble off walls, that is seismic activity (Underground explosions). The dust that would be found if it was the Kerosene would have been burnt up at 1600degrees. Not to mention it would be bigger peices, explossive dust is thin tinted orange.

QUOTE(Lord Steve0 @ Dec 9 2005, 08:21 PM) [snapback]1023445[/snapback]

2) Did people see a plane or a missile? Most say they saw a plane. In fact nearly all people there say that. But some people say they heard a missile. Like Homero says, so they know what a missile sounds like? Cruise missiles are powerful too, but are they powerful enough to take out the entire side of the biggest office building in the world? I saw those bombings in Iraq on the news, those missiles had trouble blowing up small buildings in one go, the side of the pentagon is very large.

If a missle didn't hit the building what did? Im affraid that the pentagon is already known, people arent stupid that was no boeing, no commercial plane, 2 6ton engines gone? Please, don't give me that. That is bullshit. In regard about you 'missile' people know what a missile sounds like, it sounds like a firework x10, a plane sounds like a plane, you can't deflect from the fact that america are hiding things, not to mention Area 51. What's to say that they have missiles which can reach Mach20 speeds and that can level a small town. All the people that have been in there claim that the tehnology down there is beyond human comprehenshion. However I belive im drifting aside, you reply with what else could have hit it except for a small military jet or prehaps a missile.

QUOTE(Lord Steve0 @ Dec 9 2005, 08:21 PM) [snapback]1023445[/snapback]

3) The flashes. These are way too blurry to make out for real. It could be anything, sun glaring off metal (are AA planes not silver?), glass breaking in windows, a glitch on the tape?

How could it be the sun, it was filmed from various angles... The planes were coming in from different angles and im affraid that the flash is -Clearly- visable, you can even make it out in the reflection of the fusilage.

QUOTE(Lord Steve0 @ Dec 9 2005, 08:21 PM) [snapback]1023445[/snapback]

4) A controlled demolition would start att the base, and you'd need bombs on every floor too or it would not be controlled as it fell. Controlled demolitions require well placed specialist explosives, not just a few pounds of C4 shoved in a vending machine or wherever they are measnt to hide a bomb up there.

Did you even watch this documentary, otherwise you must have missed a lot that was said. Various people mentioned that the building was evacuated numberous times for 'Securit'y reasons. Is it mearly a coinsidence that the bomb sinffing dogs where also removed prior the attack and also security systems were down. Doesnt that hint something?

Couple this with the fact that 9 of the 19 Hi-Jackers are still alive, one of the Hi-Jackers passport fell out of his pocket, flew through a 1600degree fireball and landed in te streets of Manhatten yet the planes black boxes were destroyed. The fact that you can see small explosions beneath as the tower falls. The fact that all physicians asked have all said that the top part of the tower would fall, not the whole building. The fact seismic waves were received in a quarry 21 miles away (Correct if Im wrong) 9 seconds before it fell. The fact that George Bush's brother was head of security. The fact that no parts of plain debris were found in the pentagon except that of other planes. If america have coverd such things, they won't ever admit to it.
Lord Steve0
The physics lecturers and architects can say what they like, he turth is that not a person on this planet knew how such a big building would react when hit by a 100 tonne jumbo jet and be set alight by jet fuel. There were no previous similar incidents and there could be affects you can't recreate in models or easily predict. There could be lots of anomalies with the way the towers reacted, there is just no way to know.
No tower has ever collapsed through fire alone, yes.
But no tower has ever been hit by a jumbo jet and then been set on fire too.

About the loby being blown to bits. The fuel might not have been burning down there, but the pressure of the explosion might have done enough damage. And the marble on the walls falling off via a seismic event or something similar - how about a jumbo jet slamming into the tower? According to people the whole thing shook like you'd dropped a skip full of bricks on it, i'd say that alone would do some damage.
The dust could be from anywhere really, but i doubt it was from bombs, not on the ground floor. People would easily notice bombs going off down there i'd imagine.

The Pentagon is hard to decide on. There is so little evidence for anyones theories no matter how obscure or logical.
There were bit of plane, but i can't ID them and i doubt anyone could after the fires. THe hole is too small, yes. But maybe the plane broke up on impact and only bits of it went through the windows or a small hole. It did hit the ground as well, i'd guess some could have been burried too.
Ther point about it not being a misslie really is that it would be very easy to see, how do you hide that? I mean seriously are you telling me not a single person in Washington DC would notice a missile flying accross the sky? A lot of people saw a plane, nobody saw a missile. The evidence points very strongly to it being a plane.

I'd rather not discuss what weapons the US does or does not have. If you start assuming the US has a Mach 20 missile and used it on the Pentagon you may as well assume the twin towers were destroyed by a massive laser bean fired from space, because you're just pulling at straws.

The final point i'd like to make is that of WHY?
Can someone give a realistic reason of why the US would do this to itself. And make this reason be one that doesn't rely on you 1)hating the US government or being paranoid about it, 2)beliveing in a New World Order or some masonic plot to put humanity in missery, 3)it was done for oil (seriously there are better ways to get oil than this!), 4)it was done to start a war (again...easier ways to do this!).
Samurai_tbag
Yes, Bush wanted Sadam Hussein in jail, he wanted to finish his fathers job. Also starting a war on the eastern world fits Bush's agender, more control more money. The fact that it makes Bush seem like a hero "Starting a war on terror" the American people belive he is doing good, vote him into power. Vicious Circle
Lord Steve0
But how many of the US people actually think he is doing good? Do they really se him as a hero?
I seem to recal last election being nearlly 50.50 votewise, at least those who voted felt that way.
I really don't see any of his ideas and wars as the kind of action that makes him look like a hero.

The attacks on the US were a result of the US pissing off the Muslim world, through years of disrespect, abuse, and attempts at control. Sooner or later someone was going to be pissed enough to do something severe, and look what happened.
You can hardly be called a hero for saving your country from attacks he and previous governments indirectly caused.
GTA_PlAyA_728
QUOTE(Lord Steve0 @ Dec 11 2005, 03:50 PM) [snapback]1025765[/snapback]

But how many of the US people actually think he is doing good? Do they really se him as a hero?
I seem to recal last election being nearlly 50.50 votewise, at least those who voted felt that way.
I really don't see any of his ideas and wars as the kind of action that makes him look like a hero.

The attacks on the US were a result of the US pissing off the Muslim world, through years of disrespect, abuse, and attempts at control. Sooner or later someone was going to be pissed enough to do something severe, and look what happened.
You can hardly be called a hero for saving your country from attacks he and previous governments indirectly caused.


What da...? How did the previous governments cause all this? The only reason 9/11 and all the other attacks happened was because the US tried to help out during the gulf war. Thats the only reason why. Their were no problems between the US and the middle east until the gulf war started. and that was husseins fault.

The only disrespect the US ever made to the muslim world was that we had US troops on their land. They hate infidels. Thats the only reason why they attacked us. Now is that the governments fault when we had a alliance we had to keep? rolleyes.gif I dont think so.
Qdeathstar
Its funny how you people who come up with these bizzair theories never reply to the stongest posts .... pfft.

And btw, jetfuel is not kerosene... :-/
Un-Amurikan Bastage
I notice the size of the hole continues to come up...the hole was the right size. The actual fuselage of the plane is 14 feet in diameter, and the fuselage is what hit mainly; would that not produce a 16 foot hole, including the wings and other things? They did find chunks of the engines, which are visible in numerous photographs. This place tells all about the Pentagon part of the story.

QUOTE
What da...? How did the previous governments cause all this? The only reason 9/11 and all the other attacks happened was because the US tried to help out during the gulf war. Thats the only reason why. Their were no problems between the US and the middle east until the gulf war started. and that was husseins fault. rolleyes.gif The only disrespect the US ever made to the muslim world was that we had US troops on their land. They hate infidels. Thats the only reason why they attacked us. Now is that the governments fault when we had a alliance we had to keep? I dont think so.

Uh, he's right buddy.
QUOTE(Lord Steve0)
The attacks on the US were a result of the US pissing off the Muslim world, through years of disrespect, abuse, and attempts at control. Sooner or later someone was going to be pissed enough to do something severe, and look what happened.

The U.S. was making deals with the corrupt governments of the Middle East, and making contracts that funded dictators obviously leading to dissent of America among the people in the Middle East. That and the Gulf War were the main causes, not even counting the "turn the other ear" attitude the U.S. was using, and the attemps at power, and the U.S. alliance with Israel as it funded Isreal's wrongdoings and mistreatments of Muslims.

So yes, it is the governments fault for going to war against a dictator when he invaded a small country then bankrolling other dictators rather than setting up embargos. Yes, the first war was Hussein's fault, but it doesn't change that we were going after him.

GTA_PlAyA_728
What deals was this? Are you sure they werent making the deals at the time when they were allied? Cuz the US did have a lot of alliances with the middle east during and before the 70's.
Un-Amurikan Bastage
QUOTE(GTA_PlAyA_728 @ Dec 11 2005, 08:29 PM) [snapback]1026080[/snapback]

What deals was this? Are you sure they werent making the deals at the time when they were allied? Cuz the US did have a lot of alliances with the middle east during and before the 70's.

Various oil contracts through the 80's and 90's...and in the 80's we were supplying them with weapons and such. And the alliances you speak of were another thing they were pissed about, as again, that is helping and reinforcing their dictators.
GTA_PlAyA_728
QUOTE(Un-Amärakin Bastard @ Dec 11 2005, 09:46 PM) [snapback]1026090[/snapback]

QUOTE(GTA_PlAyA_728 @ Dec 11 2005, 08:29 PM) [snapback]1026080[/snapback]

What deals was this? Are you sure they werent making the deals at the time when they were allied? Cuz the US did have a lot of alliances with the middle east during and before the 70's.

Various oil contracts through the 80's and 90's...and in the 80's we were supplying them with weapons and such. And the alliances you speak of were another thing they were pissed about, as again, that is helping and reinforcing their dictators.


Ya well we were allied with Iraq in the 80's and got oil from them for weapons. China, france, and Russia did this to. We were allied with them and we broke the alliance when they invaded Kuwait. Then the US allied with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in the 90's and we still have that alliance now.

So basically Iraq was the only bad country the US made deals with. And the only reason we ever made the alliance with them was for oil. Cuz we did have an oil crises in the late 70's. So we supported them in the war against Iran and they gave us oil. If we didnt do that our economy would still suck cuz of the oil crises.
Fido 14
You guys are still bickering about this? Not only is it known that the government knocked down the towers with a customized Boeing 767 and a missile to the pentagon, but there was also a UFO seen in pictures while the 9/11 attacks were happening. As I explain to you people how our government is actually a secret society of world domination seekers (Masons, ZOG, New World Order) that commited these hideous attacks, I'd also like to come to my conclusion that the U.S. has improved and made more UFO's since the Roswell incident on 1947 where they got information from the alien that crashed on how to make UFO's and the technology that is in them. What could they possibly need UFO's for? Spying on other countries and of course its own people. I also believe that they've been communicating with the alien that crashed at Roswell ever since, and our government is communicating with intergalactic invisible planets where the highest of all technology is. Now in this case, the government used one of their UFO's to check to see if the plans on 9/11 were going alright.

IPB Image
From the video that was certified by the CIA as "genuine" and which showed a fake Osama "confessing".

IPB Image
The 2nd remotely controlled plane just before it crashes into the WTC. Notice the odd shape under the fuselage, at the level of the wings.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...ont_display.jpg
Was the strange attachment on the plane actually an extra fuel tank filled with gasoline, for creating a big fire and huge media show? Such tanks can be seen on many army aircrafts, but have never been seen on a Boeing 767 which normally has no fittings (so called "hard points") to fix such a tank to. The tank could also have been a pod from which a missile was fired.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...lane_unders.jpg
How come a plane could have taken off without anyone noticing the odd extra tank/pod? How probable is it some foreign hijackers "customized" a Boeing 767 in this way for their purpose?

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/pod-from-below.jpg
This picture clearly shows that an odd asymetrical construction of some sort occurred under the plane's fuselage, and that what can be seen on the images is not just the curious result of light and shadows.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...rom_beneath.gif
And if any doubt was left, then this angle definitely shows a tank/pod was fitted under the 767.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...impact&fire.jpg
On impact, the tip of the 2nd plane seems to be on fire, which is highly abnormal. Was there somehow a detonation?

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/wtc_impact2.jpg
The 2nd remotely controlled plane crashes into the WTC. Two things are abnormal about this pict: 1) Planes usually don't explode this way (only in movies they do), unless some type of detonation method is used.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/wtc_crash.jpg
2) Since most of the kerosene (and gazoline from the tank) burned outside the building, as this picture shows, it's quite peculiar there was enough fuel to cause a fire hot enough to make the building's steel beams work enough to let the building fall down...

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/wtc_explosive.jpg
This image proves explosives were used to make the WTC buildings collapse. Notice the characteristic shape of an explosion at the right of the building, a bit below the big cloud of smoke. Yet if the fire made the steel beams or the construction around it snap, then this may well be what it would look like.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...-explosives.jpg
Like the previous picture, according to some these images from a video show lines of explosives were installed. However, notice that the top of the building already shows an inclination when the plumes occur. The inclination could not have been caused by explosives, if detonated at this point. Seismic data records indicate huge bursts of energy shook the ground beneath the WTC just before the towers collapsed. This too is seen by some as proof massive underground explosions occurred, but in fact it could well have been caused by the floors falling upon each other.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...ndplane+UFO.jpg
During the 2nd plane impact at the WTC, a UFO was filmed.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/wtc_ufo_zoom.jpg
Zoom of the WTC UFO.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...o_animation.gif
A pict animation of the UFO footage.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...g_no_impact.jpg
Pentagon burning but facade virtually intact. Also notice (again) the impeccable condition of the lawn...

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/..._727_tracks.jpg
Tracks of crashed FedEx boeing 727. This is how a lawn looks after a commercial airliner crashes on it.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/pent_fireball.jpg
A fireball at where allegedly the plane crashed.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/..._sec_camera.jpg
This is supposed to be the moment where the plane impacted into the Pentagon. Where is the plane?

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...roportions4.jpg
This is how big the plane would be if it would be put into the security camera image.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...a_composite.jpg
This is a rendition of the proportions in the picture.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...;crash'.jpg
The CIA tried to make us believe the plane crashed slightly off angle. Notice how the plane depicted has virtually NO WINGS! How convenient!

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...roportions1.jpg
This is how big the wings of the plane would really be.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...roportions2.jpg
This is how big the plane and its wings would really be. With impact angle of the CIA briefing.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...roportions3.jpg
This is another picture of how big the plane and its wings would really be. With impact angle of the CIA briefing.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/impact757-5.gif
Then there are those who suggest the wings of the 757 actually broke off at impact, therefore fitting the plane through the very small hole. This theory could make sense if only some broken wing (debris) would have been found at the outside of the building, and if the hole would have been higher.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...n_firetruck.jpg
There were simply no broken off wings to be found anywhere.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/trajectoire.jpg
This is the trajectory the alleged plane followed through the Pentagon. Down right of the image you see the small hole it made in the wall at the interior of the Pentagon.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...agefragment.jpg
Debris that seems to be fragments of the fuselage of a plane (its nose). In fact , this hole and the scarce debris may well be the only known proof that what crashed into the Pentagon was a cruise missile, made to look like a Boeing 757, and which would have a diameter that fits this hole which was made when the missile exited the building.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/global_hawk.jpg
The type of missile used could have been the Global Hawk.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...landinggear.jpg
This landing gear was found at the outside of the Pentagon. Is it from the Global Hawk? It looks very much like it, and it surely would be way too small for a Boeing 757.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/mainGear757.jpg
This is what the main landing gear of a Boeing 757 looks like. It doesn't quite look like what was found at the outside of the Pentagon.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...anewheelrim.jpg
This rim of a wheel that was found inside, however, looks very much like that of a Boeing 757. How did two completely different wheel models end up at the Pentagon "crash"? Was this one brought in aboard the missile? Was it planted there?

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...t_planetire.jpg
This tire seems to have less profile rings (4) than the 757 tires (which have 6).

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/photorotor.jpg
This seems to be a part of a jet engine. However, it's way too small for a Boeing 757 engine, but typically has the size of a missile engine. Oh, and why did they use a missile? Well, for its precision of course!

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/g-pw4000.jpg
The engines used by the Boeing 757 are similar to the Pratt and Whitney Turbofan engine seen in this picture, and have almost the same dimensions, being over two meters in diameter, more than twice the diameter of the engine shown in the previous picture.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...2_w_US_flag.jpg
A piece of wreckage with a US flag drawn on it. It's unclear from what type of vehicle this wreckage could have come. By the way, lest we forget: we're supposed to believe pratically the entire plane was burned to ashes, including metal, synthetic materials (often very fire resistant), etc... which only burn to ashes at extremely high temperatures. Yet "miraculously", the spit material was found of 63 out of 64 passengers, even though such material is the most likely to have been destroyed the first at such high temperatures.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...bri_on_lawn.jpg
This is practically the only debris that has been found at the exterior of the Pentagon. Was it planted there? Where is the rest of the plane? Or did this piece of debris come from the missile 757 lookalike?

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/debriswheel.jpg
This picture shows how big the piece of debris actually is. It's almost 1/2 the size it should be if it would come from a real 757.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/fit_debris.jpg
This picture shows how the piece can be fitted on an American Airlines plane, apart from its actual size that is.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...erpiececomp.jpg
These are some other ways the debris could be made to fit.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...or_of_slats.jpg
This debris has been confirmed to be a geared rotary actuator of slats coming from a 757. Was it carried into the Pentagon by missile to make it appear a 757 crashed? Was it planted?

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/buga_crash.jpg
Normally, when planes crash they don't almost completely burn into ashes, as illustrated by this plane that crashed against a mountain at Buga.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/...arest_80deg.jpg
Even if a plane impacts at 80 degrees, as happened here, it doesn't burn to ashes and it does leave lots of debris. The same should have happened for a plane crashing at the Pentagon. The plane that "crashed" in Pensylvania should also have left lots of debris in a limited area instead of the debris being dispersed over several miles. But then, that plane was shot down by white unmarked fighter planes (according to witnesses).

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/..._Amsterdam3.jpg
n 1992 a Boeing 747-200 crashed on a big appartment block in Amsterdam's Bijlmermeer neighborhood. The accident caused a huge fire. Explosions were witnessed shortly after the crash, which were mainly caused by illegal munitions the Israeli plane carried... Also see this report http://www.het-klankbord.vuurwerk.nl/bijlmer5.htm (Dutch). These explosions intensified the fire.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/..._Amsterdam4.jpg
Unlike the alleged plane at the Pentagon, the El Al Boeing took down the entire section of the building it crashed on. It also left lots of debris which was rapidly towed away by Israeli secret services (with the help of local authorities) to hide the fact the plane transported munitions and chemicals to produce Sarin gaz.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/..._trajectory.jpg
The marks on the grass indicate almost exactly the trajectory of the missile that was shot at the Pentagon. This picture was made on 7 september 2001. Were the marks made to prepare for 911?

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/..._simulation.jpg
The US authorities and security services stated that no one could ever have imagined attacks such as those on 911. However, the fact is a simulation of just such attacks were carried out exactly one year earlier.

http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/Ex_sim2.jpg
In fact, excercises of terrorist attacks were carried out all throughout 2001, including on 911.. Just a coincidence? Sure... Source: www.mdw.army.mil

- Due to too many pictures, I will have to change some pictures to plain links.
- I'm also getting "Sorry, dynamic pages in the [IMG] tags are not allowed" message so maybe a mod can change it so some pics can be shown directly on this thread.
Lord Steve0
Good post Fido. Very good. Lots of photos and spme well researched info and evidence too.

And for once i'm agreeing with some of what you say.
I'm certain the twin towers were not demolished by bombs, but some of the pictures are good evidence of smething going on. I'm not sure of the ones of the underside of the 2nd plane, it's just too fuzzy to really tell what is on the bottom. Could be a tank, not too sure. I doubt we'll ever know.

The smoke/dust comming out below the collapsing tower, i still think it is debris flying out of windows as the towers comes down. If you think about it, the tower would be comming apart inside as well and some debris would go down lifts, vents etc. This would get blown out of windows below the main collapse possibly.

Seismic stuff could be floors collapsing. It could also be the impacts of the planes too, the impacts were pretty powerful and shook the towers a lot. It's not solid ground under the towers, it was hollow car parks, tube stns, basements etc. They would maybe affect the shock of the impact, making it feel like an underground explosion.

The Pentagon stuff is weird. I'm really thinking now that something is not right here. The impact looks too small for a plane, even a small jumbo would leave debris and make a big hole. But there is debris there, and it is from a plane. I doubt you would get a missile and fill it with enough explosive to do the damage and spray debris everywhere that it was carrying too. A blast that big would destory the missile and the planted evidence it carried.
OptimumPx
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pe...e_evidence.html
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Please read other replys to the topic....we covered most of these already. sleep.gif
GTA_PlAyA_728
QUOTE
You guys are still bickering about this? Not only is it known that the government knocked down the towers with a customized Boeing 767 and a missile to the pentagon, but there was also a UFO seen in pictures while the 9/11 attacks were happening. As I explain to you people how our government is actually a secret society of world domination seekers (Masons, ZOG, New World Order) that commited these hideous attacks, I'd also like to come to my conclusion that the U.S. has improved and made more UFO's since the Roswell incident on 1947 where they got information from the alien that crashed on how to make UFO's and the technology that is in them. What could they possibly need UFO's for? Spying on other countries and of course its own people. I also believe that they've been communicating with the alien that crashed at Roswell ever since, and our government is communicating with intergalactic invisible planets where the highest of all technology is. Now in this case, the government used one of their UFO's to check to see if the plans on 9/11 were going alright.


Maybe you should lay off the video games for a lil bit.. wink.gif The evidence trying to prove anything that you have said is not enough to make it believable.

Im not going to bother trying to debate on all those links, so ill just pick one random one and see if its actually true or not.

QUOTE
http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo/pod-from-below.jpg
This picture clearly shows that an odd asymetrical construction of some sort occurred under the plane's fuselage, and that what can be seen on the images is not just the curious result of light and shadows.


NO.. If you actually bothered to look at the plane, you would see that it was not perfectly straight. It was turning to its right. So that odd asymetrical construction you see is not what u think it is. Its just that the left side of the plane looks bigger because of its tilt.

IPB Image

Did you even bother noticeing how the planes engines dont line up together? rolleyes.gif
Vlad
I'm buying it. I had suspected there was something more to 9/11, for a while.

You won't get me to believe anything about the aliens with advanced technology or about the ZOG being entirely behind it. But I do believe there are specific interests at play that could have definitely orchestrated the event to fulfill their interests, probably economic and political.

Masons? Skulls? Corporate interests? They all have an incredible influence on American policy, and undoubtedly they are heavily intertwined. Furthermore, what would make sense is that this secret establishment attacked the American symbols of trade and intelligence to assert their power. Perhaps there's a significant conflict between several very powerful interests over influence on America and the world.
TommyVercettiPizza
I hate conspiracy theories. They are absolute rubbish and waste people's time. Their very discussion is such a waste of time and effort. Stop moaning about Bush and get on with something useful.
clowns789
You'd be amazed. Someone on another forum posted a topic for this and everybody thought it was a conspiracy. It was the first political post so I decided to follow it up with JDW. I instantly got death threats. And while Loose Change is the most popular Google Video, JDW was banned.
OptimumPx
QUOTE(Starkey @ May 27 2006, 04:08 PM) [snapback]1161106[/snapback]

I hate conspiracy theories. They are absolute rubbish and waste people's time. Their very discussion is such a waste of time and effort. Stop moaning about Bush and get on with something useful.

If you think that, then why did you bump this 5 month old topic? dry.gif
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.