«

[omg]

erm. is it really paranoid to assume that it was in bushes interest for 9/11 to happen? i dont think it is really. however isnt it possible that rather than demolishing the buildings themselfs they knew it was going to happen and let it happen? i heard we (the british) had intelligence about pearl harbour and didnt share it as we new it would get the americans into the war. bush needed a war. the american military like having republicans in power, it means more money for weopens. i do think there was some *convience* for baby bush but im less convinced that it was a controlled demolition. mustapha mond he aint!

[PrejudiceSucks]

Hmmm I don't know. By the way to anyone who thinks that Osama Bin Laden et al are all evil you have to remember that the USA hired them for that very reason.

They're ruthless and hence useful underlings. Shame they didn't think about whether they would defect, though.

[Stroggy]

Well the world used the Mujahideen in their attack against the taliban, who is the say the mujahideen won't turn into terrorists one day?

[PrejudiceSucks]

Nothing and the Americans will doubtless try to keep them under their thumb for as long as possible.

[Fruit Pie Jones]

The US did not "hire" Osama bin Laden; the US supported the mujahideen in Afghanistan because the Soviet Union was the bigger threat at the time, and the mujahideen were seen as the best means of controlling them without provoking an all-out US/USSR war. The Soviets eventually pulled out of Afghanistan, and the Taliban gradually rose to power during a protracted civil war. You know the rest. So basically, alliances changed. It happens.

[omg]

seems to happen to the american military a hell of a lot though. how many times scince world war 2 have they been at war against a foe that they didnt arm and train.

[Fruit Pie Jones]

Hey, we can't help it if the rest of the world is filled with treacherous...EDIT: That might get me a warning. Never mind.

[Microprose Veteran]

Originally posted by Fruit Pie Jones@Jun 29 2005, 07:35 PM

Once again, I'd like to see some credentials. Have you any expertise in intelligence, or are you cutting and pasting all of your "information" straight from whackjob.com?

Oh no, conspiracies certainly exist in America. Conspiracy theories are even more prevalent. Common sense, on the other hand, is well on its way to extinction.

Fruit Pie Jones, the evidence/reports are on the internet if you just look for them. Like most people who claim to be sceptics, you may just be lazy and expect me to do your research.

However, I will give just a few pointers. And please, stop calling me whack-job or nutcase since we're at least pretending to be in a civil debate, okay? Also, I must ask you to stop questioning my integrity that I'm making stuff up. Calling people a (possible) liar does not work like on tv. Sensible, reasonable people will try to make up their own minds instead of instantly believing/suspecting someone is lying to them.

First, I've seen enough rigged demolitions of tall buildings on television to be at least visually familiar with them. I've also watched several documentaries on demo-jobs with demo-experts explaining that rigging a building with charges must be done in a well-planned and calculated way, else the building may not collapse on itself and it may damage nearby buildings. I don't know how many tons of TNT is needed to demolish any building. What I do know is they detonate the central support columns first, then (micro-seconds later) the other charges on the outsides of the building blow, causing the building to 'implode.'

For this reason alone, even a fully fueled airliner striking a tall building at random is unlikely to cause a perfect vertical 'implosion'-style collapse of the building. With buildings as tall as the WTC towers the expected picture would be that of an assymmetrical collapse, spreading debris over a wide area and causing extensive damage to nearby buildings.

Also, we were told that temperatures in the WTC buildings were so high, they caused the steel structure to melt. How come then, that survivors were able to stand in the holes in the WTC and wave to people on the ground and to helicopters, trying to be noticed and rescued? If temperatures were as high as the official story says, these people would have been burnt to death while they were standing there. Here are a few pics in case you blocked them out of your memory. Here.

FBI, CIA and NORAD general failure: days prior to 9/11, an FBI agent obtained evidence of the attacks to be carried out with hijacked airliners. Her report was ignored. If you remember her, she, together with other whistleblowers, was designated "Persons of the Year" by TIME magazine. The CIA did nothing to prevent 9/11: failure. If they had no indication of impending attacks, that's an even bigger failure. Remember that Bush had received security reports in the months before 9/11 titled: "Osama Bin Laden determined to strike in USA." If anyone remembers, those words were spoken by Condoleeza Rice (if you've seen "Fahrenheit 9/11" you will remember).

NORAD is responsible for keeping US airspace safe from enemy attacks by air. It was created during the Cold War era to detect enemy (Soviet) missile launches via its sattelites and to track enemy missiles and planes entering and flying in US airspace. Consequently, if they cannot detect airliners from being hijacked (in case of hijacking, pilots only need to press a button to alert ground control) and cannot even track 4 large 757-size airliners over their own (US) territory (for almost an hour), you must agree that NORAD failed big time on 9/11.

As a final note, I must compliment you, Fruit Pie Jones for your healthy scepticism of my previous posts. However, why do you swallow the official statements without the same amount of scepticism? The US government warrants little trust if you judge them from past to present.

The infamous Tonkin Gulf Incident that escalated the Vietnam War never happened. It was just a pretext to sell the war to the public.

First the US government denied having used pyrotechnic teargas grenades on the compound of the Branch Davidians in Waco. When photographic evidence of such grenades being used surfaced, Secretary Reno had to eat her previous words and admit that they had used these types of teargas grenades. Sparks from these grenades, together with the highly combustible tear gas (the compound was already saturated with gas before the grenades were fired into it) may have caused the massive fire that destroyed the compound.

There was no connection between "9/11" and Iraq. Yet for some reason Bush decided to invade Iraq anyway.

[PrejudiceSucks]

Because remember kids - if you read it on the internet it must be true.

[MadMarius]

`I've just started to read 1984 wich is totaly grat...
inspirating..."PEACE IS WAR"
"FREEDOM IS SLAVERY"
"IGNORANCE IS POWER!"
THAT is so true!
i realy enjoy reading that book because it is just so like me...sadic...lonely...between good and evil.. :w00t: