Originally posted by ogvh5150
If you can read through the whole thread never is there any objective reasoning or rhetoric coming from a few trolls. It's the going back and forth with them that swells the thread and gives it credence when those trolls could choose to ignore the thread.
But they don't. Don't get me started on any policing of them. I appealed a few times to no avail. But there are others that I did have disagreements with and didn't feel bothered. It's the ones with the ad hominem and character assassinations that get away with their BS.
But let's be back on topic cause they're gonna wet their panties now that Khalid Sheik Mohamed "confessed".
If tortured some more, he would confess that he is Santa Claus or that he killed OJ Simpsons' ex-wife and friend.
They tortured this guy to no end, check out what these whack jobs want us to believe.
1. 1993 WTC operation
2. 9/11 operation from A-Z
3. ...
4. Shoe bomber operation to down american airplanes
5. Filka Islands operation in Kuwait
6. Bombing nightclub in Bali
7. For planing new or second wave attacks against skyscrapers after 9/11.
Library tower
Sears towers
Plaza Bank
Empire state building
8. Planning operation to destroy American millitary vessel and oil tankers in the Straights of Hormuz, Gibraltar and Port of Singapore.
9. Planing bomb and destroy the Panama Canal.
10 Surveying and financing for the assassination of several former presedents, including carter
11 Planning bombing bridges in NY
12 I was resposible for planning to destroy Sears towers by burning a few fuel or oil tanker trucks beneath it or around it.
13 Planning, s. and f. to destroy Heathrow airport, the Canary building and Big Ben.
14 Planning to destroy many night clubs on Thailands soil
15 Resposible for surveying and financing destruction of the NY Stock Exchangeand other targets.
16 Responsible for planning destruction of building in the Israel city of Elat by using airplanes leaving from Saudi
17 Planning destruction of American embassies in Indonesia Australia and Japan
18 For surveying destruction of Israeli embassy in India, Azerbaijan, the Philippines and Australia.
19 surveying destruction of an Israeli EL AL Airplanes flight on Thailand soil
20 Several Mujahadeen into Israel
21 Bombing hotel in Mombasa
22 Launching russian made SA 7 missile on EL AL airliner departing from Mombasa
23 planning to hit American targets in South Korea
24 Planning to hit targets in Turkey
25 for surveillance to hit nuclear power plants in several US states
26 Planning to hit NATO headquarters
27 Bojinka Operation
28 for assassination attempt against Clinton during his visit in Philippines 1994
29 for (shared responible) assassination attemt against Pope john Paul the second
30 for training and financing the assassination of Pakistans President Musharaf
31 for attemt to destroy an American oil company owned by former secretary of state Henry Kissinger
well thats a completely different question if you ask me.
No that question still confirms that government involvement means inside job. Who gives a what type of bombs where used to bring down the towers, point is it was not in no way Bin Laden and the 19 hijackers bull fairytale.
culorut
Keeps getting better and better, no one seems to be falling for the BS anymore.
metalgearsolid
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
oh, and you havent answered my question regarding how exactly the US government is making a profit from the wars?
this is what im talking about- if you make such a statement you need to back it up with something called evidence, or sometimes logic. thats what a reasoned argument consists of.
otherwise youre just spurting bull.
Look, i wasn't going to answer your ing question. You stupid c unt. You need to ing realize that a war is a racket. Meant to enrichen the corporations involved in war. Defense contractors have an annual 30% profit a yr for being involved in a war. That is really profitable. and another thing pkc. please don't respond to this.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by culorut
No that question still confirms that government involvement means inside job. Who gives a what type of bombs where used to bring down the towers, point is it was not in no way Bin Laden and the 19 hijackers bull fairytale.
actually, theyre two separate arguments.
one involves complicity & perhaps aiding and abetting the terrorists, the other is concerned with actively instigating the attacks. i am only really interested in the latter, as most of the "911 truth movement" et al focus on explosives in the buildings, and similar accusations. this is where my interest was piqued.
saying that the government let the attacks happen is an entirely different discussion, and (in my opinion) a whole LOT more plausible.
im interested to know though, why has bin laden accepted responsibility for the attacks if he wasnt actually behind them?
culorut
Two separate arguments which in either way show that the government should be held responsible for their actions or lack there of. Failure on 9/11 warranted rewards and promotions to those who should be held accountable at the highest level, Cheney is at the top of this list.
Bin Laden is exactly what KSM is, a patsie. Setup to take the hit and as we have seen make the perfect enemy, they are both in bed with the CIA and following orders.
No torture needed.
culorut
Another biggie today, this one should get some definite attention from the mass media although I feel she is going to get bashed just like Charlie Sheen did.
Useful informations i've found
can take the facts back.
Blatant Facts
Caught in the act: a revealing image, a stunning fact or an outstanding statement.
20 February 2007
From
Washington
quote:
Brzezinski confirms that the United States can organise attacks in their own territory
With the exception of Washington Note and Financial Times, the mainstream media decided not to report Zbigniew Brzezinski’s comments that shatter the United Stator ruling class. Auditioned on February 1st, 2007 by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the former National Security Adviser read a statement the terms of which had been carefully chosen.
He indicated that : " a plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan".
As you must have noticed: Mr Brzezinski evoked the Bush administration plausible organization of an attack in the United States, and the possibility of holding Iran wrongly responsible for it.
In Washington the analysts hesitate between two interpretations of this statement. For certain officials, the former National Security Adviser tried to beat the neoconservatives to it and to cast doubt in advance on any circumstance which would lead to the war. For others, Mr Brzezinski wanted, in addition, to suggest that in case of collision with the war partisans, he could reopen the September 11th file. In any case, Thierry Meyssan’s hypothesis - According to which the September 11th attacks would have been perpetrated by a Military-Industrial Complex faction to provoke the Afghanistan and Iraq wars - Leaves suddenly the taboo domain to be discussed publicly by Washington elites.
The Yugoslav Caldron
Jürgen Elsässer: “The CIA recruited and trained the jihadists”
by Silvia Cattori*
14 August 2006
In his latest book, “How the Jihad Came to Europe”, German journalist Jürgen Elsässer unravels the Jihadist thread. Muslim fighters recruited by the CIA to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan were used successively in Yugoslavia and Chechnya, still supported by the CIA, but perhaps sometimes out of its control. Basing himself on diverse sources, mainly Yugoslavian, Dutch, and German, he reconstructed the development of Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants at the side of NATO in Bosnia-Herzegovinia.
The Pentagon magic plane, part 2
by Pierre-Henri Bunel*
19 May 2006
From
Paris (France)
Videos released on may, 16th 2006 by the United States Department of Defense
At the request of the neo-conservative association Judicial Watch, the US Department of Defence released the full version of the September 11th, 2001 attacks on Pentagon. The neo-conservative press is delighted at this broadcasting, which supposedly contradicts conclusively our analyses. In fact, the video does not contain any additional element in comparison with the images already broadcast in 2002, and where it is still impossible to see a Boeing 757-200. This sequence confirms, on the contrary, the analysis of the former artillery officer Pierre - Henri Bunel published by Thierry Meyssan in his book Pentagate, and that we reprint here today.
The Effects Of A Hollow Charge,
4th chapter of book Pentagate
What is the nature of the explosion that took place at the Pentagon on 11 September 2001? An an’alysis of the video pictures of the impact and the photographs of the damages permits one to know by what type of device the attack was caused. Did the explosion correspond with that produced by an airplane’s kerosene or that of a real explosive? Did the fire correspond with a hydrocarbon fire or with a classic blaze?
Deflagration or detonation?
As a preamble, it seems indispensable to make clear to the reader an essential distinction: the difference between a deflagration and a detonation.
The combustion of explosive chemical materials - powders, explosives or hydrocarbons, for example - release energy by producing a shock wave. The diffusion at high speeds of the enormous quantity of gas produced by the chemical reaction is accompanied by flame, by a noise caused by the displacement of the shockwave through the air, and by smoke. One also often observes, even before seeing the flame, a cloud of vapor due to the compression of the air surrounding the zone of the explosion. The air can’t be set into motion immediately, so it compresses under the influence of the shockwave. At first, under the compression of the air molecules, the invisible water vapor that the atmosphere always contains in greater or lesser quantities compresses and becomes visible as a white cloud.
What I would like to underline here is the notion of the shockwave. An explosion is a reaction that projects gas at a greater or lesser speeds. Explosive materials, according to their chemical composition and the physical arrangement of their molecules, impart upon the gases they generate a greater or lesser speed of propagation. One says that they are more or less progressive. The observation of the shockwave is thus a precious indication of the speed of the gases projected by the explosion.
Explosive materials are divided into two groups, according to their progressiveness. Explosives produce a shockwave whose speed of propagation is superior to a value of about six thousand feet per second. One says that they "detonate". Explosive materials whose shockwave speed is lower than that do not detonate. They deflagrate. This is the case, for example, of gunpowder or hydrocarbons.
In an internal combustion engine - and the turbojet of a Boeing 757 is a continuous internal combustion engine - the fuel under pressure deflagrates and does not detonate. If it detonated, the engine’s structure would not withstand it. The kerosene of an airliner that crashes ignites and does not generally produce even deflagration, except in certain circumstances and at points limited to the engines. In the recent case of the Airbus that fell on a Queens neighborhood in New York in November 2001, the engines did not explode upon arriving at the ground. Kerosene is a heavy oil analogous to diesel fuel, tri-filtrated in order to satisfy the physical conditions of passage through the fuel injectors of jet engines. It is in no sense an explosive.
The color of explosions as also fairly remarkable. In detonations, the shockwave displaces itself rapidly. If the explosion occurs in the air without obstacles, the flame is often pale yellow at the point of the explosion. As it moves away from ground zero it turns orange then red. When it encounters obstacles, such as the walls of a building, one practically doesn’t see the pale yellow part. The duration of illumination by this color is brief. The form of the flame gives an impression of "rigidity" because of the speed of propagation. It is only when the dust lifted by the shockwave starts to bum due to the brutal rise in temperature that smoke appears. This is fire smoke that has little resemblance to the black, heavy coils given off by hydrocarbon fires.
But solid explosives are not simply chemical combinations. One can improve their effectiveness by playing with their physical forms. In principle, the shockwave propagates perpendicularly to the surface undergoing reaction. By working the shapes of the explosive charges one can orient the shockwave in such a fashion as to send a maximum of energy in a given direction, like directing the light of a lighthouse with a reflector. We thus find spherical charges whose shockwaves go in all directions; cylindrical charges like those that equip shrapnel shells, those weapons that burst into minuscule pieces of steel the size of a tab of chocolate and spray the battlefield; t1at charges, that allow making holes in plane obstacles with a minimum of energy lost in useless directions; but also hollow charges. These latter concentrate the principal shockwave in the shape of a high-temperature jet bearing a quantity of energy capable of piercing armor made of steel, composites or concrete.
Statement by Thierry Meyssan“ New DoD’s Videos confirm clearly that no Boeing hit the Pentagon on 9/11 ” 19 May 2006 From
Paris (France)
On May 16th, 2006, the US Department of Defence released two videos recorded by security cameras and supposed to prove that a plane crashed on the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001. The passing on of these documents - that were already broadcast in static images shape on March 8th, 2002 - to the media took place about five years after the September 11th events. In a statement made in Paris, Thierry Meyssan considers this measure as an attempt to forestall the controversy about the attacks, which swells nowadays in the United States. The ”The Big Lie” and “Pentagate” author is very glad about the broadcasting of these videos and invites each one of us to notice for ourself that no sign of a Boeing 757-200 can be seen on the images.Statement by Thierry Meyssan
“ Several opinion polls show that today more than half of New Yorkers, more than a third of the German population and more than four Arabs and Latin-American out of five reject the “ world islamic conspiracy ” theory and believe the government of the United States is involved, at least passively, in the organization of the September 11th, 2001 attacks.
This point of view needs to spread. In November 2005, the Voltaire Network organized an international conference, Axis for Peace, widely broadcast by independent television channels in Latin America, the Arab world and the Russian-speaking world. Many personalities attending it denounced the direct responsibility of U.S. power in the organization of the attacks. In the United States, billionaire activist Jimmy Walter handed out 200.000 DVDs debunking the official story and several hundred websites were devoted to the subject. Besides, he offered - in vain – 1 million dollars to anybody who would scientifically explain the World Trade Center collapse. And the latest developments: in the last days, Iranian president Ahmadinejad has expressed his skepticism in an open letter to president Bush while the Venezuelan parliament is about to open an investigative commission on the events.
It is in such a context, the United States’ Department of Defense has released the complete footage of the video recorded by the Pentagon’s parking lot security cameras. This footage does not bring any new evidence compared to the previously published frames that were extracted from it. Everyone can see for himself that no Boeing 757-200 crashed on the Pentagon. As I explained in The Pentagate, and is confirmed by this video, the attack was perpetrated using a very small size, single-engine aircraft. It didn’t crash onto the building, but punched a hole through it and provoked a short and violent explosion. All those elements point towards a missile and absolutely not a commercial airliner.
It is everyone’s duty to shed the light on those attacks in which name many constitutional rights were suspended by the Patriot Act, an anti-democratic regime was established, and the conquest of the Middle-East oil fields was launched.”
