Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Pulsar_J

911

994 posts in this topic

true_dat_grasshopper_true_dat_tshirt-p235230193703190360b7e6t_400.jpg

Edit to add...

Write just about anything you want onto a T-Shirt, put that shirt on a hot chick, and snap a photo... This gives you a compelling argument. Well, something compelling anyway...

:blush:

(Imagine how embarrassing it would for me be if someone unearthed the full photo and found that it wasn't a chick at all...)

Edited by booNyzarC
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

true_dat_grasshopper_true_dat_tshirt-p235230193703190360b7e6t_400.jpg

Edit to add...

Write just about anything you want onto a T-Shirt, put that shirt on a hot chick, and snap a photo... This gives you a compelling argument. Well, something compelling anyway...

:blush:

(Imagine how embarrassing it would for me be if someone unearthed the full photo and found that it wasn't a chick at all...)

I replied just because of that t-shirt on the hot chic.Dude.

Edited by Sakari
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky

I cannot speak for Bone Collector, but my bet is that he is rolling on the floor laughing at your claim that you "handed him" the truth.

I know I am! :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky

I cannot speak for Bone Collector, but my bet is that he is rolling on the floor laughing at your claim that you "handed him" the truth.

I know I am! :w00t:

I have listed the truth, so what evidence do you have that refutes that list?

Go ahead, and post the evidence for all to see, otherwise, it will be clear that the truth has been listed and you cannot post evidence to the contrary, and you must know that if you don't provide evidence, then I will take that as an admission from you that the list is truthful and remind you from time to time of your blunder. :yes:

Remember, you were the person who threw in a P700 anti-ship cruise missile in the attack on the Pentagon and explosives for taking down the light poles, not to mention nukes taking down the WTC buildings. :lol:

Edited by skyeagle409
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Well , The truth at last heh,, But dare I ask , where did you glean your evidence ? who told you that what you have written is the truth who certified this to be a full and accurate picture of what occurred on that strange and fatefull day . please dont tell me that you accepted all you were told by non manipulated news channels or that you read the truth from obviously unbiased newspapers with no political agendas. or as i think you must be because of the way you are all so stowic in the defense of the truth as you see it members of a political party or some kind of national security bureau ??? probably not.

Im playing Devils Advocate here as you may have guessed I WANT TO KNOW WOT REALLY HAPPENED i know you have listed your facts but to be straight ive seen all of this before but it so seems like a bungled cover up i have seen more documentaries recently from people whom i wud deem credible with no vested interest or political agendas pointing more and more to a conspiracy theories than an organised terror attack, i eagerly await my slaughter.......

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Well , The truth at last heh,, But dare I ask , where did you glean your evidence ?

I glean the evidence, some with the help of my own experience in the field of aviation to know that 9/11 conspiracist were loose with the truth.

...who told you that what you have written is the truth who certified this to be a full and accurate picture of what occurred on that strange and fatefull day .

My own experience as a pilot, airframe supervisor, technician, and inspector for the Air Force and defense contractors, C-5 DCC, and living in the world of aviation for over 40 years to know when 9/11 conspiracist are trying to pull the wool over our eyes. They seem to think that the government could have pulled off the 9/11 attacks, but as I have said before, I think they have been watching too many Hollywood action movies.

...please dont tell me that you accepted all you were told by non manipulated news channels or that you read the truth from obviously unbiased newspapers with no political agendas. or as i think you must be because of the way you are all so stowic in the defense of the truth as you see it members of a political party or some kind of national security bureau ??? probably not.

American Airlines and United Airlines are not government agencies and yet, they've confirmed the loss of their aircraft, which were, American 11, American 77, United 93, and United 175, and I have produced a list of aircraft fleet histories to backup what I say. All you have to do is to produce evidence for all to see that refutes the official story, because anything short of that just won't cut it. :no:

...Im playing Devils Advocate here as you may have guessed I WANT TO KNOW WOT REALLY HAPPENED i know you have listed your facts but to be straight ive seen all of this before but it so seems like a bungled cover up...

You have to provide the evidence, otherwise, you might as well move on. No evidence, and you have no case. :no: The conspiracy theories that 9/11 conspiracist have brought to the table have been refuted by facts and real evidence and I have seen where some conspiracist have tried to manipulate data and other evidence as a means to deceive those who beg for the truth.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Guys ,hope your all well ,, im not , a little depressed really ,coming on here and reading everything i have since my last post.

Seems to me there are a lot of blinkered people on this site who really don't get wots goin on in the world tday. Here in the UK i would reckon if u spoke to most folks, average everyday people i mean, and asked there opinion on the publicised evidence shown about what occurred on 911 most would categorically agree that all we have been told is not the full truth and there really needs to be a massive totally independant review of ALL evidence.I mean in all honesty even if theres only a few thousand people that dont believe the official theory and theres probably more surely it would be beneficial if not even empowering to the people at the top to openly embrace an independant review but everytime this idea has been put fwd the official response is always a negative ,,, similar to a lot of you folk on here there are two camps at war on this thread when i thought it was gonna be more of a debating forum with each side throwing what bits of evidence they have into the melting pot and after all is mixed hopefully some clarity would of emerged for all of our benefits but it seems that people who believe in a CT idea are open to listen codgitate and digest what other people think whereas people who are happy with the official story given seem so stuck nay impossibly anal in accepting any other view at all and just poopoo all thats proposed against there theories leading me unfortunately to concurr that most are probably middle-class church going folk who still believe heavens in the clouds hell is underground and that Adam and Eve created us all and maybe any body with a slightly different viewpoint should be charged by the witch finder general and maybe burnt at the stake. So come on its not a witch hunt and should no way have slithered to the level when your all just one step away from name callin ,,, I WANT TRUTH!!! faeries wear boots an u better believe it.

If you believe that 9/11 was staged then,that must mean you believe 7/7 was too.Maybe you should give everyone your thoughts on the TWO interlinked events.

Edited by The Dead Rabbits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way i'm sorry if iv'e jumped in on peoples toes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Guys ,hope your all well ,, im not , a little depressed really ,coming on here and reading everything i have since my last post.

Seems to me there are a lot of blinkered people on this site who really don't get wots goin on in the world tday.

Oh yea?

Who, and what are "blinkered people"?

:w00t:

Here in the UK i would reckon if u spoke to most folks, average everyday people i mean, and asked there opinion on the publicised evidence shown about what occurred on 911 most would categorically agree that all we have been told is not the full truth and there really needs to be a massive totally independant review of ALL evidence

Let me see if I understand this... Speaking to the average, everyday UK citizen makes you think that there should be an independent review of all evidence in an American case, which affected Americans? Who would do this "independent review", other than those specialists and engineers and technicians who reviewed the firt set of concluded evidence? And what dfoes this have to do with what the average UK citizen thinks about it?

.I mean in all honesty even if theres only a few thousand people that dont believe the official theory and theres probably more surely it would be beneficial if not even empowering to the people at the top to openly embrace an independant review but everytime this idea has been put fwd the official response is always a negative ,,, similar to a lot of you folk on here there are two camps at war on this thread when i thought it was gonna be more of a debating forum with each side throwing what bits of evidence they have into the melting pot and after all is mixed hopefully some clarity would of emerged for all of our benefits but it seems that people who believe in a CT idea are open to listen codgitate and digest what other people think whereas people who are happy with the official story given seem so stuck nay impossibly anal in accepting any other view at all and just poopoo all thats proposed against there theories leading me unfortunately to concurr that most are probably middle-class church going folk who still believe heavens in the clouds hell is underground and that Adam and Eve created us all and maybe any body with a slightly different viewpoint should be charged by the witch finder general and maybe burnt at the stake. So come on its not a witch hunt and should no way have slithered to the level when your all just one step away from name callin ,,, I WANT TRUTH!!! faeries wear boots an u better believe it.

I mean, in all honesty, there's probably a few thousand Americans who don't believe what the official investigation discovered. This is mostly because they don't have the appropriate knowledge to understand, and because their intellectual laziness contributes to their attitude.

It's the same as people who don't believe we landed on the Moon. No real difference in the people who hold to these various CT ideas. They're both American events, both adequately and completely understood.

You want truth?

You need it? Who needs it? And, for what?

Just curious. Based upon what you've said, you should have little interest. If you do, you can ask right here and we'll provide you with what you need to know.

:tu::tsu::tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Reason i show interest being from the UK is not only the fact that it wasnt all americans who died in the WTC there were a fair proportion of folks from the UK. And unless u havnt noticed our troops are shoulder to shoulder with your guys being killed in a phoney oil based war in a foreign country So yea it does affect us over the pond and there is a massive interest in the uk for the simple reason that any mistake America makes affects us to,,I don't stand for any side in this debate im simply asking questions searching for answers so i can make my own opinion this includes listening open mindedly to both sides of the coin but like i say theres a lot of blinkered people who dont wanna debate all scenarios there right black is black an white is white and whoever disagrees is of a lesser brain capacity or a raving nut go back through history my friend and you will find so many incidents deemed true back then that in present day have been proven to be preposterous ,,, back to 911 for a sec theres one thing more id like to ask ;; Just before the towers fell there was another building something to do with the CIA if im correct that just collapsed to the ground cud you tell me what happened there please ?? :-*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same people who wanted the towers to come down wanted WTC 7 to come down. Most likely, destruction of all sorts of financial records evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The same people who wanted the towers to come down wanted WTC 7 to come down. Most likely, destruction of all sorts of financial records evidence.

Got it all wrong again.

September-11th-debris-cliff1066-537x322.jpg

Guantanamo hearings set to begin in 9/11 case after months of delays

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, one of five men accused of orchestrating the 2001 terror attacks that killed 2,976 people in the U.S., will be back in court after several delays. With him will be four other confessed al-Qaida co-conspirators, including Mohammed’s Pakistani nephew, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mustafa Al Hawsawi, a Saudi and Walid Bin Attash and Ramzi Binalshibh, two men from Yemen.

http://usnews.nbcnew...=worldnews

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Reason i show interest being from the UK is not only the fact that it wasnt all americans who died in the WTC there were a fair proportion of folks from the UK.

There were a number of deaths from other countries as well. I might add the UK was one of a number of countries around the world warning of an impeding attack on America.

The United Kingdom is warned three times of an imminent al Qaeda attack in the United States

August 2001 – The United Kingdom is warned three times of an imminent al Qaeda attack in the United States, the third specifying multiple airplane hijackings. According to the Sunday Herald, the report is passed on to President Bush a short time later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't stand for any side in this debate im simply asking questions searching for answers so i can make my own opinion

A little sentence structure would go a long way in trying to get your point across.

You really have not asked any questions at all. If you would like to ask questions, then I am sure there are some of us here who would like to assist you in finding the answers.

this includes listening open mindedly to both sides of the coin but like i say theres a lot of blinkered people who dont wanna debate all scenarios there right black is black an white is white and whoever disagrees is of a lesser brain capacity or a raving nut

Yes, there are people who do not want to start a debate about the subject. FOr all we know there are a few already on this site posting in the same topic such as this one. In fact, there are a few posters who would handwave any form of evidence that supports the Official Narritive as government planted evidence then later on claim victory that the official narritive has no evidence to back it up.

Is that an honest way of debating? No it isn't. To throw away any evidence that supports any one theory, one must be able to prove that the evidence shouldn't be considered at all. Which so far has yet to happen to any OCT evidence.

go back through history my friend and you will find so many incidents deemed true back then that in present day have been proven to be preposterous

You cannot use the "it happened once before so it has or more than likely happened again" as any sort of argument against the OCT.

In fact, it would be considered a cop-out of having to present any evidence that supports the government conspiracy theory.

,,, back to 911 for a sec theres one thing more id like to ask ;; Just before the towers fell there was another building something to do with the CIA if im correct that just collapsed to the ground cud you tell me what happened there please ?? :-*

If you are talking about building 7, it did not fall before the twin towers. As a matter of fact, it fell several hours later. Due to fire and damage from falling debris causing havoc on building 7's uniquie structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it honest debating to claim that the high temps, vaporized bodies and molten metal mean nothing at all?

Is it honest debating to claim that the statements of people at Shanksville who could not see any wreckage of a Boeing should be disregarded in favor of an "amended" statement by but one of the group?

Is it honest debating to call ordinary citizens liars regarding such details as thermite residue in the dust, yet to accept at face value and full faith the statements of government employees with an agenda?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you believe that 9/11 was staged then,that must mean you believe 7/7 was too.Maybe you should give everyone your thoughts on the TWO interlinked events.

First off, love the name as I just re watched the Gangs Of New York recently.

Secondly, 7/7 is far more obvious as a false flag to drum up support for Tony Blair's war (which was facing massive protests at the time). At the exact time the bombs went off there were counter terrorists in the London underground "coincidentally" as there had been no information indicating a terrorist attack would happen in the UK. There is a news interview with a high level police/counter terrorist who said that the counter terrorist squad were preparing for a terrorist attack in the exact same stations at the exact time the bombs were set off.

If you want to believe that out of all the times a terrorist could attack, it would occur at the exact same time as a counter terrorist exercise in the exact stations that were bombed, that is your right. I will believe what i see is the most likely truth.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it honest debating to claim that the high temps, vaporized bodies and molten metal mean nothing at all?

Is it honest debating to claim that the statements of people at Shanksville who could not see any wreckage of a Boeing should be disregarded in favor of an "amended" statement by but one of the group?

Is it honest debating to call ordinary citizens liars regarding such details as thermite residue in the dust, yet to accept at face value and full faith the statements of government employees with an agenda?

Is it honest debating to make claims about what you believe happened, and then continually refuse to provide any form of verifiable evidence to support your claims?

Is it honest debating to lie about your level of skill with a computer in an effort to dance away from your burden of proof obligation, and then demand that people provide evidence to refute your position?

Is it honest debating to handwave away any and all evidence with the only reason being the logical fallacy that "the government has lied before, therefore they are lying about 9/11" as your only reason why the evidence that constantly refutes your unsupported position should be ignored?

Is it honest debating to make appeals to "common sense" and then to continually show that you have none?

Is it honest debating to claim to be here for honest, intelligent debate / conversation and then prove that you have no concept of what an honest debate actually is and have shown that you have little to no intellectual honesty whatsoever?

Cz

Edited by Czero 101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Secondly, 7/7 is far more obvious as a false flag to drum up support for Tony Blair's war (which was facing massive protests at the time). At the exact time the bombs went off there were counter terrorists in the London underground "coincidentally" as there had been no informationindicating a terrorist attack would happen in the UK. There is a news interview with a high level police/counter terrorist who said that the counter terrorist squad were preparing for a terrorist attack in the exact same stations at the exact time the bombs were set off.

If you want to believe that out of all the times a terrorist could attack, it would occur at the exact same time as a counter terrorist exercise in the exact stations that were bombed, that is your right. I will believe what i see is the most likely truth.

But your link states that the execises were carried out on July 1st and 2nd, five days before the attack.

It also states that the exercises were carried out at the Waterloo, Embankment and St James's Park Underground stations.

The attacks occured after the trains had left the King's Cross-St. Pancras station.

Hardly the exact same time at the exact stations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But your link states that the execises were carried out on July 1st and 2nd, five days before the attack.

It also states that the exercises were carried out at the Waterloo, Embankment and St James's Park Underground stations.

The attacks occured after the trains had left the King's Cross-St. Pancras station.

Hardly the exact same time at the exact stations.

That link was to show that there was NO TERRORIST THREATS leading up to the bombings and that the counter terrorists were "by coincidence" training to respond to bomb threats.

I cannot find the interview right now, but no doubt it'll be on a youtube video somewhere. Most likely this one but i dont have time to check right now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it honest debating to claim that the high temps, vaporized bodies and molten metal mean nothing at all?

BR, we have already discussed those topics.

You claim you want to have an honest debate, yet dare I say, will not produce any evidence, photos, and video that proves your theories.

High temperatures - you have yet to show any reasoning yet even better, any evidence that the high temperatures were caused by thermite.

Vaporized bodies - the word vaporized was used out of context. Vaporized is the transition phase when liquid turns to gas. When used in the case of 9/11, it was used to describe the condition of a human body during the collapse and what happens when it burns to nothing. (again, you used words out of context).

Molten metal - of course there was molten metal, you still need to show proof of molten steel (which so far you have not).

Is it honest debating to claim that the statements of people at Shanksville who could not see any wreckage of a Boeing should be disregarded in favor of an "amended" statement by but one of the group?

Nobody disregarded those statements. We merely gave you an alternate meaning to what they were trying to say. Yet again another case where YOU have taken statements out of context. (see a growing trend here?)

Is it honest debating to call ordinary citizens liars regarding such details as thermite residue in the dust, yet to accept at face value and full faith the statements of government employees with an agenda?

I asked you for one thing BR. To show me where on Steven Jone's paper that shows the amount of Aluminum Oxide consistant with the amount of thermite needed to bring down those towers.

Either you have completely ignored me, or again you are dishonestly continuing on with this little charade of yours.

Go ask your hero Steven Jones why he intentionally left out the measurement of Aluminum Oxide from his report then get back to me when you have an answer ok?

Till then, you can quit playing your little game on who's having an honest debate and who isn't.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it honest debating to claim that the high temps,...

That is in direct conflict of what you said in the past, and since you seem to have forgotten, may I add this as a reminder of what you have said?

Babe Ruth, on 17 September 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

Kevin Ryan and others pointed out early on that the temps were too low. That's why he was fired--exposing the lie early on. This is common knowledge in some circles, but is denied in other circles. I'm going with Kevin Ryan and the others who analyzed the fires visible with the appropriate sensors. Way too low, and way too short of duration to weaken steel.

In one post, you said the temperatures were high, and in another post, you said the temperatures were too low.

Is it honest debating to claim that the statements of people at Shanksville who could not see any wreckage of a Boeing should be disregarded in favor of an "amended" statement by but one of the group?

Any pilot should have known why an intact fuselage was not going to be found at the crash site of United 93. Here is a hint concerning another crash site, and remember, I asked you to identify a Tu-154 at this crash site.

art.iran.crater.afp.gi.jpg

In case you do not know what a Tu-154 looks like, here is a photo.

800px-Caspian_Airlines_Tupolev_Tu-154_KvW.jpg

Now, see if you can identify the fuselage of a Tu-154 at the crash site. If you are unable to identify the fuselage of a Tu-154, then you will know why no one reported finding an intact fuselage of a B-757 at the crash site of United 93.

Considering they confirmed the crash site near Shanksville as that of United 93, what more is there to say?! As a reminder, United Airlines confirmed the loss of United 93 as well, not to mention photos of wreckage of United 93 at the crash site, and that bodies from United 93 have been identified, but the fact of the matter is, you knew it all along. :yes: .

Is it honest debating to call ordinary citizens liars regarding such details as thermite residue in the dust,...

Let's just say they were mistaken since ordinary citizens wouldn't know what thermite looks like anyway.

yet to accept at face value and full faith the statements of government employees with an agenda?

Do you consider that American Airlines and United Airlines government agenies? After all, those airlines confirmed the loss of American 11, American 77, United 93, and United 175.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Reason i show interest being from the UK is not only the fact that it wasnt all americans who died in the WTC there were a fair proportion of folks from the UK.

Yes, you're right. 67 British died at the WTC towers in NYC. That was 2% of the total people killed there. I knew that.

And unless u havnt noticed our troops are shoulder to shoulder with your guys being killed in a phoney oil based war in a foreign country

Uh huh. You show me one of our boys and girls, or one of the British soldiers who've voluntarily joined the fray if they're being killed and killing in a PHONEY OIL BASED WAR.

I suggest you don't say that stuff to them. You might not be healthy enough to post after they react to the insult on their intelligence,

So yea it does affect us over the pond and there is a massive interest in the uk for the simple reason that any mistake America makes affects us to,,I don't stand for any side in this debate im simply asking questions searching for answers so i can make my own opinion this includes listening open mindedly to both sides of the coin but like i say theres a lot of blinkered people who dont wanna debate all scenarios there right black is black an white is white and whoever disagrees is of a lesser brain capacity or a raving nut go back through history my friend and you will find so many incidents deemed true back then that in present day have been proven to be preposterous ,,, back to 911 for a sec theres one thing more id like to ask ;; Just before the towers fell there was another building something to do with the CIA if im correct that just collapsed to the ground cud you tell me what happened there please ?? :-*

I can tell you what happened!

What "mistake" are you referring to that you need any answers to??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Secondly, 7/7 is far more obvious as a false flag to drum up support for Tony Blair's war (which was facing massive protests at the time). At the exact time the bombs went off there were counter terrorists in the London underground "coincidentally" as there had been no informationindicating a terrorist attack would happen in the UK. There is a news interview with a high level police/counter terrorist who said that the counter terrorist squad were preparing for a terrorist attack in the exact same stations at the exact time the bombs were set off.

If you want to believe that out of all the times a terrorist could attack, it would occur at the exact same time as a counter terrorist exercise in the exact stations that were bombed, that is your right. I will believe what i see is the most likely truth.

By the way, your video was the right one. Thanks for clarifying.

It was by watching it and remembering what you had previously written (bolded above) that I deduced that it was the Peter Power interview.

Except Mr. Power, since 1995 has been working with Visor Consultants. Apparently, he used to work for Scotland Yard sometime before that (but in what capacity I don't know yet). I find it odd that he doesn't relate his police experience on his company website though.

http://www.visorconsultants.com/businesscontinuityteam.htm

You'll notice that Visor Consultants specializes in "crisis, risk & business continuity management" which "helps organisations to plan and deliver highly successful scenario based exercises as well as workshops, leadership courses and motivation sessions."

I picture a bunch of guys in a room watching "what if videos" and then talking about how they should react to it.

Not what comes to my mind after you describe him as a "high level police/counter terrorist" who runs a "counter terrorist squad".

If you care to respond, might I suggest we carry this on in an appropriate thread to avoid having a ten way conversation going on. I'm off to see if there's a separate 7/7 thread that already exists so that these folks can stay on the 9/11 topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That link was to show that there was NO TERRORIST THREATS leading up to the bombings and that the counter terrorists were "by coincidence" training to respond to bomb threats.

I cannot find the interview right now, but no doubt it'll be on a youtube video somewhere. Most likely this one but i dont have time to check right now

[media=]

[/media]

From reading this, I should assume that what you wrote previously was written in a sarcastic tone/toungue in cheek sort of way? Either what you wrote wasn't very clear, or I'm just being dense. If you don't believe in this particular conspiracy then I apologize for my half of the misunderstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Americans should investigate the reason why 911 happened and why the US continues to march to war.

Numerous points covered in this discussion were inciseful and will probably produce another 100 pages of responses about the technicalities concerning the WTC collapses, the Pentagon strike, and the Shankville crater.

But they all miss a vital point, what was the true motive behind 911 and who would profit most?

Why did Al-Qaeda attack the USA and in doing so start a never-ending war with the West? If Al-Qaeda planned to create a global caliphate why stir the Beast? If for recruitment then perhaps the tactic backfired since several millions Muslim deaths across the Middle East and Central Asia in the past 10 years are a direct result of our war on islamic 'terrorism', and this certainly can not be good recruitment for the global caliphate. And even Osama Bin Laden is now a "martyer" and buried at sea as reported by the Media. It seemed that the Muslims extremists and their allies had nothing to gain and everything to lose by striking at the West.

But there were others that stood to gain. In the mid-1990's a group of neo-cons warmongers formed the Project for the New American Century, members included Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, William Kristol, and Robert Kagan, many of these individuals were former officials in both the Reagan and Bush Sr./Jr. administrations, they formulated a foreign policy initiative that appears to have become official US policy.

( http://www.newamericancentury.org/ )

From Wikipedia:

PNAC STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES:

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's pre-eminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

In response to these questions, the PNAC states its aim to "remind America" of "lessons" learned from American history, drawing the following "four consequences" for America in 1997:

  • we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

  • we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

  • we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad; [and]

  • we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

...

THE "New Pearl Harbor"

Section V of
Rebuilding America's Defenses
, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51).

Though not arguing that Bush administration PNAC members were complicit in those attacks, other social critics such as commentator
and journalist
,
investigative journalist
, in
,
and former editor of
, in
,
all argue that PNAC members used the events of 9/11 as the "Pearl Harbor" that they needed––that is, as an "opportunity" to "capitalize on" (in Pilger's words), in order to enact long-desired plans.

source: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century )

These neo-cons envisioned an American empire that no nation on earth could challenge, a true PAX AMERICANA.

General Wesley Clark revealed their plans in an interview he made 2007.

There are many great Americans who question the '911 Truth'.

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

http://www.militaryofficersfor911truth.org/

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.