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
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,457 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Trillion $ in Afgan mineral deposits disagrees. Just because it didn't work for you, like it didn't for the Soviets, doesn't mean it wasn't an objective for either at some point

Edited by SolarPlexus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus Sky you sound like FOX... Those terror cells were educated, trained, armed by CIA.

False!

The CIA supported the Afghan Mujahideen, not the Afghan Arabs. Osama bin Laden belong to the Afghan Arabs, the group which consisted of foreigners and supported by bin Laden and Pakistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trillion $ in Afgan mineral reserves disagrees. Just because it didn't work for you, like it didn't for the Soviets, doesn't mean it wasn't an objective for either at some point

The United States didn't go to Afghanistan for the purpose of oil, I guess you forgot that we warned the Taliban to turn over bin Laden or else. They refused and the rest is history. Had they turned over bin Laden, the United States would not have gone to Afghanistan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh okay..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I love you too :) Here's a nice, layman-friendly video that covers typical indicators of controlled demolitions like flashes, horizontal ejections, squibs etc. - all present on 9/11.

There are all kinds of problems with your video and since you miss this, I guess I have to post it again.

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse

of the World Trade Center Buildings

Disprove Explosives Theory

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings." They could see that the exterior steel beams of the buildings were bowing. You can see the inward bowing of the steel columns in pictures of both WTC 2, (the first building to collapse) and WTC 1 (the second building to collapse.)

Buckling Steel

Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster, said, "While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled." "The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder. If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse." - Latest Findings From NIST World Trade Center Investigation Released

"According to Shyam Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towersopposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam Sunder said."

"Engineers believe the bowing of the exterior steel beams near the flame-engulfed floors was the critical "triggering point" because that's the direction each tower tiltedas it came crashing down."

"The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns."

Key findings include:

  • Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings.
  • Even though the jet fuel on the planes burned off in the first few minutes after impact, there was enough office furniture to sustain intense fires for at least an hour.
  • The original builders of the twin towers and those who later renovated the structures did not have a clear technical standard for deciding on how much insulation to use around the structural beams, many of which gave way in the intense heat.

Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

Bearing walls and Open floor design

When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors.

The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

In regards to "no evidence of explosives on the steel, if there were, then there would have been evidence of detonation cords and blasting caps. None were found.

building-implosion-20.jpg

Columns are fully loaded with explosives and hooked

building-implosion-19.jpg

Blasting caps are used as a catalyst to set off the explosives loaded in support columns.

Steel without thermal protection can fail extremely quickly in a fire:

"One of the most common structures today is the strip mall built with steel bar joists and metal deck roofs. A serious fire in one of these structures should be expected to produce roof collapse in as little as 5 to 10 minutes." Firehouse.com Sept. 1998

079-full.jpg

EFFECT OF SUPPORT CONDITIONS ON STEEL

BEAMS EXPOSED OF FIRE

Department of Civil Engineering

University of Canterbury

Christchurch, New Zealand

1. Introduction

1.1 General

Structural steel has been widely used throughout the world. It is one of a designer’s best

options in view of its advantages over other materials. Steel is available in a range of discrete

size, and its ductile behaviour allows plastic deformation upon yielding, therefore avoiding

brittle failures.

In reinforced concrete structures, steel enhances the concrete strength by

carrying the tensile forces. It is also commonly used to reinforce timber constructions.

In spite of its advantages, steel on its own is vulnerable in fire.

Elevated temperatures in the steel cause reduction in its strength and stiffness which eventually leads to failure due to

excessive deformations. This is crucial in steel in compared with concrete or timber members

as steel conducts heat very well and often comes in thin or slender elements.

2.4.2 Steel design at elevated temperature

There are a few modifications to be considered when designing structures for fire conditions

although the concepts are similar to those for the ambient condition. Most of the material

properties change with temperature, the strength is reduced upon heating and thermal

expansion may induce internal forces that lead to structural failure with various mechanisms

depending on the type of supports, connections and structural arrangements.

Instability failure also needs to be considered even though the structure still has adequate

strength. The applied loads for fire design are less due to very low probability of the event

occurring when the structure is fully loaded at its maximum capacity, therefore a smaller

safety factor is acceptable.

The actual load at a given time as a proportion of the load that would cause collapse of the

structure is often referred to as the load ratio. Most constructions have a load ratio of 0.5 or

less. Smaller load ratio means greater fire resistance as the reduction of strength of any

member will not necessarily cause collapse of the structure.

Failure mechanisms

The failure of a beam is reached when its strength is exceeded at one or more particular points

termed plastic hinges, depending on they way it is supported. Figure 2.13 is the illustration by

Buchanan (2000), showing the bending moment, deflected shape and the failure mechanism

for different end conditions.

The development of plastic hinges shows ductile behaviour as energy is dissipated

http://www.civil.can...ts/JSepturo.pdf

In WTC Building 5, this large column and beam buckled on floor 8 of 9.

The fire was fueled by office materials only.

076-full.jpg

Nothing there to suggest that explosives brought down the WTC buildings. What we do have is evidence that fire, not explosives, brought down the WTC buildings.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sigh okay..

What OK?

You are posting reams of conspiracy gunk, but you have not confirmed a few very simple Yes/No questions.

To jog your memory, here again:

-> Was the first attack on the WTC in 1993 a "false flag"? Yes/No

-> Was the USS Cole bombing a "false flag"? Yes/No

-> Were the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Daressalam "false flags"? Yes/No

I am waiting.

Edited by Zaphod222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Impact alone could not have brought it down, and nor could have impact+fires but okay the floor is yours :) 9/11 continues to be one big insult to the IQ of Americans. But hey, after JFK....

EDIT: Zaphod while you're waiting (for Godot) might be a good idea to consider anger management. Ta-ta

Edited by SolarPlexus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

EDIT: Zaphod while you're waiting (for Godot) might be a good idea to consider anger management. Ta-ta

No anger management needed. Why can´t you answer the simple question? I am still waiting.

NB: This thread is called "911 inside job -- for what?"

It is not called "conspiracy theory details".

Your postings with reams of conspiracy details are off-topic in this thread.

An explanation from you as to FOR WHAT you think this giant conspiracy was concocted is relevant.

Answering my questions is a good start.

Thank you.

Edited by Zaphod222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Impact alone could not have brought it down, and nor could have impact+fires but okay the floor is yours

Considering that no evidence of explosives was found at ground zero, and the fact we saw aircraft striking WTC1 and WTC2 and debris striking WTC7, and proof that fires raged within those buildings, the only answer is that fire and impact damage, in the absence of bomb explosions and explosive evidence in the rubble, were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings, especially since the WTC buildings buckled prior to their collapse, which clearly indicated that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the buckling

911 Truthers continue to claim that explosives were used yet they cannot provide such evidence and I might add that the way a building collapses is not evidence that explosives were used, especially when no evidence of explosives were found in the rubble.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Impact alone could not have brought it down, and nor could have impact+fires but okay the floor is yours :) 9/11 continues to be one big insult to the IQ of Americans.

The insult came directly from those WTC conspiracy websites. A huge bomb couldn't bring down WTC1 in 1993 and there were no secondary explosions as the two B-767s struck the WTC Towers, which was an indication that no explosives planted were the collapse of the WTC Towers were initiated and apparently, that was another very important clue that was overlooked by 911 Truthers.

Fire and impact damage brought down the WTC buildings and that can be underlined by the fact that no evidence of explosives was ever found in the rubble of the WTC buildings. On the other hand look what was used to bring down WTC6 and understand, no explosives required.

Now, check this out.

article-2040657-0DC5AF7200000578-600_468x497.jpg

Progressive collapse: The top floors of both towers fell in on themselves and put so much pressure on the floors below them that they collapsed too

The photo proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the WTC building did not collapse at free fall speed, which 911 Truthers have long and wrongly claimed. You will notice the falling debris, which is falling out free fall speed, is outpacing the collapse of the WTC Tower itself, which brings into question as to why 911 Truthers have claimed the WTC buildings collapsed at free fall speed when photos and videos proved otherwise?

Now, let's take a look here.

Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee.

Nothing there about explosives bringing down the WTC buildings. And, since you missed these reports, I guess I am forced to post them again.

August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives. The report is published on ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website edited by Blanchard.

Blanchard is also director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions. In his report, Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in “several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn” on 9/11. He says they did not show the “spikes” that would have been caused by explosions in the towers.

http://www.popularme...ld-trade-center

'A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers, 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Demolition Industry Viewpoint'

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths

Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt that floors sagged, pulling perimeter columns in. An event some conspiracy sites suggest never happened.

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm

Civil and Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

http://911-engineers...-blanchard.html

Now, we can take a look here.

Why did NIST not Consider a “Controlled Demolition

Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

http://www.webcitation.org/5pvOUTcar

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still on your Six Skyeagle ! They refuse to Open there eyes and learn ! Gravity and mass,and destruction from the Aircraft is all it took !

Make sure your ILS is on ! Ouch ! THat had to open those 777 pilots eyes yesterday !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still on your Six Skyeagle ! They refuse to Open there eyes and learn ! Gravity and mass,and destruction from the Aircraft is all it took !

Make sure your ILS is on ! Ouch ! THat had to open those 777 pilots eyes yesterday !

Yes indeed, that is all it took, but they would rather believe the disinformation, misinformation and lies that are coming from those 911 Truther websites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In my honest opinion .......

The internal islamic squabbes are between Sunnis and Shiite. But both radical Sunnis and Shiites target the US, the strongest of the infidel nations.

But OK, if you want then filter only the Jihadist attacks on US targets.

Here are a couple of samples preceding your "false flag" attack on 9/11:

-> Was the first attack on the WTC in 1993 a "false flag"? Yes/No

-> Was the USS Cole bombing a "false flag"? Yes/No

-> Were the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Daressalam "false flags"? Yes/No ... I DON"T KNOW

Your go, troother. Explain your world view. It is not too difficult to answer "yes/no", is it?

My world view is the events I see unfolding ... I see American bases in places there were none before. Once again.. who attacked on 9-11? It wasn't Saddam Hussein .. and yet we occupied the country of Iraq. It wasn't 'Afghanistan' either.. and yet we occupied that country too. Think back on the nonsensical mish mash of 'reasons' given for launching WAR on those two countries? Which is the one legitimate reason for invading and taking over two entire countries? ?

Edited by lightly
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In my honest opinion .......

My world view is the events I see unfolding ... I see American bases in places there were none before.

Let's take another look. because U.S. combat troops have been pulled out of Iraq and are scheduled to be pulled out of Afghanistan next year. In addition, the United States has been cutting back on overseas bases since the 911 attack.

81st Fighter Squadron have been identified as the overseas A-10C squadron to be retired

I'ts official now: The 81st Fighter Squadron, 52nd Fighter Wing (USAFE), Spangdahlem AB, Germany, have been identified for inactivation in fiscal year 2013.

On Thursday, the Pentagon released additional details about planned reductions in the U.S. military presence in Europe as part of a budget-cutting drive.

http://warthognews.b...-have-been.html

Scorpion's last strike: Aviano squadron returns from final deployment before deactivation

1/22/2013 - AVIANO AIR BASE, Italy -- Airmen assigned to the 603rd Air Control Squadron were greeted by hundreds of family members and friends Jan. 19, 2013 as they returned home from their final deployment in Southwest Asia before the squadron is inactivated later this year.

http://www.usafe.af....sp?id=123333258

Below is a list of some of the major base closing in Europe since 2003, by military service:

* Army: Giesssen (Germany), Hanau (Germany), Darmstad (Germany), Wuerzburg (Germany).

* Navy: Naval Air Station Keflavik (Iceland), Naval Support Activities Gaeta and La Maddalena (Italy).

* Air Force: Rhein-Main Air Base (Germany).

Nearly every member of Congress is opposed to closing bases in the United States, but most have no problem supporting a closure overseas. Indeed, claiming that overseas bases should be closed before US bases is a favorite rationale for postponing necessary closures here at home.

But this rationale is starting to run into the reality that our overseas bases have already seen significant cuts. As a recent AEI report summarized, the US Army alone has closed 100 installations in Europe since 2003 and plans on returning an additional 47 installations to host nations by 2015.

The Navy has also been consolidating and shedding European bases over the last eight years. The Navy closed an air station in Iceland and Naval Support Activities Gaeta and La Maddalena in Italy.

Currently, the Navy is assessing capacity of remaining bases in Spain, Italy, and Greece. Its leaders also plan to review the US Marine Corps installation in Norway. Finally, since 1990, the Air Force has reduced aircraft and forces stationed in Europe by 75%.

Still more cuts are coming to America’s overseas posture. Before he left office, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta directed the Pentagon to explore additional opportunities for consolidation in Europe. Already, DoD is planning to continue reducing the US presence in Europe by approximately 15% over the coming decade.

http://www.aei.org/a...-base-closures/

Question is, where did you get the wrong idea that the United States was expanding military bases overseas when in fact , the military has been cutting back on overseas bases?

Once again.. who attacked on 9-11?

Al-Qaeda, by the evidence and al-Qaeda's own admission..

It wasn't 'Afghanistan' either.. and yet we occupied that country too.

Did we warn the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden? Yes we did. Did the Taliban turn over bin Laden to the United States despite the warning? No, and the rest is history. .

Think back on the nonsensical mish mash of 'reasons' given for launching WAR on those two countries? Which is the one legitimate reason for invading and taking over two entire countries?

Have U.S. combat troops left Iraq?

Yes!

Are U.S. combat troops scheduled to leave Afghanistan next year?

Yes!

Has the U.S. military cut back military bases overseas?

Yes!

Are more cutbacks of overseas bases scheduled?

Yes!

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What I am saying is, there is no U.S. government 911 conspiracy and that al-Qaeda, not the U.S. government, carried out the 911 attack and the warnings were very clear who would be responsible. In addition, there was no way the government could have carried out such an attack and not get caught, however, there were those in government who thought that such an attack was not possible despite the worldwide warnings.

Back up Sky. You "are" admitting that the knowledge that was known preceding 9/11 was known by the highest elected and appointed positions in this country. I hate to say it Sky, but you're there with the majority of skeptics that think the government knew it was coming but didn't stop it. I'm pretty sure "you" think they dropped the ball. That's why I always shake my head when it comes to your posts that back up the leap in logic it must take to find the government innocent when it's guilty. To me you always err on the side of government, when you should be holding them accountable.

Sorry, but that "is" how you come off.

The FAA had thought that safeguards were already in place, but I disagreed with that assessment because as I went through airport security in Manila just weeks prior to the 911 attack. I remarked as to why airport security in the United States was no up to par with airport security in Manila. Weeks later, my concern was realized. And, we must remember that Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States and as a result, Obama got Osama.

"When they start sticking their thumbs up our *******s, only then will we feal safe".

Edited by W Tell
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my honest opinion .......

My world view is the events I see unfolding ... I see American bases in places there were none before. Once again.. who attacked on 9-11? It wasn't Saddam Hussein .. and yet we occupied the country of Iraq. It wasn't 'Afghanistan' either.. and yet we occupied that country too. Think back on the nonsensical mish mash of 'reasons' given for launching WAR on those two countries? Which is the one legitimate reason for invading and taking over two entire countries? ?

Your world-view seems to be that Saddam Hussein and Afghanistan got "attacked" by the US as a response to 9/11. That is a simplistic misrepresentation which is childish and naive to a degree which is laughable, really. You really should do some basic reading about the history of the events, before you base phantastic conspiracy tales on such a kindergarten version of history.

Since you believe the Cole bombing and the 1993 bombing of the WTC (which of course preceded 9/11 by several years), do tell us more about those. Where there CIA operatives in the suicide rubber boat that attacked the Cole? What motivation did they have to blow themselves up? About the 1993 WTC bombing, do you think that the blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Ramen is a CIA operative? The members of his Al Gama Islamiyya group, who conducted the bombing were CIA operatives? Or Mossad perhaps? All the blind Sheiks Sermons, in which he calls for Jihad against the infidels, are written by the US government? Even while he is now in Egypt?

This is all very fascinating.

Since the topic here is "9-11 for what" please give us more details about this gigantic US government conspiracy which has managed to fake a whole world-wide Jihad against itself.

Come on troother, explain yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your world-view seems to be that Saddam Hussein and Afghanistan got "attacked" by the US as a response to 9/11. That is a simplistic misrepresentation which is childish and naive to a degree which is laughable, really. You really should do some basic reading about the history of the events, before you base phantastic conspiracy tales on such a kindergarten version of history.

Simplistic misrepresentation... Heh!. You're funny.

You also want to put people down for not reading the basics. Scooter.. If you're still on basic reading, than you've not graduated to the grown up table. Sorry. :yes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back up Sky. You "are" admitting that the knowledge that was known preceding 9/11 was known by the highest elected and appointed positions in this country. I hate to say it Sky, but you're there with the majority of skeptics that think the government knew it was coming but didn't stop it. I'm pretty sure "you" think they dropped the ball.

I have said they have dropped the ball because they had many warnings, however, they did not take those warnings seriously enough. In other words, they were complacent and didn't think it could happen. You are misinterpreting my post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have said they have dropped the ball because they had many warnings, however, they did not take those warnings seriously enough. In other words, they were complacent and didn't think it could happen. You are misinterpreting my post.

That's not intentional Sky. I'm not trying to misrepresent you. I'm still not sure if we've found common ground yet. Do you find the U.S. government culpable in any way when it comes down to 9/11?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Middle Eastern countries are selling their oil around the world and the United States just happens to be one of their customers, however, when al-Qaeda brought its terror campaign upon our shores, it paid a heavy price and supporting Israel is no excuse to attack America.

What price did Al Qaeda pay? They're in over 100 countries. They're not even in the countries we're wasting trillions of dollars building and occupying. They are in the countries we're subsidizing and supporting. If this was a way to lose a war, I couldn't think of a better one.

It's not an excuse, it's a motive. Supporting Israel is no excuse to endanger America. Israel can handle itself. I suggest you figure that out and stop supporting the welfare state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

That's not intentional Sky. I'm not trying to misrepresent you. I'm still not sure if we've found common ground yet. Do you find the U.S. government culpable in any way when it comes down to 9/11?

The government had warnings that Muslim terrorist planned to attack America, but once again, they didn't think the terrorist could pull it off. Such is the typical government mindset that continued in the years after the 911 attack.

The FAA was warned of problems in security, but basically, the typical government mindset kicked in again because the FAA thought enough security measures were already in place and felt no action was needed, but that all changed after 911. Once again, I want to reiterate that there is no government 911 conspiracy, and remember, the government couldn't even keep the Watergate scandal a secret.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What price did Al Qaeda pay?

For one thing, Osama bin Laden paid too high a price to where he is no longer around to receive change.

They're in over 100 countries. They're not even in the countries we're wasting trillions of dollars building and occupying. They are in the countries we're subsidizing and supporting. If this was a way to lose a war, I couldn't think of a better one.

Please clarify, "occupying." Thanks to intelligence gathered when Osama bin Laden was taken out at his residence, many terrorist attacks in America have been averted. How many lives were saved?

Israel can handle itself. I suggest you figure that out and stop supporting the welfare state.

Who do you think provided much of the military equipment and support that Israel is using to take care of itself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Let's take another look. because U.S. combat troops have been pulled out of Iraq and are scheduled to be pulled out of Afghanistan next year. In addition, the United States has been cutting back on overseas bases since the 911 attack.

Question is, where did you get the wrong idea that the United States was expanding military bases overseas when in fact , the military has been cutting back on overseas bases?

* Where did you get the idea that's what i said? ... That's not what i said... i said there are bases where there were none before,, namely in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN.

... would you happen to know how many U.S. military bases are currently in Afghanistan? ( i believe there are still at least nine ) how man in Iraq?

Zaphod222 said:

Your world-view seems to be that Saddam Hussein and Afghanistan got "attacked" by the US as a response to 9/11.

Come on troother, explain yourself.

Yes, 9-11.... and then the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq .. and a lot of talk about why, most of which made little to no sense.

Do you believe Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States of America? Do you remember Bush, Cheney and Rice Talking about MUSHROOM CLOUDS ????

Explain myself? No Thanks.

Edited by lightly
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks to intelligence gathered when Osama bin Laden was taken out at his residence, many terrorist attacks in America have been averted...

OBL died from kidney failure in 2001. FOXNews and NY Times among others have reported it.

Report: Bin Laden Already Dead

FOXNews - Wednesday, December 26, 2001

The Death of bin Ladenism

The New York times - Published: July 11, 2002

Israeli intelligence: Bin Laden is dead, heir has been chosen

World tribune - Wednesday, October 16, 2002

PS Greatest terror threat to Americans is their own government

Edited by SolarPlexus
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.