Really? Ten years later, how that's working for us?

We got nothing out of Afghanistan.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=LIyGE...ure=plpp_video
For anyone interested in real 911 truth, watch 5:30-6:30 to see when the very tardy fake plane image showed up 24 minutes after these crazy women called a blob 'the plane'.:Oh crap There is no better or literal proof that video fakery was used on 911. No plane can circle a building and crash into the back of it. Note, the jerk zoom as if to say, "we finally got something that kinda looks like a plane.":error The drone travels directly west to east, while the fake image turns more left, north, which tries to improve upon the impossible wrap around the towers.

http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/a...GIFSoupcom.gif

It's working out exactly as planned. This was a long term project that had to start by securing the areas the pipeline was going to run through, which just so happened to be smack dab in the middle of.... wait for it... Taliban territory.

Probably no coincidence that this pipeline was being discussed back in 1997 before 9-11 happened. But they had to establish peace in the country first. And they more or less did, it just took a while and is still a work in progress.

Can we please get some more gif animations of orbs?

A man can never have too many orbs.

Enough with the stupid ORBS. Worse conspiracy theory ever.

Even if they were ORBS (which I don't believe), it wouldn't help the 'Truth' side of the debate. The Myth-Hugger's who still don't accept the controlled demolition explanation will certainly not believe in ORBS.

Whether intentional or accidental; the ORBS theory will only act as divide and conquer on the 'Truth' side. It will push those on the fence closer to the Official Story and help discredit the 911 Myth De-bunkers.

What a crazy word... orbs.

Orbs. Orbs. Orbs. Orbs. Orbs. Orbs. Orbs. Orbs.

You want to convince people who believe in 911 myths, why? The average person would believe, absolutely, that weird objects were used instead of planes because that is what was filmed for both towers.

Drone, blob, orb, ufo, whatever. It wasn't a plane and that is evident to the naked eye.

The most important thing is that people find out it was an inside job, the Orb theory will ensure this never happens whether you're right about them or not.

We have to focus on the highest priority and not get divided with a small detail

How could I be wrong about something that aired clearly in 4 broadcasts? What you are saying is false. The only people who matter are the ones who don't know that planes are in serious doubt for all three crashes that were supposed to impact buildings. People believe what they can see and if that can be corroborated by eyewitnesses, then even better, because 911 has a lot of fake video and photographic evidence.

divide and conquer is a typical tactic of undercover in the agents in the movement. keep that in mind. :2 cents:

There are some things which for now the masses will find too difficult to believe, it's better to focus on the battles that we have a chance of winning. Maybe you know something that nobody else here does, but the priority is to focus on the best tactics for making people realize that they've been lied to. Either way, debating Orbs is counter-productive.

Talking to yourself now PJ :upsidedow Make sure you're always logged in as the correct user :winkwink:

I suppose, and that's the very reason why the dreaded drone has been avoided for ten years, because it's simple and factual. Making fun of facts does not change those facts. I'm not a no-planer, but point to something that showed up, but wasn't flight 175. Those who claim nothing hit the towers are these agents you speak of. Conspiracy theorists and the so-called truthers are government moles.:thumbsup

So they discussed it in 1997... But they needed to establish peace in Afghanistan? So what your saying is it took them exactly fifteen years and three thousand American lives and they still have.... Nothing? A plan to build a pipeline? Someday?

That might just be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

Are you saying the American government wanted to get oil from a "potential pipeline" that "might be built". Oil from Turkmenistan? That goes to Pakistan? Yeah, that's exactly what happened. The United States government wanted a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan so we could ship the oil half way around the world so we could decrease our dependency on Canadian oil. LOL.

The pipeline seems a potential argument/motive for seizing Afghanistan the way it has, but as a subterfuge it's only partially likely. This is all speculative though. Who knows why these big "grand chess board" moves are really being made.

The ostensible reason for the invasion was booting once-friendly Talibans, the excuse seems to have been because the US wanted them to hand over Ben Laden.

When the Taliban said OK, please provide the evidence (or the White Paper Colin Powell said would be produced shortly), the US told them to stuff it.

There are so many theories. Under the Taliban, heroin production was reduced to a trickle from Afghanistan. Since then, it has re-exploded thanks to western removal of the Taliban. It's known the CIA uses funds from cocaine and heroin traffic to finance officially unfinanceable "black ops". So is that the reason?

My half-baked not-too-aware idea of the matter is that Afghanistan is a lynch-pin country, the first where the US could extend their military presence. They have more military bases in Afghanistan now (and permanent ones) than they have in the US.

Afghanistan sits between all the important countries in the area, Pakistan, Iran, all the "stans" (Uzbekistan and I don't remember which ones) - it's a hub and launch point for all kinds of potential (maybe actual) planned military and other strategic political and socially directed anti-regime operations.

So regardless of the theory, it's probably applicable at one point. The pipeline won't be laid until there's definite stability in the area, so it's back-burnered for now for sure.

If there was a motive for 9/11 as an "inside job" it was as the neo-coms said: to instigate American Hegemony and military presence in countries where the governments weren't already puppets, and to establish the US as the primary authoritarian body on the planet.

Also, the peak-oil theory stands up pretty well, especially now with all the "Arab Springs" springing up, where, like in Syria for example, the US has actually backed and/or teamed up with so-called "Al Qaeda" members and outfits to back the anti-regime insurgents.

The most credible umbrella-theory, if you want to call it that, is the War On Terror.

The jets are a dramatic image, use long-standing cold-war imagery and fear to establish a "terrorist" act, much more strongly than the buildings mysteriously exploding and then somehow having government agencies discovering in all the rubble that some suicide bombers had set themselves off.

That would have been probably even less believable than the current story.

As it stands, the story is graphic, dramatic, and undeniable: somebody flew those planes into the buildings.

And even though most if not all investigations into Ben Laden and Al Qaeda had been shut down or outright denied, they were able to declare within 24hrs (and much less actually) the presence of 19 undocumented and un-investigated hijackers in the employ of Ben Laden were somehow on the planes, and somehow took over multiple cockpits without causing alarms, and then pilot the things into landmarks and symbols...

And think of all the other changes the War on Terror has wrought: restraints on individual liberties, removal of personal privacy, military presence in daily life, militarization of police forces themselves, on and on... I mean they don't announce them that way in the news, but taken all together, it's basically an ongoing re-structuring of American society, and other countries by extension...

Let me start by saying that it took 15 years just for all nations just to agree to the pipeline in the first place. So the amount of time the USA has been there with boots on the ground is irrelevant. Things obviously move at a much slower pace in that region of the world. Construction was supposed to begin this year. Who knows if it will because of security issues over there, but that was the date I last read on it.

There is a trillion dollars in the ground to be mined (they have some of the largest untapped mines in the entire world). There are billions of dollars to be made selling oil to India and Pakistan though the pipeline. The USA has a stake in the bank that is financing it, the USA has a stake in the company building it, the USA has a stake in the mining, and none of it will happen until there is no threat to destroy these projects there and they have in infrastructure there to make it all happen. I doubt they counted on it taking so long but the fact that we're still there should clue you in that they are willing to go the distance on it. And when I say the "USA" I mean large American companies.

It's not rocket science. Just simple facts that it is clearly a long term investment. And would they spend 15 years and 1000s of American lives to do it, the answer is a big loud yes. They would waste 10,000 American lives if they had to. Soldiers are expendable. Resources are finite.

There is a ton of information about this out there. All factual. The only big "if" or "when" is due to security which seems to be getting worse, not better.

I'm confused. Is it the US government who destroyed the towers, or a bank?

Do you honestly believe anyone did this as a "long term investment"? For a pipeline? Do you know how many pipelines there are in the middle east? The pipeline your talking about potentially will carry from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan, to Pakistan. Are you are aware that there is a pipeline from Turkmenistan, under the Caspian sea, and out through Turkey?

Well, 9/11 has come and gone, the pipeline still hasn't been built, and security in the area isn't close to being safe enough for a this pipeline to be built. In the mean time, they already have a pipeline.

They would have had a much better chance of building this pipeline if we had never invaded Afghanistan.

there are many geopolitical, military and energy reasons why the US would want a footprint in afghanistan.

was 9/11 exploited for this purpose? yes. that is the real conspiracy and crime. has nothing to do with orbs and controlled demolitions.

by promoting all these stupid 9/11 conspiracy theories you have voluntarily put yourself in a free speech zone to be corralled off from mainstream discourse and neutralized.

ever crossed your mind why all the leaders of the 9/11 conspiracy movement are ex cops, spooks, cia, fbi, military, from mind control cults or heavily compromised individuals with criminal pasts?

Claiming "all" and "leaders" with these things is a little broad. And who cares about those who point fingers and assign blame?

Look at those who just ask questions, raise doubts, and show how the official theory is wrong. Not just the Jersey Girls or the celebrity doubters, but those who just express doubt...

Not that I've researched most of them, but the over 1600 vetted architects and engineers at AE911Truth.org hardly strike me as any of the types of miscreants you mention...



:D

i am obviously talking about the people who came out of nowhere and started the movement. that got people like you spinning in a hamster cage wasting time and effecting no change irl.

name one concrete change the "truth" movement has done to end war, decrease social injustice and so on. it's been a decade. there must be some victories comparable to say the civil rights movement no?

Well they definitely got me back in the hamster cage, but the first thing I thought when they went down was that they had pre-set demolition charges to reduce the chances that the buildings could topple and crush and destroy a lot more people and property. It was a knee-jerk reaction, unthinking, and about as logical as thinking that plane crash damage and fires could have created conditions equal to a foundry to cause the collapse.

The more info came out, the more the news/government story came out as bullshit to me.

My first thought when I heard a second plane hit the other tower, was that the US is getting blowback from all their overseas/foreign policy shit. It was like, "Damn, I was wondering when this was going to happen."

Nobody really knew or had heard of Al Qaeda or Ben Laden then, and his stated objectives were to attack points of foreign occupation, military targets and basically telling the US to get out of Saudi Arabia.... so when they said he had something to do with this, that was already - Whoah... What?

Fishy from the git-go, though my views were so weird to others that I basically couldn't have a discussion about it.

Still can't have a *civil* discussion about it, but now that some quite overt points of what-the-fuck have come up, and the Jersey Girls, and so on... it's more easily talked about...

Like I said, forget the nutters, and the conspiracy theorists - who include the government supporters IMHO

This is just to respond to Mark's so-called "analytical" post, which contradicts a later post he made concerning Galileo's observation of the rate of velocity of falling objects (which I believe wasn't actually quantified until Newton, but I might be wrong...)

--

According to NIST: their findings do not support the ?pancake theory? of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system?that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns?consisted of a grid of steel ?trusses? integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f...aqs_082006.cfm
Now this shows that NIST establishes progressive collapse, or pancaking, could not have occurred. Later, rather than inward bowing they "establish" that outward bowing occurred.

They also said that there was no evidence of any sort of incendiary or explosive force/s exerted on the structure, but later admit they didn't test or search for that...

Exactly. There was much more resistance than just air, yet the building/s fell as though there was no more resistance than air; even if somehow each storey below the collapsing "block" had been at 10% it's structural integrity, it still would have presented more resistance to the falling mass than what we saw and the "collapse" would have taken much longer.

The tests found that, typical for construction steel used in the 1960s when the World Trade Center was erected, the steel beams exceeded requirements to bear 36,000 pounds per square inch. Often they were capable of bearing around 42,000 pounds per square inch.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_152121.html

Of course, I'm sure if you broke it down, none of their statements were lies. They were, however, misleading in that they were mostly conjectural, explained partial phenomena without encompassing entire events and much like the 9/11 commission presented only arguments that bolstered their pre-conceived conclusions.

However when each and every event, non-event, or consequence of any event on such a day are due to coincidental occurrences, you have to look beyond happenstance to a common factor - at least allow for the excessive number of coincidental going beyond coincidence.

Mindy Kleinberg, one of the "Jersey Girls" pretty brilliantly summed it up in her overlooked/ignored testimony to the 9/11 commission:

With regard to the 9/11 attacks, it has been said that the intelligence agencies have to be right 100% of the time and the terrorists only have to get lucky once. This explanation for the devastating attacks of September 11th, simple on its face, is wrong in its value. Because the 9/11 terrorists were not just lucky once: they were lucky over and over again.


http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearin..._kleinberg.htm

There's no proof the Saudis did it or were more than peripherally involved.

You don't think WTC was demolished because... what? Because you believe that three unprecedented events can happen for the first time in history all on the same day? Because two planes can "knock down" three buildings? Because though most buildings around and closer to the two towers suffered more damage they didn't collapse perfectly symmetrically to their base the way WTC7 did?


Why is it "unlikely" the government have a part in it? Has the government never considered or participated in operations of this kind? USS Liberty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Lib...paign=wordtwit, GLADIO https://youtube.com/watch?v=7fB6nViwJcM, MKUltra, the Tuskegee experiments, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskege...lis_experiment,

Unfortuntely, "government", whether it's the Nazis, Israelis, British or Americans, have proven over and over again that they are willing to make "sacrifices" of their citizens for what they consider a "greater cause".

But, but but but Mediaguy...

Your basic argument is that WTC was demolished. The link above to NIST says that

. Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards.

Ok, it didn't pancake like it looked like it did on TV, to me, a non engineer, but Nist did not say that it was demolished either. There is still zero proof that WTC was demolished.

Why not?

2 Planes did NOT knock down 3 buildings. 2 planes damaged 2 equal buildings enough for them to collapse. The 3rd building fell because of the severe damage it received from the other falling buildings. Very easy to believe.

This is irrelevant. Different buildings would be affected differently if struck by debris. Even worse, those buildings were struck by Different Debris, of different mass, at different speeds. This kind of argument is what clouds the issue. You are attempting to assert probability as fact and using it as basis to fortify your claims of different issues.


Lots of reasons make it unlikely. First, I *HAVE* to believe that people love their country. There is little to gain. It is impossible to keep a secret. etc etc. And don't forget I'm saying the WHole Government. Maybe its possible that some bastards in the government had a hand in it, we may never now. I'm willing to accept that idea and discuss it. My only argument that I have always had is that the WTC simply didn't look at all to me like a controlled demolition. I have not seen anything that proves it to me, so I'll argue it.

This is why you bring in foreigners for the job, people who you can justify to them that it will benefit their own nation. It doesn't mean that nation is behind the attack, just that people from there are very useful for the covert tasks. Whereas those who are loyal to the US are far too risky; it would be madness to get them involved, like you say.

And yet still no one can give me a reason other than a pipeline that hasn't been built, and most likely will never be built being as built due to the entire country being unstable after ten years of war.

Actually I responded, but since I don't think we can actually know who or why, it's a long-winded response:
https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=18816587&postcount=747

:D

1. $1 to $3 Trillion in mineral wealth (same reason as Soviets)
http://dev.bdnews24.com/details.php?id=165705&cid=1

2. Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (TAPI) - The pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India. That is why Afghanistan is important, and why Georgia is important because landlocked oil and natural gas cannot get to the oceans without the pipelines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article898904.ece

3. Opium - Afghanistan has been the greatest illicit opium producer in the entire world "According to EU agencies, Afghanistan has been Europe?s main heroin supplier for more than 10 years." "In 2010, Russia accused United States of supporting the opium production in Afghanistan."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_p...n#cite_note-23

4. Gradually surrounding Iran for when the time arrives to take them out

because it's going to take time? the keystone pipeline is going to take forever to build and that's between allies. not hard to wrap your mind around.

Yeah, I saw that, but I had already written a long winded response to someone about else about the subject.

So we'll just be able to take all of that and no one will say a thing? Just like we did with Iraq? So we've been there what, ten years - have we bled the country dry yet?

We've beat this to death already. The pipeline hasn't been built, and invading Afghanistan makes it unlikely that it will be built in the near future.

So the United States wants to country the illegal opium industry? Yeah, that's it.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You think we invaded a landlocked country so we could invade another country at a later date? That's comical. Why would we invade a country that is landlocked and difficult to get to, when we already were in Iraq?

BTW, we left Iraq, so we no longer have Iran surrounded.

Then... Look at it from a military point of view - Do you really think we are going to use Afghanistan as a base to attack Iran when the only way into Afghanistan is through Pakistan... Who is fucking unstable they might cut us off at any time, not to mention it's difficult at best to keep the supply lines there open?

Iran and Iraq, and the entire Middle East, has been on the neocon agenda since before Bush II's first election/inauguration...

And "pulling out" of Iraq may be just a play on words, what with the contractor forces and CIA shell game that is probably going to happen:

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_20094901

:D

how hard is that to understand the united states wants a foothold there for future conflicts? you don't have to be a military genius to get that. you think they poured billions down the drain so far for a school and to catch bin laden? why do you think they are there?

So your saying that we need a "foothold" in the Middle East in case there is a war?

Do you have any idea of how dumb that sounds? We need to start two wars in the Middle East "in case" we have a war in the Middle East?

The truth is no one has a viable reason for us to be in Afghanistan. Don't tell me we are taking resources we haven't taken, pipelines that haven't been built, or the fact that we started multiple wars in the Middle East to be in a better position in case there is a war in the Middle East.

You got nothing there.

So you are a military genius who believes we started two wars so we could be in a better position in case war breaks out in the Middle East?

And do you really think the US wants to create a foothold in a landlocked country where our only supply line could be cut off instantly by the country that hid Bin Laden for ten years?

so why did they throw billions down the drain and lose so many lives then?