About 9/11

[was]

now it,s not al-qaida it,s al-CIAida

 

[araz]

Personally I have serious questions that I would wantanswered. I start off by saying that any catastrophy that results in the death of thousands of innocent people is a repugnaat act.
Firstly. how is it possible that by reading a few books and having few hours on a Sessna or a flight simulator, these people were able to commandeere and fly planes?
2 Theangle at which the 2nd plane hit the tower could not have been achieved by a novice.
How is it that iinspite of havingbeen hit from the side the Towers collapsed on themselves rather than all around?
Why is there no credible photoof the hit at the Pentagon?
I am willing to believe if someone can answer my questions.
Araz

 

[x_man]

Personally I have serious questions that I would wantanswered. I start off by saying that any catastrophy that results in the death of thousands of innocent people is a repugnaat act.
Firstly. how is it possible that by reading a few books and having few hours on a Sessna or a flight simulator, these people were able to commandeere and fly planes?

I have been instructor and have seen that how those 10-15 hours guys perform….They can’t fly a damn Cessna 152 in a straight line for continuously 1 minute or do a steep turn without loosing few thousand feet, let alone perform the same manoeuvres on a Boeing 767 with such an accuracy while also playing with Autopilot modes and other navigation equipment…

Sometimes things don’t make sense even if one looks at them with very open mind and somehow in the official 9/11 version, there are too many things like that….Hence so many conspiracy theories…

 

[dr.umer]

This might be interesting.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...T0Cg&q=9%2F11:+Blueprint+for+Truth+&emb=1

 

[S-2]

Thanks for your comments.

I don't think that they hold much water though.

Briefly, I'll summarize-

Photos. I've got photos too. Veritable reams of photos. Good photos of our soldiers doing the right thing. I'll happily engage a tit-for-tat exchange if so desired but my suspicion is that you'll run out long before I.

You've made your case of our considerably embarassing and damaging warts. As a former officer of the U.S. Army, those at Abu Graib and Bagram did my cause a great disservice and acted out of the bounds of acceptable conduct. In doing, they needlessly and frivolously endangered the lives of our soldiers and marines. As such, they brook no favor from those of us who've served.

As a nation, we've rigorously applied all we know to institute change to the cultural psyche and human development that inculcated such behavior and the concurrent absence of appropriate command over-sight. We've done so before the world. Most of our actions are equally transparent- good and bad. It's all that any people can do.

Your numbers about Afghanistan are not the whole story. THAT is better revealed by trend lines. So too Iraq. I'm less interested in the past than the future. Are you? If so, then you noted the trends in Iraq (downward) and the trends of violence directed at civilians by the taliban (upward). You'd also note as both a historical fact and on-going policy, that in no case have ISAF/NATO forces ever been accused of deliberately targeting civilians nor using them as human shields. We've never used mosques as weapons depots nor conducted fire upon the enemy from them.

Without going into an exhaustive analysis, I think you're off the mark in a number of respects. Nonetheless, if so interested, I'll be happy to engage in a discussion that attempts to reveal the best analysis of past casualties of war, the supporting methodology that reaches those values, and the future trends given predictive statistical analysis. I'd ask, though, that you either find a current thread here that's an acceptable venue for the discussion or create a new thread such that we don't distract from this thread's intent.

As a precursor, I'd also ask you do a review of a long discussion behind LANCET located here. It is tedious but revealing. Focus on the comments provided by Shek. I've another for your edification following that. Satisfying me that you've done so with both threads will open the doors to my temple.

From there, I'll engage in any discussion of Afghanistan that you'd like.

I'll say this- absolute numbers in Afghanistan are stupendously low compared to the past. Given our evident mistakes (to include nearly killing Hamid Karzai in early November, 2001), we've nonetheless are not remotely endangering the dubious achievements inflicted upon the afghani people by the Soviets nor themselves- regardless of deaths prior to 2005. Further HRW makes clear the disturbing trends entailing the taliban and their clear targeting of civilians.

Thanks.

 

[bhishmar]

S-2 you know you could just use the quote button to make your replies neater rather than edit the subject.

My quotes are quite clear and preferred this way. I hope I'm not exceeding forum rules but don't recall that requirement.

S-2, no rule, I just thought maybe you didn't know.

How to post is S-2's prerogative. But I have the following comments to make, for whatever it is worth!
I was new to this forum, & when trying to read most of S-2s posts, many times I found it difficult to read the intent, & comprehend the context , because of the peculiar & non-conventional method he is using to quote previous excerpts from other posters.
I am very sure the same will be true for other newcomers here also, who are versed with the conventional quote methodology as is prevalent in numerous other forums.

Initially i thought, the bold items in his post was something he was trying to emphasize. After reading a few only it became clear he was quoting from previous posts!!
Then the difficulty was finding out who he was quoting, because many times it may not be the immediate previous post. I think this difficulty will be there for all other readers, not only newcomers. I assume that is the reason, Asim drew S-2s attention to the conventional quote method.

Without seeming to be too pressing, may i suggest to S-2 that the usual quote method is not a very difficult one, In fact it is very easy, and takes less steps (&time) than his current method.
Only problem the whole of the matter will be included. But you can delete matter to focus on relevant portion. This can be repeated, as I have shown at the top of this post.

 

[S-2]

"...may i suggest to S-2 that the usual quote method is not a very difficult one, In fact it is very easy, and takes less steps (&time) than his current method."

You'll note my post is direct to you. That makes easy the identification of quotes. I appreciate your feedback and, like my comments, I've uncovered yet another arena of controversy by my presence.

Gotta say, though, I'm not likely to change. Call me obstinate, old, etc., but I prefer it so. Unless specifically directed at the risk of banning, it's sorta etched in stone.

Consider this old army mule's heels dug in at this point.

 

[Beskar]

Sorry to come off sounding rude but the OP is an utter disgrace to his screen name. "Truth seeker(haha?)"? Seriously?

Wow! Apparently someone read the looming towers and went on a parade to call everyone who believes "9/11 was an inside job", a retard. Sheer class on your part, gotta hand it to you.

Anyway, i don't know if you've seen this one before. But if you haven't, i'd strongly recommend that you sit through this masterpiece and then QUESTION your looming tower's credibility.

When you're done watching this, try watching "Zeigeist The Movie" aswell. Specifically meant to address the sleep-walking majorities, such as yourself.

The movie is in three parts.

1. Christianity is a False Religion.
2. 9/11 Truth
3. How Governments control their people

It's available for free on the Internet. Apparently "Some" people didn't want it to be publicly spread around via legal means.

Zeitgeist - The Movie

Oh and one more thing. None of the material is produced by anyone belonging to "Islam".

Enjoy!

 

[Tang0]

Anyway, i don't know if you've seen this one before. But if you haven't, i'd strongly recommend that you sit through this masterpiece and then QUESTION your looming tower's credibility.
When you're done watching this, try watching "Zeigeist The Movie" aswell. Specifically meant to address the sleep-walking majorities, such as yourself.

The movie is in three parts.

1. Christianity is a False Religion.
2. 9/11 Truth
3. How Governments control their people

It's available for free on the Internet. Apparently "Some" people didn't want it to be publicly spread around via legal means.


Oh and one more thing. None of the material is produced by anyone belonging to "Islam".

Enjoy!

I've seen both of those, as well as read a great many more conspiracy theories. Loose Change is correct, there are plenty of loose ends associated with the event. There are plenty associated with almost any violent act. Nontheless, 50% of all murder trials are decided on circumstantial evidence, without any physical evidence to speak of linking the suspect to the crime. A possible hole in a theory does not disprove it. This is not mathematics, a single counter example does not break the narrative. You have to look at all the evidence and decide which scenario is most plausible, not which one happens to fit in the best with your opinions of various governments or organizations. All the while remember that once more than a few people know something, it pretty much ceases to be a secret in short order, unless the information is too complicated to transmit incidentally.

Ignore any and every thing that has ever come from the mouth of an official of the US government and instead rely on pictorial evidence, and the personnel claims of the people reported to be involved. What does it lead you to believe? Stop paying attention to commentary, and look at the evidence. What does it seem to indicate to you? Assume the CIA is full of crooks, what have they gained by lying? Everybody lies, not everybody tells the same lies. The evidence does not lie, it just is.

Take your own advice, stop sleepwalking and think for yourself. Don't swallow the drivel of a one-off kook any more than you swallow the drivel that comes from the mass media or from governments.

 

[thorosius]

Photos. I've got photos too. Veritable reams of photos. Good photos of our soldiers doing the right thing. I'll happily engage a tit-for-tat exchange if so desired but my suspicion is that you'll run out long before I.

LOL! I expected you to read the article.

You've made your case of our considerably embarassing and damaging warts. As a former officer of the U.S. Army, those at Abu Graib and Bagram did my cause a great disservice and acted out of the bounds of acceptable conduct. In doing, they needlessly and frivolously endangered the lives of our soldiers and marines. As such, they brook no favor from those of us who've served.

As a nation, we've rigorously applied all we know to institute change to the cultural psyche and human development that inculcated such behavior and the concurrent absence of appropriate command over-sight. We've done so before the world. Most of our actions are equally transparent- good and bad. It's all that any people can do.

I think you, like your Gov. are trying to mislead US and the international public. There was no command oversight. Torture was approved by the whole command hierarchy of the US.

You really gotta shed some light on these changes you are talkin about.

The Raw Story | DoJ blocking Obama team from docs on torture, wiretapping

Your numbers about Afghanistan are not the whole story. THAT is better revealed by trend lines. So too Iraq. I'm less interested in the past than the future. Are you? If so, then you noted the trends in Iraq (downward) and the trends of violence directed at civilians by the taliban (upward). You'd also note as both a historical fact and on-going policy, that in no case have ISAF/NATO forces ever been accused of deliberately targeting civilians nor using them as human shields. We've never used mosques as weapons depots nor conducted fire upon the enemy from them.

Without going into an exhaustive analysis, I think you're off the mark in a number of respects. Nonetheless, if so interested, I'll be happy to engage in a discussion that attempts to reveal the best analysis of past casualties of war, the supporting methodology that reaches those values, and the future trends given predictive statistical analysis. I'd ask, though, that you either find a current thread here that's an acceptable venue for the discussion or create a new thread such that we don't distract from this thread's intent.

I can understand your apathy concerning the past and particularly about 9/11. It would force you to seriously question your participation in the war and the deaths resulting from your direct actions.

I personally believe that employing mosques for the puposes of war is very wrong but I also believe that your claims that western force have never been accused of targeting civilians are wrong too.

EUROPEAN TURKMEN FRIENDSHIPS: U.S. snipers accused of targeting civilians in Sadr City

Everything is available on the internet but you choose to ignore. How can we forget the bombing of Al-Jazeera offices?

You are ready to accept the crimes commited in Abu-Gharib etc. because they had their way into the mainstream media but you are not ready to accept a fraction of a possibility of 9/11 being an inside job or your military deliberately killing innocent civilians etc. for a sole reason that they weren't reported by fox news or NBC or CNN? Regardless of your turning a blind eye towards these crimes there are always Muslims being effected by these events, radicalising them, creating more resistance and hatred towards US which is good. Its time Muslims become aware that US is not our friend.

to include nearly killing Hamid Karzai in early November, 2001

That would have been a big favour to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

 

[S-2]

I see that you've NOT chosen a separate thread? Oh well

"I can understand your apathy concerning the past and particularly about 9/11. It would force you to seriously question your participation in the war and the deaths resulting from your direct actions."

Not one bit. The deaths are unfortunate. Had the taliban gov't surrendered OBL promptly, it is questionable who or how many might have died. So too the notion that their gov't would have been removed at all. They didn't offer up OBL and the consequences were war.

Given our capabilities, the victory was achieved at modest cost to the afghani people. The subsequent peace has proved more problematice. What hasn't proved questionable, though, is the shift in casualties inflicted by each side, the rate at which it's done, and-worse, the intent by one side to willfully target the innocent. These are the facts now and the supporting trends. What they say is that the taliban willfully ignores the most basic rules of war to the detriment of the general population.

That's imposing a writ of governance by bald intimidation and offers no solution of hope. Shabnamah isn't a policy-course of long-term social value to these citizens.

Those are the facts as reported by HRW and I doubt that you can find better.

The numbers absolutely vary between 9,000-27,000 since 2001. They speak for themselves relative to either the Soviet-Afghan war or the subsequent civil war. No group of nations has displayed greater care for the lives of civilians in the face of daily provocation than ISAF.

We get better. The taliban gets worse.

I like our chances long-term. Question is, can we hang? We'll see.

 

[S-2]

"If we set deaths resulting from 2 month US killing spree from 7th October 2001 to 7th december 2001 to 3800 ... should I do the rest o the math?"

You don't see a problem with this?

What point, exactly, would you wish to argue? Do you wish to accuse NATO of being more callous than the Soviet Union or the mujahideen? Do wish to accuse them of being more so than the various participating militias during the Afghan civil war? Would you care to make that accusation of them relative to the enemies that Afghanistan and Pakistan face today?

We KNOW the rate that our enemies kill civilians is at a pace of 2.5:1. We KNOW that they both shelter behind and willfully target innocents. We KNOW that they intimidate to prevent elections and the tools of governance, promote corruption, yet claim they have now LEARNED the errors of their ways since last in power.

Did you read the Guardian article? If not, here's the post with it.

You've no case in this informational war when you strip back the crocodile cries for the meek.

A thirteen year old boy was the latest "tool" of the taliban in Helmand. Killed three royal marines with an explosive-laden wheel barrow. Nevermind the marines, God rest their souls. What about the boy?

 

[thorosius]

Not one bit. The deaths are unfortunate. Had the taliban gov't surrendered OBL promptly, it is questionable who or how many might have died. So too the notion that their gov't would have been removed at all. They didn't offer up OBL and the consequences were war.

Taliban asked for evidence which US did not provide cause they had none. So, by taking a stand against the US demand of "Hand over OBL promptly" without evidence they have taken a moral high ground. That is one of the reasons why Taliban footsoldiers and supporters did not abandon them after their fall. Infact their support is increasing after Afghans had a taste of "American Freedom".

Given our capabilities, the victory was achieved at modest cost to the afghani people. The subsequent peace has proved more problematice. What hasn't proved questionable, though, is the shift in casualties inflicted by each side, the rate at which it's done, and-worse, the intent by one side to willfully target the innocent. These are the facts now and the supporting trends. What they say is that the taliban willfully ignores the most basic rules of war to the detriment of the general population.

Yup! The US was victorious, temporarily. Afghans only recieved corpses.

Officially Taliban do not allow killing of civilians and consider it a crime just like US officially does. There are also multiple factions in the Afghan resistance who might not be careful in their operations.

I like our chances long-term. Question is, can we hang? We'll see.

I wouldn't get my hopes too high. Honor binds Afghans to fight even when they have no weapons.

What point, exactly, would you wish to argue? Do you wish to accuse NATO of being more callous than the Soviet Union or the mujahideen? Do wish to accuse them of being more so than the various participating militias during the Afghan civil war? Would you care to make that accusation of them relative to the enemies that Afghanistan and Pakistan face today?

NATO, USSR, Afghan Warlords, they are all the same, they do not care about civilian life.

We KNOW the rate that our enemies kill civilians is at a pace of 2.5:1. We KNOW that they both shelter behind and willfully target innocents. We KNOW that they intimidate to prevent elections and the tools of governance, promote corruption, yet claim they have now LEARNED the errors of their ways since last in power.

We DO NOT KNOW these things, they are just reported by the western media. Elections strengthen the puppet Gov of Hamid Karzai, they are just another tool for the US to use. Are fair elections possible when outside forces occupy a country?

Since this is a thread about 9/11 I would love to hear/read anything you consider evidence about Osama's involvement in 9/11. Or do you just accept Bush's word for it?

 

[S-2]

We start with last to be first-

OBL Confesses to 9/11

As if OBL's lil' sitdown for din-din with friends in November 2001 wasn't convincing enough...

The man has hung himself numerous times but loons here persist.

"Elections strengthen the puppet Gov of Hamid Karzai, they are just another tool for the US to use."

Elections strengthen the civic responsibility of citizens who work to make their voices heard for their efforts. Your cynicism is expected given your peripheral understanding. No doubt you subscribe to the notion of "one man, one vote, one time".

Your taliban wish to make puppets of the afghan people. With an electoral plurality among the pashtu, they should easily win and uncover the duplicity and disorganization of the U.N. and it's 41 national "watchers" by FLOODING the registrar's offices with Pashtu voters.

Tells you how little confidence the pashtu having in giving an identity to the nation other than one narrowly conceived along ethnic lines. Tells also how little faith the taliban have that they can carve a role for themselves even within THAT narrow constituency.

"Are fair elections possible when outside forces occupy a country?"

I trust the U.N., N.A.T.O./I.S.A.F. and the forty-one nations now there to monitor the fairness far better than were they not there.

Surely, given the tumultuous and corrupt nature of Pakistani politics you don't expect perfection. If so, then it's because you pray for electoral failure. This is a process by a nation who'll be executing it's second elections under it's constitution. That will be one more than Pakistan since civilian control has reasserted? itself.

Glass houses comes to mind. So too non-interference in the matters of the afghani by Pakistani pashtu.

"NATO, USSR, Afghan Warlords, they are all the same, they do not care about civilian life."

Sorry, you've made no case against NATO while omitting the worst present offenders- the taliban. I've evidence from HRW. You've...nothing but soap-box rhetoric and children bombers.

"I wouldn't get my hopes too high. Honor binds Afghans to fight even when they have no weapons."

Maybe. Maybe not. Vendetta is important. Beyond? Everything is subject to discussion...and money.

"Officially Taliban do not allow killing of civilians and consider it a crime just like US officially does."

Really? I'll look forward to that policy letter from Quetta (or wherever).

"There are also multiple factions in the Afghan resistance who might not be careful in their operations."

You think?!

Then I guess that these infinitesmially few deviants from the "officially Taliban" plan are, you know, "rogues"?

Sure they are.

 

[Evil Flare]

afghanistan is as barren as it looks! its importance is only for one point: transit-route of turkmenistan, kazakhistan oil and gas to the persian gulf!

Not Persian GULF

I think CASPIAN Sea