Is the War On Terror a Complete Hoax?

[Roadie]

NSFW for language..
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I[/ame]

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

." People have a hard time accepting the obvious and look to place blame and then always end with..."Well, I guess we will never know the truth" when the reality is that most people already know the truth but a truther will never accept the truth. People don't want to believe that bad things happen to good people and it is easier to try to pin it on something because we want in our hearts to believe tragedies are preventable. Oh well. I guess we will never know the truth>

"The obvious" ? The BEST place to hide something is right out in the open .

When I read this guy's words about his military experience Major General Smedley Butler USMC

I have doubts about the guberments version of the truth on anything .

How about why we went into Iraq anyway ? WMD ? OKDOKIE , sure we know saddam had gas , how do we know ? Cause he used them on his own people back in 96 .

Any WMD's found when we went back for Gulf round two ?

When the guberment's words and actions stop being rational , logical or reasonable , what are we left with ?

I'll say it again , "We the people" are getting lied to , and not just about 9/11 .

It's costing us our treasure both in money and blood .

 

[Blackhawk2001]

"The obvious" ? The BEST place to hide something is right out in the open .

When I read this guy's words about his military experience Major General Smedley Butler USMC

I have doubts about the guberments version of the truth on anything .

How about why we went into Iraq anyway ? WMD ? OKDOKIE , sure we know saddam had gas , how do we know ? Cause he used them on his own people back in 96 .

Any WMD's found when we went back for Gulf round two ?

When the guberment's words and actions stop being rational , logical or reasonable , what are we left with ?

I'll say it again , "We the people" are getting lied to , and not just about 9/11 .

It's costing us our treasure both in money and blood .

First of all, most of the First and Second World countries' intelligence services said Iraq had WMD and was working on a nuke. When I say "most", I mean Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Russia, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. Those are the ones I remember.

Second, Sadaam did his level best to make the world believe he had WMDs, so there was all sorts of dis-information pointing to the manufacture of nukes.

Third, our troops did, indeed find precursor chemicals as well as chemical bombs and gas stores. In fact, there were numerous DOCUMENTED cases of chemical munitions being incorporated in IEDs by insurgents during the early-to-middle part of the insurgency.

Fourth, if we needed it, the UN Security Council was convinced Sadaam had WMDs and passed 17 separate sanctions against Iraq telling them to cease the use and construction of WMDs.

The data are out there. You might try Googling Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction Found Iraq WMD IEDs. I know I got the original Google link from Stratfor.com about six months or a year ago and posted it the last time I saw this claim made.

 

[Roadie]

First of all, most of the First and Second World countries' intelligence services said Iraq had WMD and was working on a nuke. When I say "most", I mean Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Russia, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. Those are the ones I remember.

Second, Sadaam did his level best to make the world believe he had WMDs, so there was all sorts of dis-information pointing to the manufacture of nukes.

Third, our troops did, indeed find precursor chemicals as well as chemical bombs and gas stores. In fact, there were numerous DOCUMENTED cases of chemical munitions being incorporated in IEDs by insurgents during the early-to-middle part of the insurgency.

Fourth, if we needed it, the UN Security Council was convinced Sadaam had WMDs and passed 17 separate sanctions against Iraq telling them to cease the use and construction of WMDs.

The data are out there. You might try Googling Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction Found Iraq WMD IEDs. I know I got the original Google link from Stratfor.com about six months or a year ago and posted it the last time I saw this claim made.

Well said..

It's been repeated so much that there were not any WMDs and that only Bush thought they did, that people believe it..

Don't forget about the tons of high explosives found too, guess that isnt "MASS" enough for people's definition of WMD..

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Well said..

It's been repeated so much that there were not any WMDs and that only Bush thought they did, that people believe it..

Don't forget about the tons of high explosives found too, guess that isnt "MASS" enough for people's definition of WMD..

To be fair, "WMD" brings to mind nukes, chemical poisons, and weaponized diseases, not high explosives to most people. It always surprised me that the Bush Administration didn't publicize those finds to counteract the claims that he "lied", but apparently they decided they weren't going to fight that battle. But the reports are out there in the cloud.

 

[powerstrokin]

They didn't *just* catch fire. The airplanes flying into them and spilling hundreds of gallons of av fuel probably had a good bit to do with it, don't ya think?

Steel absolutely catastrophically fails when subject to intense, constant, and direct heat.

And it's been admitted the fuel mostly burned up shortly after the fires started.

Also, please post evidence of other steel structures that have succumbed to fire in the same way the towers suposedly did. Keep in mind those towers used MASSIVE amounts of steel.

Also explain the molten steel being seen dripping down right before collapse.

Also explain the iron spheres found in the rubble.

Also explain the explosives residue found in the dust and rubble.

Also explain how almost two entire structures turned nearly to dust.

Also explain the lack of airplane parts.

Also explain the photos of the engine, suposedly from one of the two aircraft, that are not even the right type of engine for said aircraft.

Also explain how anyone in their right mind can even think that somehow THIS (U.S.) gov't would never be involved with a false flag attack against it's own people, even though such acts have been not only drawn up in the past, but in fact implemented.

I'm not trying to get into a fight with you, don't get me wrong. Just figured I'd throw out some of these questions and see what your take on it is.

 

[Roadie]

And it's been admitted the fuel mostly burned up shortly after the fires started.

Also, please post evidence of other steel structures that have succumbed to fire in the same way the towers suposedly did. Keep in mind those towers used MASSIVE amounts of steel.

Also explain the molten steel being seen dripping down right before collapse.

Also explain the iron spheres found in the rubble.

Also explain the explosives residue found in the dust and rubble.

Also explain how almost two entire structures turned nearly to dust.

Also explain the lack of airplane parts.

Also explain the photos of the engine, suposedly from one of the two aircraft, that are not even the right type of engine for said aircraft.

Also explain how anyone in their right mind can even think that somehow THIS (U.S.) gov't would never be involved with a false flag attack against it's own people, even though such acts have been not only drawn up in the past, but in fact implemented.

I'm not trying to get into a fight with you, don't get me wrong. Just figured I'd throw out some of these questions and see what your take on it is.

All of the above has been explained/debunked by scientists, engineers, etc etc multiple times over the years.. Google is your friend.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

I find it curious that while an aircraft had deviated from its flight path (what did air traffic control say while this was happening?) and crashes into one of two towers, we have a second aircraft which had also deviated from its planned flight path and is making a bee-line for the same location.

Am I wrong about that or was the plane not supposed to be flying along that path? Does it really matter? Would you still have been that surprised?

Then, when the second plane hits, its like they were so not prepared for it. Really?! Then what happened (i cant remember the order) one goes down in Penn? Then one hits the Pentagon? Really? There is an AFB right there isn't there? They didn't scramble right off the bat? I guess they were also caught by surprise. I'm not saying Bush knew anything. I would never accuse him of having ANY KNOWLEDGE.

But what was it he said..fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, wont get fooled again or something goofy like that. Man we should be embarrassed of government ineptitude if it wasn't a conspiracy.

 

[rambone]

Six weeks after the collapse, molten steel was found under all the debris at ground zero with temperatures still around 1,500 degrees. That’s close to the maximum temperature jet fuel can burn. Are we to believe this magic fuel was still burning at maximum temperature after a month and a half? Photos of the steel beams in the rubble show that some beams have diagonal cuts which are exactly how demolition charges are placed. When the charges are placed diagonally they cut through steel - bringing a building straight down in its own footprint.
-- Luke Connor, We Didn't Start The Fire



Molten Steel Found at Ground Zero Weeks After 9/11

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

First of all, most of the First and Second World countries' intelligence services said Iraq had WMD and was working on a nuke. When I say "most", I mean Britain, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Russia, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. Those are the ones I remember.

Second, Sadaam did his level best to make the world believe he had WMDs, so there was all sorts of dis-information pointing to the manufacture of nukes.

Third, our troops did, indeed find precursor chemicals as well as chemical bombs and gas stores. In fact, there were numerous DOCUMENTED cases of chemical munitions being incorporated in IEDs by insurgents during the early-to-middle part of the insurgency.

Fourth, if we needed it, the UN Security Council was convinced Sadaam had WMDs and passed 17 separate sanctions against Iraq telling them to cease the use and construction of WMDs.

The data are out there. You might try Googling Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction Found Iraq WMD IEDs. I know I got the original Google link from Stratfor.com about six months or a year ago and posted it the last time I saw this claim made.

I guess if anyone looks long enough they could find a report saying anything they want , case in point Unravelling the Known Unknowns: Why no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been

Regardless of WMD's or lack thereof , too much of the guberments "truth and facts" make NO rational , logical sense .

 

[czyhorse]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlbsGTPWEkI[/ame]

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I find it curious that while an aircraft had deviated from its flight path (what did air traffic control say while this was happening?) and crashes into one of two towers, we have a second aircraft which had also deviated from its planned flight path and is making a bee-line for the same location.

Am I wrong about that or was the plane not supposed to be flying along that path? Does it really matter? Would you still have been that surprised?

Then, when the second plane hits, its like they were so not prepared for it. Really?! Then what happened (i cant remember the order) one goes down in Penn? Then one hits the Pentagon? Really? There is an AFB right there isn't there? They didn't scramble right off the bat? I guess they were also caught by surprise. I'm not saying Bush knew anything. I would never accuse him of having ANY KNOWLEDGE.

But what was it he said..fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, wont get fooled again or something goofy like that. Man we should be embarrassed of government ineptitude if it wasn't a conspiracy.

When an aircraft deviates from an ATC Clearance, ATC will attempt to contact the aircraft on Guard and all other frequencies for that airspace; then they will ask any other aircraft if they have contact with the missing aircraft. This takes time and assumes accidental rather than deliberate action on the part of the aircrew. Prior to 9/11 we didn't have Combat Air Patrols in the skies over our nation, and if we had, the mechanism to order a shoot-down hadn't been proven (because it was a theoretical plan rather than a current plan). As terrible as it was to have a single airliner crash into a skyscraper, it COULD have been a tragic accident - until the second airliner crashed into the adjoining skyscraper somewhat later. It wasn't much later than that when the airliner crashed the Pentagon, and of course, Flight 93 was probably crashed by the hijackers when the passengers attempted to take their aircraft back.

Your ignorance of normal Air Traffic Control procedure doesn't provide grist for the conspiracy theory mill, it just means you don't understand all the circumstances that puzzle you. Do a little opposition research and try to keep an open mind, if you can.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

I guess if anyone looks long enough they could find a report saying anything they want , case in point Unravelling the Known Unknowns: Why no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been

Regardless of WMD's or lack thereof , too much of the guberments "truth and facts" make NO rational , logical sense .

^^^^^This ^^^^^ Of course "google is your friend" because no matter what predetermined conclusions you have when searching for "the truth" you can always find data to support what you already believe.

But you cant get critical thinking skills just from data. And you never get them from taking what you are told to be true and not trying to find flaws in its logic. After all its called "critical thinking" not "supportive thinking"

 

[88GT]

And it's been admitted the fuel mostly burned up shortly after the fires started.

Yeah, and nothing else in those buildings full of paper, wood, and other flammable items caught fire, I suppose.

Also, please post evidence of other steel structures that have succumbed to fire in the same way the towers suposedly did. Keep in mind those towers used MASSIVE amounts of steel.

Sure, when you find me an example of a steel structure that was ignited in a similar manner (and I don't mean specifically airplane collision) and burned for as long.

Also explain the molten steel being seen dripping down right before collapse.

Also explain the iron spheres found in the rubble.

Not familiar with these since I didn't feel it was worth my time to fabricate ways this could be explained by something other than the most obvious and likely.

Also explain the explosives residue found in the dust and rubble.

Sure, as soon as you define "explosive residue" and we determine that there are no other uses for that specific chemical composition aside from explosives.

Also explain how almost two entire structures turned nearly to dust.

Is this a trick question? What did you expect a building that had a third of its interior incinerated to look like after it pancaked to the ground?

Also explain the lack of airplane parts.

Fire consumed them?

Also explain the photos of the engine, suposedly from one of the two aircraft, that are not even the right type of engine for said aircraft.

I thought there weren't any airplane parts?

Also explain how anyone in their right mind can even think that somehow THIS (U.S.) gov't would never be involved with a false flag attack against it's own people, even though such acts have been not only drawn up in the past, but in fact implemented.

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? Possibility of something happen is not proof that it did. It's possible I could beat my kid. If tomorrow they show up at a play date with bruises, is it your argument that because I could have, I did.

I'm not trying to get into a fight with you, don't get me wrong. Just figured I'd throw out some of these questions and see what your take on it is.

It's cool. Like I said before, given my science background and being married to an engineer, I tend to operate on two principles. First, the simplest explanation is the most likely, all else being equal. Second, evidence is used to formulate hypotheses, not the other way around. What I'm finding with a lot of the alternative hypothesis crowd, is that they'll take a bit of evidence that doesn't completely fit the airplane model and use that single bit of evidence to come up with a new hypothesis. Except they don't check their hypothesis. Let's say it was demolition. When were they installed? By whom? Why didn't anybody see any evidence of it, given all of the people who went in and out of those towers on a daily basis? And how does Flight 93 and the Pentagon flight fit in with the false flag hypothesis? Coincidence that on the same day the U.S. launches its efforts, terrorists also hijack two planes and attempt to run them into important buildings? Why doesn't the Pentagon have the same conspiracy theory muck-a-muck surrounding it? It's government. And why have airplanes fly into the buildings in the first place if they're going to use demolitions? It's not like there wasn't a history of explosives being used on the towers.

I've got no dog in the fight. But the government is incapable of running something this large without leaving evidence behind that it was involved. Moreover, I don't think Bush would have done it. For all his shortcomings as president, I don't think he thought he had to kill Americans to justify his actions. If 9-11 were the reason, it would have taken far less than 18 months for him to jump on the opportunity.

Sometimes things really are just they way they seem.

 

[Roadie]

I'll just leave this here..

Pictures of some of the airplane parts found..
http://letsrollforums.com/9-11-aircraft-parts-t20810.html?

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

More "truth" about Iraq's WMD "program"

Man whose WMD lies led to 100,000 deaths confesses all | Pakalert Press


The chemical engineer claimed to have overseen the building of a mobile biological laboratory when he sought political asylum in Germany in 1999. His lies were presented as “facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence” by Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, when making the case for war at the UN Security Council in February 2003.

But Mr Janabi, speaking in a two-part series, Modern Spies, starting tomorrow on BBC2, says none of it was true. When it is put to him “we went to war in Iraq on a lie. And that lie was your lie”, he simply replies: “Yes.”

 

[mydoghasfleas]

When an aircraft deviates from an ATC Clearance, ATC will attempt to contact the aircraft on Guard and all other frequencies for that airspace; then they will ask any other aircraft if they have contact with the missing aircraft. This takes time and assumes accidental rather than deliberate action on the part of the aircrew. Prior to 9/11 we didn't have Combat Air Patrols in the skies over our nation, and if we had, the mechanism to order a shoot-down hadn't been proven (because it was a theoretical plan rather than a current plan). As terrible as it was to have a single airliner crash into a skyscraper, it COULD have been a tragic accident - until the second airliner crashed into the adjoining skyscraper somewhat later. It wasn't much later than that when the airliner crashed the Pentagon, and of course, Flight 93 was probably crashed by the hijackers when the passengers attempted to take their aircraft back.

Your ignorance of normal Air Traffic Control procedure doesn't provide grist for the conspiracy theory mill, it just means you don't understand all the circumstances that puzzle you. Do a little opposition research and try to keep an open mind, if you can.

You knowledge of protocol of the FAA must surely require some top clearance. I am in fact Ignorant of their protocols and make no claim to the contrary. It impresses me very much that your implying to have that knowledge. Indeed until that day I had never heard of someone hijacking an airplane so there would be no way we would have had protocols in place to counter-act such an event. And like you said even after the second plane crashed into the other tower, and we knew it was no accident, it was a blink of an eye (from that point it was forty minutes with the plane off its flight path and 40 minutes later until impact of the pentagon) until the other one crashed into the pentagon. And the nearest air force base was nowhere near it I guess. Like I said, we either new it was coming, or the response was an embarrassment. I hope it was the latter, but lots of funny stuff happened that day. I'm sure those flight boxes will explain it when they find them. You know, come to think of it, if their mission was to "attack us for our freedom" then they may have been more successful than it first appeared.

 

[IndyDave1776]

As implausible as it may seem, human nature is to fail to notice the unexpected, or conversely to see the expected regardless of unusual details. This at the very least gives the air traffic controllers an out regarding failure to prove anything beyond complacency beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when their willful compliance seems very difficult to imagine. I will say that it is reasonable for this to have been construed as an accident until the time of the second impact, and then the 20+/- minutes until the Pentagon attack would be a very short time in which to regroup in a meaningful manner. Does this rule out the possibility of internal malfeasance? No, but I certainly would not be willing to bet on it being the actual problem. Still, the questions must be asked, otherwise we move right back into the trap of assuming that our leaders are above reproach, which has led us to being so far from the Constitutional Republic as we are today, particularly during our Golden Age of the early and middle 20th century in which, somehow, it became unpatriotic to question the integrity of our leaders.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

You knowledge of protocol of the FAA must surely require some top clearance. I am in fact Ignorant of their protocols and make no claim to the contrary. It impresses me very much that your implying to have that knowledge. Indeed until that day I had never heard of someone hijacking an airplane so there would be no way we would have had protocols in place to counter-act such an event. And like you said even after the second plane crashed into the other tower, and we knew it was no accident, it was a blink of an eye (from that point it was forty minutes with the plane off its flight path and 40 minutes later until impact of the pentagon) until the other one crashed into the pentagon. And the nearest air force base was nowhere near it I guess. Like I said, we either new it was coming, or the response was an embarrassment. I hope it was the latter, but lots of funny stuff happened that day. I'm sure those flight boxes will explain it when they find them. You know, come to think of it, if their mission was to "attack us for our freedom" then they may have been more successful than it first appeared.

Any commercial pilot with an instrument certification knows how ATC works (I am an instrument certified pilot), but the whole sequence has been reported elsewhere a number of times, as was the analysis of why the order to intercept the airliners wasn't given (and had that order been given, where could the airliners have been safely intercepted, anyway?). It's much more likely that the failures to intercept the aircraft can be blamed by bureaucratic inertia and outright denial than to impute it to some domestic conspiracy.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

More "truth" about Iraq's WMD "program"

Man whose WMD lies led to 100,000 deaths confesses all | Pakalert Press


The chemical engineer claimed to have overseen the building of a mobile biological laboratory when he sought political asylum in Germany in 1999. His lies were presented as “facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence” by Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, when making the case for war at the UN Security Council in February 2003.

But Mr Janabi, speaking in a two-part series, Modern Spies, starting tomorrow on BBC2, says none of it was true. When it is put to him “we went to war in Iraq on a lie. And that lie was your lie”, he simply replies: “Yes.”

If true, as a piece of intelligence disinformation, it was remarkably effective, since all the major intelligence agencies (including the Germans and French and Russians, who had all been involved in construction projects in Iraq). The idea that the US was the sole possessor of faulty information got very popular after the successful invasion, despite the fact that stores of chemical weapons and precursor chemicals WERE discovered during mopup operations and chemical weapons were incorporated into various IEDs for years after the invasion.

It's also true that the 60 days between the "final ultimatum" and the invasion was plenty of time for Sadaam to transfer munitions and equipment to his ally, Syria, and there is some intelligence that suggests this was the case.