Stratovarius Community

This is what the "operations" in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost 2001-2007.
603 Billion US Dollars. That´s pretty much says it all...

Rediculous amount of money! I bet Osama is thinking, two nil!

And it doesn't look like it'll stop soon

At least the Afghanistan operations are UN-sanctioned and have continued support from the international community and serious contribution from many countries. Unlike another situation...

Yes. That is pretty much. BTW, did you saw the document on Finnish TV at spring which was made by vice President of U.S.A?
I didn't saw it but I heard that on that document they said that that attack to 9/11 was made by U.S, not Al Qaeda.
But if that's true... U.S Coverment really sucks because they lie to everybody.
PS: I need to know name of that document because I want to see that

StratoTimo wrote:Yes. That is pretty much. BTW, did you saw the document on Finnish TV at spring which was made by vice President of U.S.A?
I didn't saw it but I heard that on that document they said that that attack to 9/11 was made by U.S, not Al Qaeda.
But if that's true... U.S Coverment really sucks because they lie to everybody.
PS: I need to know name of that document because I want to see that

Maybe it was Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore. He is kind of an opportunist though. I would say about half of what he says is true. According to the Intelligence reports well before the attacks during the summer of 2001, there were plenty of evidence that Al Qaeda is going to attack and even how. If you subscribe to the theory why USA is in Iraq today, then at least my opinion is that they let it happen. Too many things just happened during that day that cannot be coincidencies. And there was of course knowledge in US government that sooner or later Al Qaeda will try to hit USA inside. So they had a plan waiting in the wings when it happened. Then you have to just ask why and the rest are just details.
603000000000 Dollars is a lot of money. Who benefits from that? Why is USA in Iraq in the first place?

StratoTimo wrote:Yes. That is pretty much. BTW, did you saw the document on Finnish TV at spring which was made by vice President of U.S.A? I didn't saw it but I heard that on that document they said that that attack to 9/11 was made by U.S, not Al Qaeda.
But if that's true... U.S Government really sucks because they lie to everybody. PS: I need to know name of that document because I want to see that

@Stratotimo- the US government, like any other government, is certainly capable of it's own share of dirty tricks and assassinations, but the possibility of Washington being behind 9/11 is really remote- even for those people that are on the far left or the far right of the political spectrum.

There are similar stories and rumors that have circulated that the Kremlin was behind a wave of apartment complex bombings which was allegedly used as a pretext for the reoccupation of Chechnya, and I feel that story is just as false as the 9/11 rumors.

Heh there's certainly a fair bit of evidence to support the US doing it, wouldn't surprise me either!

TimoTolkki wrote:Too many things just happened during that day that cannot be coincidencies. And there was of course knowledge in US government that sooner or later Al Qaeda will try to hit USA inside. So they had a plan waiting in the wings when it happened. Then you have to just ask why and the rest are just details. 603000000000 Dollars is a lot of money. Who benefits from that? Why is USA in Iraq in the first place?

I think ... not enough things happened! Like not enough x-ray machines at the airports, not enough intelligence coordination beforehand. Nobody was prepared..

That the plan for Iraq was in the wings nobody doubts. That the Bush II administration's foreign policy sometimes has been like a drunken, tone-deaf retard showing up at the choir recital.. not so much in doubt either. I think GWB himself is just not that intellectual and not that interested (to put the situation kindly), and some of his most trusted advisors have been heavily reductionist and very gung-ho.. drunken with a very simplistic view of the complex world, and having read way too much Clausewitz and Sun-Tzu platitudes. Foreign policy guided by coffee table books written hundreds of years ago...

The simple military truth is that the US war and intelligence machine with a budget of almost a trillion bucks per year was outflanked by some guys with carpet knives.

Some of the momentum for starting wars always comes from within the military itself, of course. This is how it's always been.. if all you have is a hammer the world looks like a big nail. The US Dept of "defense" have a humongous fucking huge ass budget... it's just an unbelievable amount of money. The word "astronomical" doesn't even cover it... they get 40 times more money than NASA.

The conspiracy theories that "the US was behind the 9/11 attacks" I personally don't believe in, if stated that simple. Could elements from within the US government have aided the plot? Possibly. Did (like some poeple suggest) no plane hit the Pentagon? I don't believe so. I believe this idea (and many similar ones) is the result of muddled thinking and a general desire to stir up shit. You'll note that nobody disputes that two planes struck the WTC... there is too much video of that. The two sites where there was less video.. for these two sites somehow the conspiracy theories start to flourish. If someone wants to make a credible case that the planes were not there at all, in my opinion they should also make it for the two planes at the WTC. (And explain what happened to the rest of the passengers..... and do better than waving their hands around and saying "donno, perhaps the CIA whisked them away using unicorns to secret bases on the dark side of the moon or something?")

The question "who benefits".. has no simple answer either. Sure, weapons makers and some people at various military branches. (But not the 20-year old kids on either side in Iraq getting their asses shot off, for sure.) Various lobbyists. But the US is running a heavy deficit.. so perhaps it's the Chinese who benefit. If their belligerent neighbor dictator gets removed.. Israel benefits. If the Kurds get some more self determination... the Kurds benefit (and Turkey gets pissed off). And if the Sunnis in Iraq get tweaked, the Shias are happy. And vice versa. Ad nauseam. I'm sure one of the long term aims of the iraq "operations" was related to energy prices and the energy market.. so if fuel prices somehow magically are stable because of it in the long run... a lot of people in the west, including EU citizens, who drive cars, fly on airplanes, heat their houses with fuel oil etc etc benefit from lower fuel prices.. then perhaps it's the west who benefits.

Of course if the whole thing turns into a huge cluster fuck and fuel prices skyrocket, maybe it's the Russians who benefit. Maybe they even planned the whole thing like this ... they do have a long tradition of chess playing.

htcdude wrote:Heh there's certainly a fair bit of evidence to support the US doing it, wouldn't surprise me either!

What evidence? Show me.

not enough intelligence coordination beforehand. Nobody was prepared..

Except an CIA memo entitled "Osama Bin Laden is planning to attack USA using hijacked planes". In this memo that was handed to Condoleezza Rice in the summer of 2001 is stated clearly the whole actual plan to use hijacked planes and crash them into buildings. It was ignored, despite of the ample evidence of very suspicious activities of certain individuals attending flight schools in USA. They knew. And of course it was what they had been waiting for all along so they could put their Iraq plan into action. It just was a bit harder cause there were no weapons of mass destruction. It didn´t matter.
But that was the original official reason to attack Iraq.
The so called war on terrorism is nothing else but a camouflage for US government to practise its expansion politics. Russia is doing the same. Almost every country would do the same given the resources they have. Unfortunately. And the whole flock of sheep follows blindly. Once again. Hitler said once that the greater the lie, the easier the masses believe it.
He was dead right.

TimoTolkki wrote:

not enough intelligence coordination beforehand. Nobody was prepared..

Except an CIA memo entitled "Osama Bin Laden is planning to attack USA using hijacked planes". In this memo that was handed to Condoleezza Rice in the summer of 2001 is stated clearly the whole actual plan to use hijacked planes and crash them into buildings. It was ignored, despite of the ample evidence of very suspicious activities of certain individuals attending flight schools in USA. They knew. And of course it was what they had been waiting for all along so they could put their Iraq plan into action. It just was a bit harder cause there were no weapons of mass destruction. It didn´t matter. But that was the original official reason to attack Iraq.
The so called war on terrorism is nothing else but a camouflage for US government to practise its expansion politics. Russia is doing the same. Almost every country would do the same given the resources they have. Unfortunately. And the whole flog of sheep follows blindly. Once again. Hitler said once that the greater the lie, the easier the masses believe it.
He was dead right.

I honestly believe that if people at Condoleeza Rice's level of government in the US would have known about these specific attacks (rather than the general threat described in that report), they would have prevented them. I don't believe "they" (whoever they are ) have the belief systems to dispassionately do nothing about so many possible civilian deaths. It's a too shitty thing to do morally.. even for a politician. And I have a very dim view of the ruling class. But I still refuse to believe they would be that evil. And besides, the stakes are too big.. if you get caught for something like that it's not only a criminal act punishable by death. If you conspire about something of this magnitude, you would have to depend on people not to rat you out. You have to depend on nothing in the plot ever being unravelled, on all the people involved to stay completely silent, on no light being shed on any of it ever. Add to that the dishonor and discgrace and shame and .. just living with yourself afterwards.

You also have to remember that initial estimates were for up to 50000 casualties, not the 3000 that actually died.

In the US it's very difficult to silence the press once they actually do smell the blood. There is just too much glory in exposing corruption. Watergate is the canonical example. That was about a burglary. You can imagine how difficult it would be to contain a conspiracy involving 50000 possible casualties. Maybe it's possible to contain a conspiracy to burn down the Reichstag in 30's germany, with the press and government they had then. The 30's Germany are very different from present-day US .. and 50000 citizen casualties is a completely different ballgame than a burning building. So... in short, I don't believe Condoleeza was involved! besides... she plays piano! She can't be 100% evil.

I do believe "they" were incompetent, fallible, arrogant, partisan, or all four, or worse. With my view of the ruling class, I find that explanation much much more plausible.

I also clearly remember the general tenor of US media before 9/11 2001.. the first few months of GWB's term they still seemed to be very preoccupied only with what Clinton had done wrong. There was missing computer keyboard keys (the "W" keys) in the white house... that absorbed all national news media for like three weeks in January 2001. Then there was all that bullshit about the presidential pardons. Then everyone got a tax refund in the summer. That's what GWB basically had gotten elected on.. cutting taxes, and stuff like a very serious promise not to EVER engage the US military in nation building...........

Neither terrorism NOR foregn policy seemed to be on the radar... either of these were the furthest thing from anyone's mind. It was all blow jobs, 'W' keys, and tax cuts. And a defense machinery like a bloated dinosaur with huge teeth, but completely defenseless against a deadly dinosaur virus.

So.. missing 'W' keys were dwarfed by the 9/11 attacks.

9/11 is dwarfed by the destruction of all the conflicts of Europe.

And those in their turn are dwarfed by the issue of global warming.

And if someone releases a bad enough bioweapon, we can just forget about global warming.... it will be a trivial non-issue.

So..... wonderful times to be alive... all hail the idiotic knee-jerk media and arrogant and stupid politicians while the ship sinks. Barkeep! We need another round to try to forget this crap!

I don't believe "they" (whoever they are ) have the belief systems to dispassionately do nothing about so many possible civilian deaths. It''s a too shitty thing to do morally.. even for a politician.

Oh man. And I always considered myself naive. The mechanics could be similar to JFK assasination. The top level is involved of course. Including "they", who are the "invisible ones", the ones that have the true power. But there is nothing that can be proved. Btw. everybody except Bush and Cheney has left, who was in the administration at that time.
And sure, the same politicians flooded Iraq with Tomahawks with considerably more civilian deaths. Where was their moral then? And why did they attack Iraq? That is the key question. Why did they go there?
To "free the Iraqi people from the tyrant"? Was Saddam a real threat to the area at that time? No he wasn´t. And you can ask Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector, who protested violently when they were informed the plan of USA attack. He said that there is "nothing there" and even the majority of the army never recovered from papa Bush´s operation.

But I still refuse to believe they would be that evil. And besides, the stakes are too big.. if you get caught for something like that it's not only a criminal act punishable by death. If you conspire about something of this magnitude, you would have to depend on people not to rat you out. You have to depend on nothing in the plot ever being unravelled, on all the people involved to stay completely silent, on no light being shed on any of it ever. Add to that the dishonor and discgrace and shame and .. just living with yourself afterwards.

The plot itself was just to let it happen. Not to react to the intelligence data.
I´m not saying Rice was involved. But the mechanics are actually not so difficult, and it proves the the highest level were involved because they can give confusing orders for example that it takes from fighter jets 55 minutes to react to the hijack situation and still not given permission to shoot (it was too late anyway). Similar mechanics were operational in Dallas at 1963 that ordered the majority of the CIA agents responsible for the safety of JFK not to be on duty on that day. Many most basic security rules were violated in that case and the reason was that JFK was gonna pull out from Vietnam. Therefore he was eliminated. Once again there is no evidence because the plot is verbal. Sometimes not even verbal. All involved know what is gonna happen and why.

In the US it's very difficult to silence the press once they actually do smell the blood. There is just too much glory in exposing corruption. Watergate is the canonical example. That was about a burglary. You can imagine how difficult it would be to contain a conspiracy involving 50000 possible casualties. Maybe it''s possible to contain a conspiracy to burn down the Reichstag in 30's germany, with the press and government they had then. The 30's Germany are very different from present-day US .. and 50000 citizen casualties is a completely different ballgame than a burning building.

Well when you cant prove anything, there is no blood for the press.
50 000 casualties is nothing in the big picture for these people. Think about the 603000000000 dollars. Think about the oil. Think about the presence of USA in Iraq to aide its biggest ally Israel. Similar goverment sent 50 000 boys to Vietnam to die and didn´t have any remorse over that.

TimoTolkki wrote:And sure, the same politicians flooded Iraq with Tomahawks with considerably more civilian deaths. Where was their moral then? And why did they attack Iraq? That is the key question. Why did they go there?

Civilian deaths of "the other" are as you know much easier for anyone to handle, mentally, morally, whatnot... especially when there is political consensus to kill these "others". Which there pretty much was.

Iraq is and has always been very much about oil, of course.. no matter how anyone tries to deny it. That's sort of a non-issue for me anyway.

If you conspire about something of this magnitude, you would have to depend on people not to rat you out. You have to depend on nothing in the plot ever being unravelled, on all the people involved to stay completely silent, on no light being shed on any of it ever. Add to that the dishonor and discgrace and shame and .. just living with yourself afterwards.

The plot itself was just to let it happen. Not to react to the intelligence data.

This "plot" to me is indistinguishable from the people in charge being incompetent, arrogant.. etc. I guess i believe in the old "Hanlon's razor" maxim .. "never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence."

But the mechanics are actually not so difficult, and it proves the the highest level were involved because they can give confusing orders for example that it takes from fighter jets 55 minutes to react to the hijack situation and still not given permission to shoot (it was too late anyway).

Doesn't rise to the level of proof of malice, for me. Does definitely rise to the level of incompetence. US soil hadn't been attacked on this scale since 1941. Over the years, the "defense department" had become a giant octopus very much focused on projecting global power and protecting US interests worldwide, and the defense of the homeland had been pretty much forgotten about (except regarding strategic missiles from that other giant octopus).

So there is the

$4 carpet knife > $3,000,000,000 Trident submarine

equation that doesn't make sense to anyone, until it all of a sudden makes all sorts of sense.... within the span of 4-5 hours. Wake-up call!

Similar mechanics were operational in Dallas at 1963 that

..... THAT of course is a whole other can of worms!! I can well imagine a sort of high level plot to take out a US president. But regarding 50000 US civilians I'll pick an explanation with a much larger "incompetence" component.. everyone has to pick their own explanations I suppose!

Well when you cant prove anything, there is no blood for the press.
50 000 casualties is nothing in the big picture for these people. Think about the 603000000000 dollars. Think about the oil. Think about the presence of USA in Iraq to aide its biggest ally Israel. Similar goverment sent 50 000 boys to Vietnam to die and didn´t have any remorse over that.

Well also when you can't prove anything, then........ you can't prove anything. Of course.

It's true that it's a terrible fact how different a human life is valued by a government depending on .. citizenship status and location. Think of the maybe 25000 dying of poverty every day...

The media too. The 'W' key outrage in US media was the same week as the Gujarat earthquake, and completely eclipsed that in the news.. "Bill Clinton's aides may or may not have destroyed a few $5 computer keyboards by removing the W keys!!!!" And then on page 35, next to the crossword.. "earthquake hurts some brown people or other, 20000 dead, half a million displaced"..

TimoTolkki wrote:

StratoTimo wrote:Yes. That is pretty much. BTW, did you saw the document on Finnish TV at spring which was made by vice President of U.S.A?
I didn't saw it but I heard that on that document they said that that attack to 9/11 was made by U.S, not Al Qaeda.
But if that's true... U.S Coverment really sucks because they lie to everybody.
PS: I need to know name of that document because I want to see that

Maybe it was Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore. He is kind of an opportunist though. I would say about half of what he says is true. According to the Intelligence reports well before the attacks during the summer of 2001, there were plenty of evidence that Al Qaeda is going to attack and even how. If you subscribe to the theory why USA is in Iraq today, then at least my opinion is that they let it happen. Too many things just happened during that day that cannot be coincidencies. And there was of course knowledge in US government that sooner or later Al Qaeda will try to hit USA inside. So they had a plan waiting in the wings when it happened. Then you have to just ask why and the rest are just details.
603000000000 Dollars is a lot of money. Who benefits from that? Why is USA in Iraq in the first place?

Yes, it was Fahrenheit, but I remembered incorrectly, that I said the document was made by U.S Vice President (Al Gore) ...Document was climate change document...
But if you are in Finland and you can watch MTV Fact channel there is at today 8pm to 1:30am Those documents tell about 9/11 for example:
Man Who Predicted 9/11 and 9/11 Press for Truth.
Those looks so interesting that I'm going to watch them
Because I don't think that it was Al Qaeda who destroyed those buildings, there has been wrotes that the U.S military or someone else put explosive to WTC Towers basement.
I trust rather that because towers crash down very weard...
And those moneys, I think that U.S just want the oil what is in Iraq to them because they idiots use their own oil about 40-50 years ago.
And MR. Bush JR is just puppet to another big politician In U.S...
In my own opinion

Btw. everybody except Bush and Cheney has left, who was in the administration at that time.

There were two people who left early who wrote really good books about their experience. One was Paul O'Neill, who was secretary of the treasury and whose book struck me as very insightful into what actually happened. He told the tale... well I guess you'd have to read it. There definitely seemed to be a lot of incompetence and arrogance going around! No really outrageous stories, no very sinister conspiracies beyond "it would be great to have a reason to go into Iraq". That book was more like.. a "WTF was that.. I was in an administration with a bunch of idiots and political zealots for a year" book. He was basically from a civilian industry background and had not done any political or government work before. You still see his name on US currency printed in 2001 sometimes...

The other was Richard Clarke, who testified at that 9/11 commission hearing too btw. He definitely didn't have a kind view of how incompetently things were handled...

Both books definitely worth a read.

miditek wrote:There are similar stories and rumors that have circulated that the Kremlin was behind a wave of apartment complex bombings which was allegedly used as a pretext for the reoccupation of Chechnya, and I feel that story is just as false as the 9/11 rumors.

I wouldn't compare 9/11 with Chechnya. This is an absolutely different issue...

Absolutely tragic.

Absolutely tragic.

JensJohansson wrote:I think ... not enough things happened! Like not enough x-ray machines at the airports, not enough intelligence coordination beforehand. Nobody was prepared..

As the 9/11 Commission mentioned in its report to the American people, what happened was a failure of the imagination. Moreover, too much of the American intelligence infrastructure, which is far from being cooperative with each other, is ran too much like the personal fiefdoms of each Director.

JensJohansson wrote:That the plan for Iraq was in the wings nobody doubts.

I agree. However, the Pentagon does have war plans and contingencies for many different scenarios. War with North Korea being one, and it is also very likely that the Joint Chiefs of Staff also have plans for Iran, in addition to Russia and China. This does not mean that war with any of these nations is imminent, but we do have experts in the Order of Battle of the militaries of many adversaries and even potential opponents.

JensJohansson wrote:That the Bush II administration's foreign policy sometimes has been like a drunken, tone-deaf retard showing up at the choir recital.. not so much in doubt either.

It is difficult to dispute that, and, may I add, a very colorful illustration!

JensJohansson wrote:I think GWB himself is just not that intellectual and not that interested (to put the situation kindly), and some of his most trusted advisors have been heavily reductionist and very gung-ho.. drunken with a very simplistic view of the complex world, and having read way too much Clausewitz and Sun-Tzu platitudes. Foreign policy guided by coffee table books written hundreds of years ago...

I actually think that the Pentagon has for the large part, stuck with Clausewitzian principles, at least in the beginning, when Saddam's military machine was routed and then destroyed. That was about as textbook a victory as you can get. Regarding Clausewitz, although I personally think was brilliant, was really much more of a military theorist than a political expert.

It has been during the occupation and administration of Iraq where the problems began. Actually, the problem goes back even further than that. One could argue that Clinton flirted with disciplining Saddam (via missile strikes), but even he was not that interested in the overall problems there.

Neither was Bush I, being the internationalist that he is, allowed Saddam to stay in power after Gulf War I- since we were not "authorized" by the UN to take Saddam's regime down, but to only expel them from Kuwait. Looking even further back, it seems that Iraq was basically an artificially created (Balfour accords) country full of ethnic groups that simply hated each other, and a secular dictatorship was really the only option to keep them together to begin with.

JensJohansson wrote:The simple military truth is that the US war and intelligence machine with a budget of almost a trillion bucks per year was outflanked by some guys with carpet knives.

Precisely, and in reality, the U.S. Army has very, very little to do with the primary defense of the U.S. homeland at the moment. That is a fiefdom of civilian officials who are a bit territorial when it comes to internal security, and that is where the larger part of the problem lies.

JensJohansson wrote:Some of the momentum for starting wars always comes from within the military itself, of course. This is how it's always been.. if all you have is a hammer the world looks like a big nail. The US Dept of "defense" have a humongous fucking huge ass budget... it's just an unbelievable amount of money. The word "astronomical" doesn't even cover it... they get 40 times more money than NASA.

And some of the bureaucrats often become too dependent upon gadgets and the latest hi-tech wizardry, and then forget about accurate intelligence gathering/analysis, and most importantly, relationship building with the enemies of our enemies. I think that the US Special Forces definitely understand this type of warfare much, much better than the regular army types do. Unfortunately, the special forces have always been regarding as "red headed step-children", due primarily to their unconventional methods, their secrecy, as well as their lack of the traditional parade ground "spit and polish" that old war-horses like Patton loved. There is a lot of stupid things that happen in the Army, as well as in Washington.

JensJohansson wrote:The conspiracy theories that "the US was behind the 9/11 attacks" I personally don't believe in, if stated that simple. Could elements from within the US government have aided the plot? Possibly. Did (like some people suggest) no plane hit the Pentagon? I don't believe so. I believe this idea (and many similar ones) is the result of muddled thinking and a general desire to stir up shit.

I could not have said this better myself. Have you ever noticed how the media, for instance, loves to stir up trouble with nearly any administration, and yet, we never ever hear the end of their own self-righteous and self-congratulatory propaganda. As if they were the ones that held the true power in this country.

NeonVomit wrote:At least the Afghanistan operations are UN-sanctioned and have continued support from the international community and serious contribution from many countries. Unlike another situation...

Yeah, I really would separate those two situations. In Afghanistan there is a completely different situation, and it was from the very beginning. There are really realistic possibilities to stabilize the country. It's not one large tohuwabohu like in Iraq, the population very much wants freedom, education and better level of living. Of course the people of Iraq want that too, but there are too many groups involved in sadistic fightings among each other. In Afghanistan it's "only" one group (the Taliban), and they don't have the support of the civil population. Of course the whole grown structures in their society isn't easy as well (the power of the warlords, the very poor infrastructure, the different groups/ethnics, ...), but there is at least the will to improve the situation for everyone.
Compared to this, Iraq is a desaster. Well I don't want to play the wiseacre, but really, it's no coincedence that the Afghanistan intervention happened on the background of a large international "coalition". I mean, though I didn't like e.g. the way of our German chancellor Schröder of how he abruptly refused any cooperation with the US (only to get more votes in the next election), it's no coincidence that the US went into Iraq quite on their own. There was a) no reason, and b) no realistic plan.

Nevertheless, nowadays, the whole international community should think about how to solve the situation there. It's absolutely coward and absurd to lean back and point at the Americans saying now they should get out of that mess on their own. The situation nowadays (NOT the state that was existing with Saddam Hussein) is a real menace to world peace.

miditek wrote: I could not have said this better myself. Have you ever noticed how the media, for instance, loves to stir up trouble with nearly any administration, and yet, we never ever hear the end of their own self-righteous and self-congratulatory propaganda. As if they were the ones that held the true power in this country.

You seem to have forgotten that newspapers and news channels are buisinesses that need to make profit. Ratings and sales matter as those affect share prices. So of course they're going to sensationalise things and make something out of nothing, they need to meet their forecasts to keep their shareholders happy.

It's not entirely unlike the music buisiness - the 'pure' thing to do is report the truth, or at least the closest thing to it, but at the same time you need to make cash.

In that document they said that those Towers should hold up more than airplane. Those cast pillars should be in their place...!
steel should stand about +1500C and there was only +650c hot flame.
So flame didn't melt that steel?
They said that there was many progmmed explosives.
And they said that in basement was many explosives and there explode many times before airplane crashed to towers!
I have to say now that U.S Coverment is from ass!!!

hey, English please - this is the "Other discussion in English"-section. Thanx!

I wonder why Osama bin Laden shows up at this time after 3 years of absence? Where has he been hiding? The Conspiracy Theory websites are having a field day with this, mostly saying he is a fake Osama&the real one is dead! There are many people who are NOT conspiracy buffs who believe this, or at least something fishy is going on.
I have to agree that something just does not sit right. What is wrong with this picture? I mean,
besides Osama's reddish beard?

Almost everytime that guy makes an appearance, something bad happens in the world.
What do you all think of bin Laden's sudden reappearance? Do we all have anything to worry about in this case?

browneyedgirl wrote:I wonder why Osama bin Laden shows up at this time after 3 years of absence? Where has he been hiding? The Conspiracy Theory websites are having a field day with this, mostly saying he is a fake Osama&the real one is dead! There are many people who are NOT conspiracy buffs who believe this, or at least something fishy is going on.
I have to agree that something just does not sit right. What is wrong with this picture? I mean,
besides Osama's reddish beard?

Almost everytime that guy makes an appearance, something bad happens in the world.
What do you all think of bin Laden's sudden reappearance? Do we all have anything to worry about in this case?

Hmmm.. His appearance is always a bad thing. However some people think that his latest video is a fake. But who would make a fake video and why ?

Not a very reliable source of information, but here ya go http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/9368 ... nt_Forgery

And wtf does heavy metal have to do with this? Why the hell did they even mention heavy metal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... den109.xml

As for 9/11, I have seen Fahrenheit 9/11 and another documentary called "Loose Change". http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8192753501

It's quite interesting and I recommend it for everyone, I'm not completely convinced though. I still don't think that 9/11 was completely an inside job. IMO They knew something was coming, but they didn't know exactly when or where. IMO If they wanted to stage a terror attack on the U.S, they could have staged it effectively in so many different ways with much less civilian casualties. One way could have been by attacking other targets which would impact the morale of the U.S such as the Statue of Liberty.. etc. It would have been equally effective, but with much less casualties.

Lightyear wrote:
Hmmm.. His appearance is always a bad thing. However some people think that his latest video is a fake. But who would make a fake video and why ?

Al Qaeda, trying to show their figurehead is alive? I thought he was on kidney dyalisis.

StratoTimo wrote:In that document they said that those Towers should hold up more than airplane. Those cast pillars should be in their place...!
steel should stand about +1500C and there was only +650c hot flame.
So flame didn't melt that steel?
They said that there was many progmmed explosives.
And they said that in basement was many explosives and there explode many times before airplane crashed to towers!
I have to say now that U.S Coverment is from ass!!!

Jep, Now translate this

StratoTimo wrote:In that document they said that those Towers should hold up more than airplane. Those cast pillars should be in their place...!
steel should stand about +1500C and there was only +650c hot flame.
So flame didn't melt that steel?
They said that there was many progmmed explosives.
And they said that in basement was many explosives and there explode many times before airplane crashed to towers!
I have to say now that U.S Coverment is from ass!!!

Yes, the towers should have been able to hold the plane's weight.

What such conspiracy theories fail to take into account, however, is the amount of damage a 140-ton aircraft travelling at over 900km/h can cause, purely by force of impact.

As for the explosives in the basement; total and complete rubbish. If explosions had occurred before the planes hit, the buildings would have been evacuated and it would have been all over the news.

Sorry, StratoTimo, you gotta be a bit more careful with what you believe. I am open to any idea, but I have seen nothing even remotely convincing saying that the planes hitting the towers were not sufficient to bring them down.

As for anyone who believes no plane hit the Pentagon... uh. Try telling that to the families of the passengers and crew of American Airlines flight 77.