Quote:
Originally Posted by thekid345
Shane,
I think the Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, but only because the USA/Saudi/Pakistan made some mistakes during the 80s in supplying the same folks who would later go on to form the Taliban/Al Qaeda. Take a look at this timeline I created a while ago, what are your thoughts?
IRT to the events that lead to 9/11,
Russia Invades Afghanistan to keep it communist (1980)--->US/Pakistan supports/trains the rebel Mujaheddin in Afghanistan including indirect support of Bin Laden---> Communist Afghanistan is not defeated but basically destroyed in a long war in what is referred to as Russia's Vietnam----> Afghanistan starts to fall apart in the late 80s early 90s--->by 1992 Afghanistan completely falls apart and its communist president is brutally tortured/executed by the same rebels the US/Pakistan supported---->a tribal pact is formed and from 92-96 political power is shared in Afghanistan, eventually major disagreements occur and a civil war ensues----> 1996 The Taliban come to power, largely made of those same Mujaheddin from the 1980s ----->2001, 9/11 occurs-----> Taliban are accused of harboring Osama Bin Laden in the aftermath of 9/11
In addition,
A college in Nebraska created extremely violent textbooks that were in turn sent to Afghanistan in the 1980s. The books were received by members of the Afgan Muhajedeen, aka future members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
American universities produced books for Afghan children that extolled the virtues of jihad and of killing communists. Readers browsing through book bazaars in Rawalpindi and Peshawar can, even today, sometimes find textbooks produced as part of the series underwritten by a USAID $50 million grant to the University of Nebraska in the 1980′s . These textbooks sought to counterbalance Marxism through creating enthusiasm in Islamic militancy. They exhorted Afghan children to “pluck out the eyes of the Soviet enemy and cut off his legs”. Years after the books were first printed they were approved by the Taliban for use in madrassas – a stamp of their ideological correctness and they are still widely available in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Also,
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/...ed-to-911.html
Brzezinski(Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski) told Al Qaeda’s forefathers – the Mujahadin:
We know of their deep belief in god – that they’re confident that their struggle will succeed. That land over – there is yours – and you’ll go back to it some day, because your fight will prevail, and you’ll have your homes, your mosques, back again, because your cause is right, and god is on your side.
Finally,
Charlie Wilson (a USA rep during the Afgan Soviet War) was also very concerned that blowback would happen wrt the stingers the USA/Saudi/Pakistan provided to the Afgans during the Soviet Afgan war.
Some of these same "Afgan rebels" would be very influential in the rise of the Taliban and Al Qaeda during the 90s. Ironically, one can presently note that Al Qaeda linked rebels are active in multiple countries in the Middle east including Syria.
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/charlie-did-it/
Wilson later told CBS he "lived in terror" that a civilian airliner would be shot down by a Stinger, but he did not have misgivings about having provided Stingers to defeat the Soviets.
I don't know about your time line, but I can assure u that middle eastern terrorist groups (if there is such a thing) had nothing to do with the controlled demolition of the twin towers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by losing all2
oh look, dumb thread brings Shane G out of his rat hole. BOOO BOOOO
If there was no element of truth in what i've been saying, then there'd be no need for a response like this. People use ad hominem attacks in what seems to be sheer emotional reflex, without actually considering the obvious factual evidence that is presented to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuces McKracken
If you look carefully you can see the terrorist passports being thrown out of the window at the last second before the plane is vaporized.
But seriously, the passports being found intact, the put options on the airlines, the refusal to show any discernible video of the pentagon attack...something is up with 911. But it's such a complex event that it is unlikely it will ever be interpreted correctly.
There should be a "practically unknowable" option.
Could a passport survive that completely intact? I highly doubt it. Then again, we don't often crash planes into buildings so we don't exactly know what to expect. Were a bunch of non-terrorist passports also found or other remnants of things on board? Who the **** knows?
Would someone looking to focus the guilt on the profile of the supposed hijacker make such an obvious plant? like everyone is stupid? or would they level us into thinking yeah, it would be so stupid to do that so clearly he's not and it's legit? And was the guy who found it an FBI agent? Some sources say yes and some say no.
The theme here is questions, questions, and more questions. You would have to be a gullible idiot or deeply indoctrinated to blindly believe what the power structure tells you about this event. But you would have to be crazy to connect the dots in some meaningful way in the current information landscape and ignore tons of your own inconsistencies which are bound to arise (as arise they do in EVERY alternative theory).
Accept that the truth is there is no hard truth regarding this. We can't even agree on who killed Kennedy, one man shot in broad daylight in front of crowds. You think we can derive conclusions about this? in a vacuum of evidence buried under layers of secrecy, intentional and unintentional misinformation, screeching nationalism and jingoist propaganda?
We cannot.
Dude, you're talking about a passport, one of the most trivial pieces of disinformation that was thrown out there, no pun intended, as a way to reinforce the aeroplane narrative.
It's been 12 years since 9/11 and u are still playing right into the perpetrators hands as u talk about the official verdict/fake narrative/false evidence as if it's some how relevant. There was no aeroplanes involved in the destruction of the twin towers, this is evident from the digitally produced videos.
Another thing, u mention Kennedy, the Zapruder film is another fake, even back then they were capable of faking videos so as to depict some type of real life happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
Not being American, I'm really not sure how Americans view 9/11, but from my point of view, and many people outside of the US, it was at the very least a suspicious event.
That doesn't imply that the US bombed itself, but at the very least there are things that were not revealed to the general public.
Things like building 7, the Pentagon, NORAD, the commission report, etc., all point to something else besides what the official story reported. At the very least it's strange, but a lot of people seem to think that by suggesting there are some unanswered questions, you are automatically suggesting that it was planned and perpetrated by the US Government.
Does anybody agree that the event had some strange and perhaps unanswered questions surrounding it? Or is the consensus that Al Qaeda flew some planes into a couple of towers and the Pentagon, and that's all there is to it?
Take another look at my post from earlier itt.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...1&postcount=16
It seems as though the utube vid I uploaded has been removed from this site
but u can find it if u go direct to utube.
U can still see the print screen that I took from that video anyway, does that pic showing half a plane as it enters a building depict reality?
Last edited by ShaneG; 02-20-2014 at 07:18 AM.