Are conspiracy theories destroying democracy?

[Dub-67]

Democracy is ruining conspiracy theories

 

[hybrid_x]

The no planes theory is not for this forum......especially when people hold up and pray to the official report.

But for those who know the 911 photos of the planes are nonsense (for a miltitude of reasons)...research a man named Dean Warwick, what he said, and what killed him.


oh and for Badfish getting all irrate....

 

[BadFish]

The no planes theory is not for this forum......especially when people hold up and pray to the official report.

But for those who know the 911 photos of the planes are nonsense (for a miltitude of reasons)...research a man named Dean Warwick, what he said, and what killed him.


oh and for Badfish getting all irrate....

View attachment 48525

IF it is not for this forum, then maybe it is for another....................... do us all a favour and go see if you can find it. You don't add anything worthwhile to this one and won't be missed.

BTW your attempts at sarcasm are about as impressive as your media literacy and reasoning. I am not irate I just though I would reply to your nonsense in kind.

 

[One Love]

The no planes theory is not for this forum......especially when people hold up and pray to the official report.

But for those who know the 911 photos of the planes are nonsense (for a miltitude of reasons)...research a man named Dean Warwick, what he said, and what killed him.

So are you are distancing yourself from the no planes theory?

Can you tell me how Dean Warwick died?

 

[The Truth]

Badfish and one love. What a bunch of sad cases.

 

[pipkin112]

Badfish and one love. What a bunch of sad cases.

 

[The Truth]

View attachment 48527

I can judge because, it's loud and clear what a bunch of bored tossers they really are. They are still asking the same questions, jesus they really need to learn how to bite the bullet. It's irony how they go on about how sure they are of what really happened on 9/11 yet they argue for 30 pages without proving any point using swear words and pointless analytical posts in their defence.
Content? more a case of frustration me thinks.

ps the picture is a kettle talking to a Saucer right?

 

[The Truth]

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/04/04/chechnya-high-rise-burns-for-29-hours-with-no-collapse-wtc7/

Skyscraper burns with massive fire for 29 hours.......with no collapse.

Impossible!

 

[WATFORD zero]

Thank you and goodnight

 

[Franks Wild Years]

Thank you and goodnight

At last someone speaking sense.

 

[symyjym]

Badfish thinks fire A is hotter than fire B....

A

View attachment 48518

B

View attachment 48519

so much so that it made a skyscraper cave in on itself.

Although this fire looks less hotter than B and yet it collapsed on itself. Please explain?

 

[Hillian1]

Although this fire looks less hotter than B and yet it collapsed on itself. Please explain?

They won't, they will continue to avoid any form of questions and post another youtube video.

I asked for one of them to post what a skyscraper should look like when being hit by an airliner after their assertions that the WTC did not behave like a building being struck by one. I got no answers.

They are lost souls who I now feel sorry for, they are displaying all the signs of acute paranoia. They obviously only think that their intelligence transcends that of probably 99% of the rest of the populations of the western world, they seem to think they and they alone are enlightened.

Sad really.

 

[The Truth]

It's not a skyscraper.

 

[Goldstone76]

to what purpose do they want leverage to go to Afghanistan? feet are already on the ground in the Gulf bases and Saudi Arabia. i dont think you get the thrust of your own arguement, re neocon objectives. Afganistan is probably the least usful nation in the region, land locked, moutainous, far from the main assets of the region, and history tells you its a bitch to try and invade/control. the oil pipeline could be built with Taliban in control. the resources could be expoilted with the Taliban in control. it doesnt make any sence to create a diversion in Afganistan when the real strategic aim is Iraq; if you want leverage conspire to setup some Iraqi's.

I feel I do have the 'thrust' of my argument but Im happy for you to disagree.

Many Muslims were upset at the permanent military presence in Saudi. The continued presence of US troops after the Gulf War in Saudi Arabia was one of the stated motivations behind the September 11th terrorist attacks and the Khobar Towers bombing. On April 29, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld announced that he would be withdrawing US troops from the country stating that the Iraq War no longer required the support. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz had earlier said that the continuing US presence in the kingdom was putting American lives in danger. The announcement came one day after the Combined Air Operations Center was shifted from Prince Sultan Air Base to Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. However, only personnel from the United States Military Training Mission (USMTM) officially remained. The US Central Intelligence Agency has been operating a secret airbase for unmanned drones in Saudi Arabia for the past two years it was revealed earlier this year..

Neocon objectives are well recorded if you want to go back to the 90's which ultimately led into the Bush era and what happened since. Global domination, regime change etc are the objectives and this is to support US commercial interests ONLY.

As for your idea that Afghanistan is "the least usful nation in the region" well your way off mark with this one.. China, Russia, Iran and of course the West (USA is the main player) has a great deal of interest in Afghanistan (not to mention Pakistan and Saudi etc).

From the New York Times..

"Afghanistan’s land holds — copper, cobalt, iron, barite, sulfur, lead, silver, zinc, niobium, and 1.4 million metric tons of rare earth elements (REEs). The Chinese produce 97 percent of the world’s REEs, but have begun to manipulate the global REE market by dramatically slowing, and in some cases halting, export of these materials. After a maritime dispute with Japan, China stopped supplying REEs to Japanese customers, reduced overall global exports by 72 percent in the second half of 2010, cut export quotas for the first half of 2011 by 35 percent, and slashed REE mining permits by 41 percent in 2012, claiming its actions were a function of efforts to fight pollution".

The Daily Telegraph says..

"The Afghan government claims its untapped mineral wealth could be worth £2 trillion and is launching a drive to drum up interest from international mining firms. India and China are expected to be particularly interested in exploiting the country's deposits of copper, iron, lithium, gold, niobium, mercury, cobalt and other minerals".

To quote Alan Greenspan (America economist): “I’m saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” Who will say the same about Afghanistan and its mineral wealth? Once we acknowledge what General Wesley Clark claims (and which the media keeps ignoring)—that he was told the U.S. had plans ready at the time of the 9/11 attacks to invade seven countries (including Iraq and Afghanistan)– then the larger picture begins to come into view.

Coming back to the conspiracy theory of 9/11.. join the dots and look at the big picture. Without a reason to invade the USA could never have gone anywhere in the Middle East. 9/11 gave the reason and as Ive said all along.. it needed to be a huge world event and one that would have world support plus induce fear.

The issue of control of Afghanistan is what the West has been trying to achieve with little real success because of the nature of Taliban ideology. Again I feel that the USA underestimated (with arrogance) how difficult it would be to change the ideology of the Taliban. The Nothern Alliance (who the allies supported) are a mix of warlords. There never has been a united Afghanistan because of its tribal nature. The question is.. can the Taliban be bought with $s? I dont think they can. The irony is that he leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Hakimullah Mehsud was killed in a drone attack last week one day before Pakistani officials say they were scheduled to send a three-member team to start peace negotiations with the Taliban. Call me curious but why would the USA kill a very influential figure if the USA wanted peace? The answer is that the USA needs to find a way to remain in Afghanistan.. for the minerals and oil..

The real strategic aim Iraq? Well its actually both I would say.. Iraq has a dysfunctional democracy. For all the cleverness of the neocons things havent worked out so well but there has been moderate success. The 'war on terror' continues with the arms industry making hundreds of billions of $ a year but the game is being played and it started quite some time ago and is intended to go on for a long time to come.

 

[beorhthelm]

...

Neocon objectives are well recorded if you want to go back to the 90's which ultimately led into the Bush era and what happened since. Global domination, regime change etc are the objectives and this is to support US commercial interests ONLY.

As for your idea that Afghanistan is "the least usful nation in the region" well your way off mark with this one.. China, Russia, Iran and of course the West (USA is the main player) has a great deal of interest in Afghanistan (not to mention Pakistan and Saudi etc).

From the New York Times..

"Afghanistan’s land holds — copper, cobalt, iron, barite, sulfur, lead, silver, zinc, niobium, and 1.4 million metric tons of rare earth elements (REEs). The Chinese produce 97 percent of the world’s REEs, but have begun to manipulate the global REE market by dramatically slowing, and in some cases halting, export of these materials. After a maritime dispute with Japan, China stopped supplying REEs to Japanese customers, reduced overall global exports by 72 percent in the second half of 2010, cut export quotas for the first half of 2011 by 35 percent, and slashed REE mining permits by 41 percent in 2012, claiming its actions were a function of efforts to fight pollution".

The Daily Telegraph says..

"The Afghan government claims its untapped mineral wealth could be worth £2 trillion and is launching a drive to drum up interest from international mining firms. India and China are expected to be particularly interested in exploiting the country's deposits of copper, iron, lithium, gold, niobium, mercury, cobalt and other minerals".

er, thanks? i mean, you've just proved my point: China, India and others have benefited from the mineral exploration of Afghanistan. US has carried the cost but hasnt supported any established commerical interests or created new ones. not very good fit to neocon agenda. least useful doesnt mean of no use, and was clearly in the context of invading Iraq, which is your claim. you did not claim they invaded Afghanistan to exploit its minerals. is that your position now?

Coming back to the conspiracy theory of 9/11.. join the dots and look at the big picture. Without a reason to invade the USA could never have gone anywhere in the Middle East.

you mean apart from the bases they had in Saudi Arabia, and still have in Kuwait, Qatar and UAE etc?

 

[Goldstone76]

They won't, they will continue to avoid any form of questions and post another youtube video.

I asked for one of them to post what a skyscraper should look like when being hit by an airliner after their assertions that the WTC did not behave like a building being struck by one. I got no answers.

They are lost souls who I now feel sorry for, they are displaying all the signs of acute paranoia. They obviously only think that their intelligence transcends that of probably 99% of the rest of the populations of the western world, they seem to think they and they alone are enlightened.

Sad really.

The skyscraper as posted by slimjam did not collapse as the 3 buildings of the WTC. It partially collapsed only in the center and non of the floors that had no fire damage collapsed.. this in in contrast to the 3 buildings of the WTC.. they collapsed .. even the floors below collapsed THAT HAD NO FIRE DAMAGE. To date no skyscraper has ever collapsed in the way that 3 buildings collapsed on 9/11. If you want I can find skyscrapers that burned for far longer and remained standing. So heres a little weekend homework for you. Please go find a skyscraper that completely collapses on its own footprint by fire alone (excluding the Twin Towers and Building 7)..

 

[sten_super]

To quote Alan Greenspan (America economist): “I’m saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” Who will say the same about Afghanistan and its mineral wealth? Once we acknowledge what General Wesley Clark claims (and which the media keeps ignoring)—that he was told the U.S. had plans ready at the time of the 9/11 attacks to invade seven countries (including Iraq and Afghanistan)– then the larger picture begins to come into view.

I don't know if you did this, or whether it was a copy and paste job, but this is symptomatic of the level of argument that you're trying to present. The bold and underlining makes it look as if all of the text is attributable to Alan Greenspan (who you omit to mention was Chairman of the Fed during 9/11, and would either have known or have had evidence of any massive market-manipulation going on at the time - where does he mention that?), when in fact only the first, rather non-controversial statement is. The rest is your own (or someone else's) hypothesis. And there's the grandiose but unclear leading statements ("...then the larger picture begins to come into view"). What larger picture? If the US was planning to invade 7 countries, why has it only invaded two? Who are the other five, and when should we expect the invasion to begin? They've had 12 years, FFS.

 

[Goldstone76]

...

Neocon objectives are well recorded if you want to go back to the 90's which ultimately led into the Bush era and what happened since. Global domination, regime change etc are the objectives and this is to support US commercial interests ONLY.

As for your idea that Afghanistan is "the least usful nation in the region" well your way off mark with this one.. China, Russia, Iran and of course the West (USA is the main player) has a great deal of interest in Afghanistan (not to mention Pakistan and Saudi etc).

From the New York Times..

"Afghanistan’s land holds — copper, cobalt, iron, barite, sulfur, lead, silver, zinc, niobium, and 1.4 million metric tons of rare earth elements (REEs). The Chinese produce 97 percent of the world’s REEs, but have begun to manipulate the global REE market by dramatically slowing, and in some cases halting, export of these materials. After a maritime dispute with Japan, China stopped supplying REEs to Japanese customers, reduced overall global exports by 72 percent in the second half of 2010, cut export quotas for the first half of 2011 by 35 percent, and slashed REE mining permits by 41 percent in 2012, claiming its actions were a function of efforts to fight pollution".

The Daily Telegraph says..

"The Afghan government claims its untapped mineral wealth could be worth £2 trillion and is launching a drive to drum up interest from international mining firms. India and China are expected to be particularly interested in exploiting the country's deposits of copper, iron, lithium, gold, niobium, mercury, cobalt and other minerals".

er, thanks? i mean, you've just proved my point: China, India and others have benefited from the mineral exploration of Afghanistan. US has carried the cost but hasnt supported any established commerical interests or created new ones.




you mean apart from the bases they had in Saudi Arabia, and still have in Kuwait, Qatar and UAE etc?

I think your confused.. When I said "Without a reason to invade the USA could never have gone anywhere in the Middle East" I meant invade or inflict regime change. Im well aware that the USA has bases dotted around the Middle East.

 

[beorhthelm]

I think your confused.. When I said "Without a reason to invade the USA could never have gone anywhere in the Middle East" I meant invade or inflict regime change. Im well aware that the USA has bases dotted around the Middle East.

would you like to row back any further?

 

[Goldstone76]

I don't know if you did this, or whether it was a copy and paste job, but this is symptomatic of the level of argument that you're trying to present. The bold and underlining makes it look as if all of the text is attributable to Alan Greenspan (who you omit to mention was Chairman of the Fed during 9/11, and would either have known or have had evidence of any massive market-manipulation going on at the time - where does he mention that?), when in fact only the first, rather non-controversial statement is. The rest is your own (or someone else's) hypothesis. And there's the grandiose but unclear leading statements ("...then the larger picture begins to come into view"). What larger picture? If the US was planning to invade 7 countries, why has it only invaded two? Who are the other five, and when should we expect the invasion to begin? They've had 12 years, FFS.

Greenspan made this quote in his book as attributed here (AFP 2007)

The larger picture.. regime change that supports the USA and its commercial interests. There has been regime change in recent years.. If you want to know more try here..

My words sten.. unless I quote another..