chris29

have you guys seen my other post regarding osama and some of his other benefits from 9/11, what do you guys think about that post?

well kimmy there is some interesting stuff on your snopes site however it really doesn't go in depth enough to disprove what I have said, for example, the plane only went through the first three layers of wedge 1 in the pentagon, if you look at the final two wholes you will notics they are nearly perfect circles, when an airplane hits it explodes in all directions, when a missile hits it typicaly explodes in one direction in order to increase the effectiveness of the explosion. also there was only one whole in the actual building, no danage done to it from the wings, thus the claim that there was a 12 foot whole from one of the engines is flat out wrong. second thing is this false claim that the jet not only hit the ground first but also took a steep dive. the government said that they plane flew right over the insterstate freeway, this would mean that this plane would then have to increase its height sharply to get over a hill blocking the pentagon and then dive suddenly, im sorry but a boeing 757 can physically not do this. also there were no "skid" marks from the plane hitting the ground first. it is clear that the plane hit the pentagon first. also judging from the same security tapes you and i have seen it is clear that the plane was not diving steeply and clearly did not hit the ground first. the third thing i have a problem with is the picture that supposedly proves that the wings from the airplane did cause damage. you see to big blackened dots on the outside of the explosion point supposedly from the engines, unfortunately for these to be from the engines would mean that the engines would have been on the outer edge of the wing, whenin fact on boeing 757's they are held close to the fuselage.also it is impossible for the wings to hit the wall, cause an explosion like they did and then also be pulled in with the fuselage.

I'm not saying this is what happened but rather suggesting it as a possibility, what if they in fact made up the airline so to speak, for example put the information of this supposed flight into the database????

ironically as with my other post about the pentagon hit the american media (with the exception of the san fransisco chronicle) as with international media has fallen asleep on 9/11 why did osama attack the us? well you could be arrogant or uneducated enough to say solely that he hated the us and while this no doubt was motivation, this was not all of his reasoning behind this attack point 1 - osama is not a smart man, rather he is a man that just read the book on the us. think about osama likely looked at the future for a lot of his decisions, if you attack the us they are going to retaliate, this worked exactly in his plans, his attack on the us was not solely to attack them but rather to get the us to put there dirty feet on arab soil. al quada before the attacks were starting to weaken, largely due to a lack of support and people joining the group, now look they have been able to grow imensley as well as every other islamic fundamentalist group out there point 2 - osama had huge money in the stock market, however due to stakeholder laws firms are not allowed to say where he had stocks in. Heres were it gets interesting. One week before 9/11 there was a most unique transfer of shares on the stock market in a few areas. united and american airlines had a huge increase in the number of call options to the amount of approximately 1600 % higher than normal. a call option is a deal in which you agree to a set price in a certain period of time in the future (usually about 4 months) and when this time comes both sides are obligated to trade the selected amount at this selected price. other companies that had similar trades, stanley morgan and meryll lynch, both of which had their head offices in the trade centers and made up two of the largest companies in these buildings. it is estimated that such trading may have brought roughly a quarter of a billion dollars to osama

something the american media has yet to point on in the united states there is no doubt planes hit the world trade center but what about the pentagon, why is it in probably the most important city in the world (other than new york) that there is no coverage of a boeing 757 hitting the pentagon point 1 - the impact point at the pentagin was 2 meters above the ground, there was no marks of an pbject hitting the ground before, is this was a boeing 757 this would be physically impossible, the engines lie 15m below the elevation of the nose Point 2 - when you slow the one piece of footage available which shows the pentagon and about a football field of area in front you can paus t just before the "aricraft" hits the building, in no way does it represent a boeing 757, it looks more like a missile Point 3 - the plane supposedly hit the pentagon at a speef of 530 mph, but yet there was no report of jet blast on the highway point 4 - there was no wreckage from the airplane found point 5 - the hit went through three layers of the pentagon (e, d, and c of section 1) which are steel reinforced concrete, this is near impossible point 6 - the area hit had been under construction and the workers were given an extended weekend which no other employee at the pentagon received

the united states will not invade iran, the purpose of iraq contrary to typical belief was not oil (although that was definitley beneficial) it is to pursue the so called pax american, similar to pax roma during the roman empire, the americans have since the end of the cold war lost there power in the eurasian region. This is and will prove to be in the future the most important region in the world. During the clinton administration he received a letter demanding that he attack iraq, lol of course this was before any even made up suspicion, they signatares on this letter were cheney and rumsfeldt, the actual arcitechts of the iraq war. These are individuals who not only benefited greatly from the pax america during the cold war but helped tremendously in the effectiveness of it (see cheney and his former think tank). If the us were to pick a nation to attack who would they go after. Well if they were going after north korea that could be potentially suicide, the terrain is similar to vietnam, very mountainous not to mention there is a large population and you have a psychopathic dictator with a nuke, well that would kinda ruin your day if he let that baby go. Second choice Iran, well iran to is a mountainous area, plus it is a country of roughly twice the population of iraq who strongly support there government, plus we know they still have wmd's so american forces would no doubt have to face these in iran. The last choice is Iraq, well iraq is flat. Not to mention it is a small country (30 million people) who for the most part do not support their leader. Plus we know they don't have wmd. IMO if the united states were to undergo any new military action it would not be until iraq has restores its "freedom" and "sovereignty". I would expect somewhere in the south china sea to be the next area "liberated". The south China sea is the 3rd largest expected oil reserve in the world, after the persian gulf and the caspian sea and it is probably one of the least exploited. Also the united states would most certainly need some more support in the east eurasian area. Globalization has made this area on of the fastest growing regions in the world. This area has become crucial to the american economy and in all reality it would be a bad idea on their part not to gain some control in that region.

Are you 10 years old? Do you have any understanding of world politics? I'm afraid I don't see what understanding of politics you think I lack. To my thinking a country is safer from external threats if it has nuclear weapons. Do you disagree with that? Are you in favor of unilateral disarmament by the United States? are you actually serious, think about it, which countries are in conflict right now, THE EXACT ONES YOU MENTIONED AS HAVING NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!!!!!!!!! we signed the nuclear proliferation treaty for a reason, unfortunately for you you live in the wrong country, here in canada we are a country of "peacekeeping" not "peace-enforcing" (oxymoron)

Post secondary students in alberta pay the highest among all canadian students for school, are schools qualities have been decreasing and the only thing to blame is the pc government here in alberta. -funding has increased by the maximum allowable for the last 7 years and alberta has been through the highest average increase among all provinces in canada (189%) -funding per student has dropped significantly in alberta, in 1991 students received $8.67 for every student dollar, we now receive $1.79 - on nov.18 post secondary students around alberta took time out of their school day to get together to rally for post secondary election issues, this was called the "day of action" ( myself being a proud organizer of this event!), in calgary post secondary students gathered at SAIT to form the words I VOTE, this was the largest political rally in the history of calgary, afterwards students were encouraged to talk to the various political party members there, not surprisingly the pc's didn't show up - when I askedat a community forum why it is that these candidates thought post secondary tuition was so high the pc candidate blamed the institutions for increasing their operating costs, not only was this a lie but it also showed the complete ignorance this party has shown towards this issue