Until we have the OT forum (we will?) I'll post it here. Pretty amazing is this.
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/ ... urs_en.htm
Complete OT: What happened 9/11/2001 in Pentagon?
-
marcuspocus
- Posts: 2310
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Canada/France
.
Looking at various pics, also official US Defence pages etc, shortly after the crash, I don't understand where the plane is gone. None of my collegues does. We work on this type of aircraft daily.
For example: where's the wings? Or traces from it on the building? The plane has a wingspan triple the lenght of the fire trucks on the pictures. Did they fall of somewhere in the fields before the crash? The fuel in the wings should have fried the whole front of the building. I don't see it.
Not into conspiracy, I'd be so happy to go tell my workmates if any of you sees a solution to that.
For example: where's the wings? Or traces from it on the building? The plane has a wingspan triple the lenght of the fire trucks on the pictures. Did they fall of somewhere in the fields before the crash? The fuel in the wings should have fried the whole front of the building. I don't see it.
Not into conspiracy, I'd be so happy to go tell my workmates if any of you sees a solution to that.
I remember seeing footage of some airliner crash into the ground at an airshow (unfortunately the details escape me). The most amazing thing was the way it just disintegrated - it was as if it was flying into a giant hole. One moment it was plunging down, the next there was an almost totally flat burning patch.
Perhaps it's also because this was not an attempted landing to save lives and keep the plane intact: it was designed to cause damage. In that respect I'm not surprised it doesn't look like other air crashes.
But what's the point of all this ? If it wasn't an aircraft then what was it and why make up a story ? And what about all the people aboard who died ? Were they kidnapped and murdered somewhere else to make this story believable ?
It's just silly! It's typical consiracy theory nonsense designed to enable some nutter in France to sell lots of books.
Perhaps it's also because this was not an attempted landing to save lives and keep the plane intact: it was designed to cause damage. In that respect I'm not surprised it doesn't look like other air crashes.
But what's the point of all this ? If it wasn't an aircraft then what was it and why make up a story ? And what about all the people aboard who died ? Were they kidnapped and murdered somewhere else to make this story believable ?
It's just silly! It's typical consiracy theory nonsense designed to enable some nutter in France to sell lots of books.
-
hubird
yet amazing...
Spirit, good questions, they should be answered.
There IS something strange in this.
Could it be that Bush set up 9-11 by himself, in order to definitely rule the whole world under the cloak of the war against terrorism?
_________________
Let There Be Music!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2002-10-03 16:22 ]</font>
Spirit, good questions, they should be answered.
There IS something strange in this.
Could it be that Bush set up 9-11 by himself, in order to definitely rule the whole world under the cloak of the war against terrorism?
_________________
Let There Be Music!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2002-10-03 16:22 ]</font>
i don't believe directly, but if we analyze the fact that u.s. realpolitik seems to exacerbate regional conflicts rather than solve them, and that they never supported any democratic process in the third world, as democracies are harder (more expensive) to control than dictators ,and considering that they have the power and resources to getOn 2002-10-03 16:06, hubird wrote:
Could it be that Bush set up 11-9 by himself, in order to definitely rule the whole world under the cloak of the war against terrorism?
whatever they want, well we must admit that terrorism is an essential part of the game, it can push peoples of the rich countries to tolerate the reduction of democracy to a symulacrum.
but what scares me deeply is that sometimes the game can be uncontrollable, and those who controlled it get angry, bow their cheeks, stomp furiously the floor, and thousands (of thousands) die....we often delegate power to the worst among us.
we shouldn't delegate....
when you say capitalism...
so is this the good against evil?
http://www.americasnewwarstore.com/index.html
so is this the good against evil?
http://www.americasnewwarstore.com/index.html
Of course Bush didn't organise the attacks, just like the 757 did go into the Pentagon.
But a fact is that Osama and Bush did know each other from before I was born.
It's the same in politics everywhere. + neutralises -.
Extreme right and left give each other reason for existance. Although they seem opposite, they are very close one to another in some way. In Belgium we had "De Bende Van Nijvel" (Nijvel Gang) in the 80ies. Later appeared it was set up by extreme right police cells to cause fear and terror. They mostly robbed shops, each time killing many people.
Left wing supports drugs, junkies are publicity for right wing.
USA sponsor Afghanistan and load it with arms to have a foot on the ground near Russia in the 70-80ies. Afghanistan produces 70-90%
of the world's heroin.
War on Drugs? War on Terror?
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: at0mic on 2002-10-06 06:46 ]</font>
But a fact is that Osama and Bush did know each other from before I was born.
It's the same in politics everywhere. + neutralises -.
Extreme right and left give each other reason for existance. Although they seem opposite, they are very close one to another in some way. In Belgium we had "De Bende Van Nijvel" (Nijvel Gang) in the 80ies. Later appeared it was set up by extreme right police cells to cause fear and terror. They mostly robbed shops, each time killing many people.
Left wing supports drugs, junkies are publicity for right wing.
USA sponsor Afghanistan and load it with arms to have a foot on the ground near Russia in the 70-80ies. Afghanistan produces 70-90%
of the world's heroin. War on Drugs? War on Terror?
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: at0mic on 2002-10-06 06:46 ]</font>
i totally agree with you, atOmic, and the hard thing today is that a new shape of political action and democratic involvement has to be designed. democracy has slowly got pure delegation of responsibility, people think of political action like a waste of time or soccer competition.On 2002-10-04 02:17, at0mic wrote:
Of course Bush didn't organise the attacks, just like the 757 did go into the Pentagon.
But a fact is that Osama and Bush did know each other from before I was born.
It's the same in politics everywhere. + neutralises -.
Extreme right and left give each other reason for existance. Although they seem opposite, they are very close one to another in some way. In Belgium we had CCC in the 80ies, the 'Fighting Communist Forces'. Later appeared it was sponsored by extreme right police cells to cause fear and terror. They mostly robbed shops, each time killing many people.
Left wing supports drugs, junkies are publicity for right wing.
USA sponsor Afghanistan and load it with arms to have a foot on the ground near Russia in the 70-80ies. Afghanistan produces 70-90%
War on Drugs? War on Terror?
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: at0mic on 2002-10-04 02:21 ]</font>
i think that information can be a good field for democratic reappropriation, and this is evident on the web, but on the other side dominating powers are trying to get control, discussion on the future micro$oft standards is revealing....
we must resist.
steinberg developed and tested SX on 98, this info is well known, but the attempt to force people to a new os had a drawback, since SX didn't sell as expected, and so they had to U-turn and allow 98 installation.
who knows what the hell of an agreement was secretly made between Steinberg and M$, we will never know, but as customers we have a strenght in this system, and we must avoid to be sheeps...
ciao.
about the problem of heroin and heavy drugs in general, i think that almost nobody (of those who decide) wants really to do anything to change the situation.
too much money is generated with the traffic, and this money can buy everything and support governants. the war to drugs is bullshit, just a demagogical and useless activity, and the results of decades show it.
the problem is that any prohibition generates illegal traffic, and the term "pusher" well indicates
what happens really.
there is plenty of chemical things and different plants that can be used as drugs (hundreds of varieties of mushrooms available on alpine meadows in huge quantities), but almost nobody knows and, most of all, nobody "pushes" them, and this makes the difference.
heroin is the first product that is exchanged with weapons, and thinking that the two ends of the business(producers) don't know each other, and that such a business is not tolerated by political authorities, is really naive, if not hypocrit.
i think that afghanistan will in any case keep it's production. in any case.
too much money is generated with the traffic, and this money can buy everything and support governants. the war to drugs is bullshit, just a demagogical and useless activity, and the results of decades show it.
the problem is that any prohibition generates illegal traffic, and the term "pusher" well indicates
what happens really.
there is plenty of chemical things and different plants that can be used as drugs (hundreds of varieties of mushrooms available on alpine meadows in huge quantities), but almost nobody knows and, most of all, nobody "pushes" them, and this makes the difference.
heroin is the first product that is exchanged with weapons, and thinking that the two ends of the business(producers) don't know each other, and that such a business is not tolerated by political authorities, is really naive, if not hypocrit.
i think that afghanistan will in any case keep it's production. in any case.
sorry to butt in, but the CCC never robbed any shops. that was the 'Nijvel Gang' (and yes they (the nijverl gang) killed a LOT of people every time, and never took the big cash, and yes, they were supported by the extreme right).On 2002-10-04 02:17, at0mic wrote:
In Belgium we had CCC in the 80ies, the 'Fighting Communist Forces'. Later appeared it was sponsored by extreme right police cells to cause fear and terror. They mostly robbed shops, each time killing many people.
the CCC did bombings, and always announced their attacks. there is only ONE victim to regret. and that was a fire man, neglecting orders...
to stay a bit on topic... i've heard (yes, from anti american folks, so i'm not just taking this for granted.) that the CIA knew about the upcoming terrorist attacks, but just let them happen. for the us gouvernment this would be the perfect motive to play soldier in the middle east. bullshit or not? it wouldn't suprise me...
just as it wouldn't suprise me that they bombed the pentagon themselves.
frankly, i don't care. this world is a big mess and i just try and make the best of it. try to help the needing and be friendly to your fellow earthlings, and don't believe the hype and some stories about this or that kind of god...
i sometimes wanna leave this place...
andy
the lunatics are in the hall
the lunatics are in the hall
-
John Henric
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Pala
- Contact:
"frankly, i don't care. this world is a big mess and i just try and make the best of it. try to help the needing and be friendly to your fellow earthlings, and don't believe the hype and some stories about this or that kind of god...
i sometimes wanna leave this place... "
Hear.. an honest voice! (or so I hope)
Stick around though, you never know what might happen.
I find it interesting that so many people see the many inconsequences and the dead end our current idea of civlisation leads to: a rapidly growing population, with each individual striving for a higher standard of living. Since a few decades the western idea of the good life and the expectations of consumption is also exported to the third world. Imagine the chaos and wars when resources become really scarce. It seems like the battles over oil has just begun: america consumes 40% of the yearly produced oil in the world, it imports 60% of it's consumption and have about 5% of the global population. Other resources such as soil that can bring up crop, clean air and water is also threatened, for example by too hard mono-culture harvesting and wind erosion. Among politicians, it's really quiet about those problems. The future is not a popular subject unless it's bright, expanding and (of course) better educated and emotionally intelligent. Psychologically it's a very tempting illusion that we can go on as we do and with a clear conscience call ourselves educated, reasonable, mature, intelligent, in any sense aware of the global reality we always have lived in.
But does'nt it hurt to think that we are part of the problem as well as the solution? Some say about the big problems "it's not my responsibility" and I often find they are the ones who also support our current ideas that continous expansion, an unregulated market and more technology will work everything out. Then we have those who see themselves as the great defenders of freedom: "I'll do what I want to do and anyway I like it!" Well it's easy to see that some restriction in anyone's freedom is necessary if a society, and on a greater scale civilisation is going to last. The question is which restrictions. If we're lucky and sane we may see some restrictions in the future that we know today but won't admit.
However I think this lack of awareness and quiet lies is something that laws, governments and politicians can't do anything about. And corporate powers certainly don't benefit when people interrupt their vacations from reality. I can't see the initiatives, the new directions and different ways of living coming from above - the chambers and big offices. If a high rank politican with a 'healthy' yearly income begin talking about using public transports instead of your car, and lowering resource consumption in general, who would take him/her seriously? I think that to cut back and live with a lower profile must be a voluntary choice.
These are big challenges and I don't think they're very attractive to most people. Perhaps young middle class people find them especially hard to embrace, as they know what their parents had and having completed long and expensive 'educations' with a 'whole' life ahead of them, don't want anything less than all of it.
Some links for those who ..are interested:
http://www.awakeningearth.org/
Check out the vote
http://www.awakeningearth.org/books/sim ... ption.html
A classic book
http://www.simpleliving.net/default.asp
i sometimes wanna leave this place... "
Hear.. an honest voice! (or so I hope)
Stick around though, you never know what might happen.
I find it interesting that so many people see the many inconsequences and the dead end our current idea of civlisation leads to: a rapidly growing population, with each individual striving for a higher standard of living. Since a few decades the western idea of the good life and the expectations of consumption is also exported to the third world. Imagine the chaos and wars when resources become really scarce. It seems like the battles over oil has just begun: america consumes 40% of the yearly produced oil in the world, it imports 60% of it's consumption and have about 5% of the global population. Other resources such as soil that can bring up crop, clean air and water is also threatened, for example by too hard mono-culture harvesting and wind erosion. Among politicians, it's really quiet about those problems. The future is not a popular subject unless it's bright, expanding and (of course) better educated and emotionally intelligent. Psychologically it's a very tempting illusion that we can go on as we do and with a clear conscience call ourselves educated, reasonable, mature, intelligent, in any sense aware of the global reality we always have lived in.
But does'nt it hurt to think that we are part of the problem as well as the solution? Some say about the big problems "it's not my responsibility" and I often find they are the ones who also support our current ideas that continous expansion, an unregulated market and more technology will work everything out. Then we have those who see themselves as the great defenders of freedom: "I'll do what I want to do and anyway I like it!" Well it's easy to see that some restriction in anyone's freedom is necessary if a society, and on a greater scale civilisation is going to last. The question is which restrictions. If we're lucky and sane we may see some restrictions in the future that we know today but won't admit.
However I think this lack of awareness and quiet lies is something that laws, governments and politicians can't do anything about. And corporate powers certainly don't benefit when people interrupt their vacations from reality. I can't see the initiatives, the new directions and different ways of living coming from above - the chambers and big offices. If a high rank politican with a 'healthy' yearly income begin talking about using public transports instead of your car, and lowering resource consumption in general, who would take him/her seriously? I think that to cut back and live with a lower profile must be a voluntary choice.
These are big challenges and I don't think they're very attractive to most people. Perhaps young middle class people find them especially hard to embrace, as they know what their parents had and having completed long and expensive 'educations' with a 'whole' life ahead of them, don't want anything less than all of it.
Some links for those who ..are interested:
http://www.awakeningearth.org/
Check out the vote
http://www.awakeningearth.org/books/sim ... ption.html
A classic book
http://www.simpleliving.net/default.asp
While I'm no great fan of the capitalist oligarchy, the situation in the west is that if left as a closed system population is slightly declining. This is good. It is only in less developed nations that the population is out of control - that's what really threatens the stability of the world IMHO.
I am NOT blaming less developed countries, I am not saying how or why this problem has come about, only that I believe it is the world's number one problem.
From over-poulation come all other ills: incubation of new diseases, misery, famine, deforestation, over-fishing, lack of safe water, poor housing, slash and burn farming, massive sewage pollution etc
If the world had a population of just a billion or two I think most problems would rapidly diminish.
I am NOT blaming less developed countries, I am not saying how or why this problem has come about, only that I believe it is the world's number one problem.
From over-poulation come all other ills: incubation of new diseases, misery, famine, deforestation, over-fishing, lack of safe water, poor housing, slash and burn farming, massive sewage pollution etc
If the world had a population of just a billion or two I think most problems would rapidly diminish.
-
John Henric
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Pala
- Contact:
"the situation in the west is that if left as a closed system population is slightly declining. This is good. It is only in less developed nations that the population is out of control - that's what really threatens the stability of the world IMHO."
Is there any online resources you can point to that confirms this? And even if the number of individuals were declining, we're living longer. Resource consumption is relative to population numbers *and* ways of living - how much and how effectively natural resources are used. That's where the west have and continues to go out of control.
Is there any online resources you can point to that confirms this? And even if the number of individuals were declining, we're living longer. Resource consumption is relative to population numbers *and* ways of living - how much and how effectively natural resources are used. That's where the west have and continues to go out of control.
-
algorhythm
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Tennessee, USA
- Contact:
what *kind* of stability? do you mean political? if so I agree. if you mean environmental, then yes. sort of. resource consumption is a product of population times resource per capita. The L.D.C.s populations are on the rise, which is a cause for alarm in some respects, but excessive resource consumption per capita is also a culprit. I am sure you are all familiar with this figure: "the USA comprises less than 5% of the earth's population yet consumes more than 30% of its resources." Yet USA's standard of living is comparable to a place like Costa Rica with regards to things like infant mortality and life span and such, yet Costa Rica uses about 1/10th of the resources per capita. Clearly, it is resource use that is more of a factor for the environment than the sheer # of human beings. The earth can handle a few more Costa Ricans and a lot less Americans.On 2002-10-04 20:53, Spirit wrote:
It is only in less developed nations that the population is out of control - that's what really threatens the stability of the world IMHO.
And everyone - you are all refering to the LIHOP theory. (Let It Happen On Purpose). Search that for info on that conspiracy theory about the 911 situation. One of the more convincing conspiracy theories to my mind, but I have grown rather cynical with regards to international politics over the last few years; who hasn't?
_________________
algorhythm its coming!
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: algorhythm on 2002-10-04 21:41 ]</font>