What Happened to the Planes and Passengers on 9/11?

[El Kabong]

Holograms?!?! HAHAHAHA

[Andre]

I think the proof they wernt passenger jets lies in the fact that the terrorists who were on board didnt empty the toilets over Brooklyn on the way out to Manhattan.

How did those men (on record and witnessed and taught by private flight instructors) who took all those flight lessons for a year before on public airfields, learn to fly a hologram? Are these same men now innocent cab drivers out at the same airports?
Does the fact Camels being called "Ships of the desert have anything to do with Arabian seamen?
Will Powdered toast man save the day?

[Master]

Holograms?!?! HAHAHAHA

Holograms were in Transformers so they must be true.

[brocktonblockbust]

Holograms?!?! HAHAHAHA

Holograms were in Transformers so they must be true.

The way 3D hologram technology operates is by creating the illusion of three-dimensional imagery. A light source is projected onto another holographic beam or onto the surface of an object and scattered. A second light illuminates the object to create interference between both sources. Essentially, the two light sources interact with each other and cause diffraction, which appears as a 3D image.
@Andre those pilots failed their air licenses at a shitty flight school in Yuma, Arizona. How the hell could they have evaded all security at all those airports, then hijacked all 4 planes using only boxcutters, then known how to fly the planes which were already flying en route to california, then shut off all transponders and fly the planes which were already 30 thousand feet high and reverse the planes and fly back and hit the WTC and Pentagon like threading the eye of a needle? No way--this was an inside job for sure--or atleast the usa knew it was happening and laid back. If they ALLOWED it to happen then they would have the excuse to invade Iraq which was stupid but americans being so stupid didnt question WHAT DID IRAQ HAVE TO DO WITH 9-11 IF THE OFFICIAL STORY WAS THAT AFGHANISTAN-BASED BIN LADEN WAS BEHIND IT??

[Andre]

I dont think so mate.

The Us dont need to make up excuses to go in anywhere they just do it anyway and if they make shit up the public believe them anyway.

Reason for Iraq was warheads and suspected nuclear arms being stored (none there) who'd have guessed.

Now Afgan was for certain a direct invasion going after the culprits behind 9/11.

there is nothing to gain on the ground or through business going into Afghanistan.


In my mind, people are getting mixed up with the real false reasons for the Iraq invasion and getting the two theaters crossed up,the conspiracy theorists and many of the public.
Even though Saddam supported some terrorists and other movements against America Your goverment didnt need to kill off large numbers of the public to justify going in there;

So logically why would they do it over some backwards desolate shit hole like Afgan where the costs outweight everything and there are no returns,not even in the future rebuilding contracts as occurs in more modern places with large flattened cities?
There just isnt a reason. The terrorism is real / was real, thats the only reason to go in there.

[Gandalf]

The reason is another strategic point of influence. If America wanted Bin Laden they had the opportunity to hand over evidence to the Taliban who were willing to negotiate. They dismissed it and instead invaded. Is it really a sensible strategy to invade an entire nation in the hunt for a handful of wanted men? Most of the time negotiation would suffice and eventually you saw a different method for getting rid of Bin Laden anyway. Invading a country to capture a few terrorists is insane. If there are other motives then it starts to make more sense.

[Andre]

The reason is another strategic point of influence. If America wanted Bin Laden they had the opportunity to hand over evidence to the Taliban who were willing to negotiate. They dismissed it and instead invaded. Is it really a sensible strategy to invade an entire nation in the hunt for a handful of wanted men? Most of the time negotiation would suffice and eventually you saw a different method for getting rid of Bin Laden anyway. Invading a country to capture a few terrorists is insane. If there are other motives then it starts to make more sense.

What other motives? Other than to smash all of Alqueda once and for all?
The place is good for nothing isnt it?

[Gandalf]

The reason is another strategic point of influence. If America wanted Bin Laden they had the opportunity to hand over evidence to the Taliban who were willing to negotiate. They dismissed it and instead invaded. Is it really a sensible strategy to invade an entire nation in the hunt for a handful of wanted men? Most of the time negotiation would suffice and eventually you saw a different method for getting rid of Bin Laden anyway. Invading a country to capture a few terrorists is insane. If there are other motives then it starts to make more sense.

What other motives? Other than to smash all of Alqueda once and for all?
The place is good for nothing isnt it?

To control the region. India is growing rapidly and China is to the east. America needs to keep a strong hold on the region. To be in Afghanistan would be another addition to the countless bases spread throughout the world.

[brocktonblockbust]

The reason is another strategic point of influence. If America wanted Bin Laden they had the opportunity to hand over evidence to the Taliban who were willing to negotiate. They dismissed it and instead invaded. Is it really a sensible strategy to invade an entire nation in the hunt for a handful of wanted men? Most of the time negotiation would suffice and eventually you saw a different method for getting rid of Bin Laden anyway. Invading a country to capture a few terrorists is insane. If there are other motives then it starts to make more sense.

What other motives? Other than to smash all of Alqueda once and for all?
The place is good for nothing isnt it?

66% of NATO troops in Afghanistan are harvesting and controlling the opium trade. That is literally hundrerds of billions a year.

[VictorCharlie]

The reason is another strategic point of influence. [B}If America wanted Bin Laden they had the opportunity to hand over evidence to the Taliban who were willing to negotiate[/B]. They dismissed it and instead invaded. Is it really a sensible strategy to invade an entire nation in the hunt for a handful of wanted men? Most of the time negotiation would suffice and eventually you saw a different method for getting rid of Bin Laden anyway. Invading a country to capture a few terrorists is insane. If there are other motives then it starts to make more sense.

Hey more faux global strategy by Miles. Anyway, the Taliban being predominantly Pashtuns follow a moral code called Pashtunwali. UBL and AQ had asked for hospitality and asylum years before. The Pashtun's code means they could never ever hand over AQ. The Taliban's responses on negotiations is classic middle-eastern/sw asia. They are always willing to talk and "god willing" anything is possible. They will shake your hand and nod but if you hear "god willing" or in'shaa Allah your are probably just being placated particularly if the conversation is held in a group. Now the strict ethical code would probably been enough but to make sure AQ was sound and safe UBL and his senior advisors married into Mullah Omars family. To top it all off AQ successfully assassinated Ahmad Shah Massoud, Mullah Omar's biggest enemy and last hold out from Taliban rule the day before 9/11. The Afghan conflict could have been handled much better but the Taliban was never going to hand over UBL.

[brocktonblockbust]

The reason is another strategic point of influence. If America wanted Bin Laden they had the opportunity to hand over evidence to the Taliban who were willing to negotiate. They dismissed it and instead invaded. Is it really a sensible strategy to invade an entire nation in the hunt for a handful of wanted men? Most of the time negotiation would suffice and eventually you saw a different method for getting rid of Bin Laden anyway. Invading a country to capture a few terrorists is insane. If there are other motives then it starts to make more sense.

@Andre yes---all that charade not only for going into Iraq but also to put in place the whole Big Brother Control State that they put in all over the US TSA illegal check points Viper Squads warrantless wiretaps spying illegal courts kangaroo vcourts suspension of Habeus Corpus the destruction of Posse Comitatus the illegal detention of human beings held without trial of even without charges for 13 years in secret prisons run by the CIA etc.... Homeland Security you name it---NDAA Guantanamo Obamas right to assassinate ANY american citizen if they even are perceived to be a threat to america illegal drone strikes in myriad countries---9-11 was to set up the entire Control Grid first in the US then abroad---not just for stealing oil.

andre all that is why they did that to justify their stranglehold on the world.