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

[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.

[Andre]

Not sure thats their priority, India is nucked and hates Pakistan and visa versa they seem to keep each other at bay though.

[Gandalf]

Not sure thats their priority, India is nucked and hates Pakistan and visa versa they seem to keep each other at bay though.

These are the two most populated countries and both are growing in power. China is considerably ahead, but India is developing. Economically China is there and is a threat. America knows it needs a hold in the region and Afghanistan was the weakest option to invade. This century is all about China and how America attempts to mitigate the threat. History tells us it won't be very pretty.

[El Kabong]

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.

Over half the bombing runs made in Iraq this go'round originated from Missouri.... pfffft control of the region. Miles your delusions about American military strategy are grotesque yet hilarious at the same time

[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.

Over half the bombing runs made in Iraq this go'round originated from Missouri.... pfffft control of the region. Miles your delusions about American military strategy are grotesque yet hilarious at the same time

We are talking about Afghanistan, Lyle. We are not talking about bombings nor anything of that ilk either. I'm glad you find it amusing.

[0james0]

So we invaded Afghan for the drugs and because its a great place to own. Still makes no sense that in order to do that we would fabricate a few plane crashes and kill some of our own people.

Still makes no sense. Eventually nearly all NATO presence will have gone, it's hardly an invasion when we leave again.

[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. 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.

Can you back this claim up with a source?

[El Kabong]

"Ummmm...well Alex Jones said!"

[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?

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

Can you back this claim up with a source?

Can I buy a pound or two? I got a head ache.

[Andre]

Brock; the States is run by people (family groups) behind and in support of the government who also run banking and the markets of the world as well as the people through law and government thats proven.They do conspire to control all you and everything you use thats correct 100%.Other goverments and dictatorships are a threat to that so they take you to war against them in the name of freedom (which you havent really got over there). It is just another thing they sell to you,for votes and future control.

But the conspiracy theorists dont do themselves, or their cause any favors in blaming everything onto them; including 911 and even the weather (which some do think they control in totality which is utter crap.
We do control it to a degree and can even seed clouds and make it rain, we do it here too.
But conspiracy people take everything to the last point and so they are seen as being ridiculous by many.

Then the real point as mentioned above is lost to your cause, because people think you are all nuts and group you all together as such, even though some are onto some real issues.

They dont control the weather either btw.
If they controlled the weather, why allow the hurricanes to devastate themselves and cost themselves billions? Why not do that to Iraq iran and afganistan they are all there in the same place in a line. It doesnt happen cause they cant do it. They would otherwise.

[VictorCharlie]

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.

Can you back this claim up with a source?

Can I buy a pound or two? I got a head ache.

Sorry, I was more into human trafficking while I was in Afghanistan.

[brocktonblockbust]

because people think you are all nuts and group you all together as such

Andre mate I dont CARE if people think Im nuts and want to group all theorists together--thats THEIR problem if they want to shut their ears to any and every consp theorist simply bcause most of them are indded nuts.

What is a conspiracy? It has happened since the beginning of time. Brutus and the senators CONSPIRED to murder Julius Caesar' etc. He had no idea right? So was he a nut? It turned out to be true.

Also do you know on simply monetary terms Andre how much fucking money7 Bush's top Security Czar MICHAEL CHERTOFF made on the Back Scatter X Ray machines at airports? GEE IS IT A FUCKING COINCIDENCE THAT HE OWNS THE COMPANY THAT MNAKES THOSE MACHINES?? That is no nutty conspoiracy theory. Those X ray machines installed at hundrerds and hundrerds of airports were a DIRECT RESULT of the 9-11 "attacks". That is only one example. GEE' heres another---Dick Prick Cheney getting 88% thats correct 88% of ALL RECONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS IN IRAQ THROUGH HIS COMPANY HALLIBURTON. IS IT ANY WONDER HE HAD PLANNED SINCE THE LATE 80s TO INVADE AND NATION-BUILD IN IRAQ THEN? On finincial fgrounds ALONE these cunts did it

ANDRE DO YOU NOT KNOW OF ADOLF HITLER DELIBERTELY BURNING DOWN HIS OWN REICHSTAG BUILDING IN BERLIN AND THEN BLAMING IT ON THE JEWS AND COMMUNISTS IN ORDER TO GET THE WAR EFFORT GOING THE PROPAGANDA??

Come on dudes I know this is scary shit but wake the fuck up. Its easy to poo-poo everything as nutty conspiracy theory. Thats easy isnt it. No need to distrust or second guess. The mainstream media is telling us everything right? Trust your leaders!