[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iklm3sSds00[/url]
Let's Roll by Neil Young (tribute to victims on Flight 93)
The King Of Rhye
Thread
Posts in chronological order
brENsKi
The Eagles nailed it with Hole In The World
the mood of the song is quiet and reverent - no anger, just sadness...and the lyrics are very simple but profoundly deep:
i particularly like "Cool water running through the burning sand"
There's a hole in the world tonight.
There's a Cloud of fear and sorrow.
There's a hole in the world tonight.
Don't let there be a hole in the world tomorrow.
They say that anger is just love disappointed.
They say that love is just a state of mind,
But all this fighting over who will be anointed.
Oh how can people be so blind
There's a hole in the world tonight.
There's a Cloud of fear and sorrow.
There's a hole in the world tonight.
Don't let there be a hole in the world tomorrow.
Oh they tell me there's a place over yonder,
Cool water running through the burning sand,
Until we learn to love one another
We will never reach the promise land.
There's a hole in the world tonight.
There's a Cloud of fear and sorrow.
There's a hole in the world tonight.
Don't let there be a hole in the world tomorrow.
the mood of the song is quiet and reverent - no anger, just sadness...and the lyrics are very simple but profoundly deep:
i particularly like "Cool water running through the burning sand"
There's a hole in the world tonight.
There's a Cloud of fear and sorrow.
There's a hole in the world tonight.
Don't let there be a hole in the world tomorrow.
They say that anger is just love disappointed.
They say that love is just a state of mind,
But all this fighting over who will be anointed.
Oh how can people be so blind
There's a hole in the world tonight.
There's a Cloud of fear and sorrow.
There's a hole in the world tonight.
Don't let there be a hole in the world tomorrow.
Oh they tell me there's a place over yonder,
Cool water running through the burning sand,
Until we learn to love one another
We will never reach the promise land.
There's a hole in the world tonight.
There's a Cloud of fear and sorrow.
There's a hole in the world tonight.
Don't let there be a hole in the world tomorrow.
Day dop
I had fewer conspiracy nut posts in my newsfeed this year. I must be doing something right!
Costa86
When it comes to 9/11, it is a very complex, delicate and sensitive matter.
Conspiracy theories of the type which claim that no planes hit the building, or that there was a controlled demolition, are, in my view, incorrect.
I do believe that it was the planes which brought down the two towers. The claim that the heat/damage from the crashes would not have the power to take down the buildings, and that thus some sort of explosive device had to be involved, has been largely debunked.
The complications and untruths regarding 9/11 do not relate to the way the actual event per se took place, but to the events which took place AFTER the attack.
The real matter of "conspiracy" - although that is not the appropriate term, and although I know I am deviating from the main topic of 9/11 - has to do with the War in Afghanistan and the subsequent Invasion of Iraq. This is where things get REALLY complicated, murky, and where various very important interests come into play.
We all know that the WMDs story was garbage. It was a lie, outright. There were no WMDs in Iraq, and, more importantly, there was no solid indication that there were. Even if we are to consider for a moment that some intelligence sources entertained the mere vague possibility of some initial development of WMDs, this was not the major reason for the 2003 Iraq invasion. WMDs were a front - we should all know this by now, and if you don't, then you're not really analysing the facts.
So why did they invade Iraq? The overly simplistic and often put forward answer is oil. But that is only a small part of the answer. It goes (much) further than that. And, let me tell you this: the invasion was not for the benefit of the American people, nor for the benefit of the Iraqi civillians. It was for the benefit of those in power, those who pulls the strings, those who control at a macro and micro level the world's events. And this is not some conspiracy theory about the illuminati, or that sort of thing.
I don't believe there is any specifically named group or organisation which manipulate things. But there are, almost definitely, very powerful persons who have the ability to pull political strings, who lie for the most part behind the curtains, and who also are basically able to make the 'world go round'.
To put it briefly, the events of 9/11 were undertaken by terrorists, instigated by such people as Bin Laden - that is true, But such events were subsequently used by the US (and the West in general, to a certain point), to advance a complex array of geo-political interests, the true facts of which were hidden from the public.
Conspiracy theories of the type which claim that no planes hit the building, or that there was a controlled demolition, are, in my view, incorrect.
I do believe that it was the planes which brought down the two towers. The claim that the heat/damage from the crashes would not have the power to take down the buildings, and that thus some sort of explosive device had to be involved, has been largely debunked.
The complications and untruths regarding 9/11 do not relate to the way the actual event per se took place, but to the events which took place AFTER the attack.
The real matter of "conspiracy" - although that is not the appropriate term, and although I know I am deviating from the main topic of 9/11 - has to do with the War in Afghanistan and the subsequent Invasion of Iraq. This is where things get REALLY complicated, murky, and where various very important interests come into play.
We all know that the WMDs story was garbage. It was a lie, outright. There were no WMDs in Iraq, and, more importantly, there was no solid indication that there were. Even if we are to consider for a moment that some intelligence sources entertained the mere vague possibility of some initial development of WMDs, this was not the major reason for the 2003 Iraq invasion. WMDs were a front - we should all know this by now, and if you don't, then you're not really analysing the facts.
So why did they invade Iraq? The overly simplistic and often put forward answer is oil. But that is only a small part of the answer. It goes (much) further than that. And, let me tell you this: the invasion was not for the benefit of the American people, nor for the benefit of the Iraqi civillians. It was for the benefit of those in power, those who pulls the strings, those who control at a macro and micro level the world's events. And this is not some conspiracy theory about the illuminati, or that sort of thing.
I don't believe there is any specifically named group or organisation which manipulate things. But there are, almost definitely, very powerful persons who have the ability to pull political strings, who lie for the most part behind the curtains, and who also are basically able to make the 'world go round'.
To put it briefly, the events of 9/11 were undertaken by terrorists, instigated by such people as Bin Laden - that is true, But such events were subsequently used by the US (and the West in general, to a certain point), to advance a complex array of geo-political interests, the true facts of which were hidden from the public.
thomasquinn 32989
There's plenty more where that came from. A few aspects, from the top of my head:
- Clinton-era warnings about plans for attacks on American soil were ignored by the Bush-administration during 2001 (intelligence reports indicating Bin Laden's network was up to something were presented to the Bush-administration the week he took office), because they would contradict the election-time lie that Clinton and the Democrats were doing nothing for US security. When a huge terrorist attack they should have been prepared for happened under their noses, administration-loyal groups (including media) gave much attention to far-out conspiracy theories to deflect attention away from the utter failing of intelligence.
- Private, personal gain. Cheney is the most likely person to name here, but a number of high ranking officials and administration-friendly businessmen made tremendous amounts of money from shady business in the war, doing everything from providing hardware to mercenaries. The victors reap the spoils of war, and so certain of these 'victors' have
- The Bush-administration was struggling all throughout 2001 to figure out substantial policy changes to differentiate themselves from the Clinton-era. Aside from a few obvious partisan issues, they failed to do so, opening themselves up to criticism of being 'more of the same'. A 'foreign undertaking' may well have been a welcome decoy.
- The old anti-communist shtick. Resistance to Islamist groups in the middle east was, and for the most part still is, led by socialist and communist groups. The US had, in the '70s and '80s and probably well into the '90s, funded Islamic extremists as stooges against the communists. When that kinda backfired, the US desperately wanted non-socialist opposition to Islamism, which for the most part had to be created from scratch.
- Clinton-era warnings about plans for attacks on American soil were ignored by the Bush-administration during 2001 (intelligence reports indicating Bin Laden's network was up to something were presented to the Bush-administration the week he took office), because they would contradict the election-time lie that Clinton and the Democrats were doing nothing for US security. When a huge terrorist attack they should have been prepared for happened under their noses, administration-loyal groups (including media) gave much attention to far-out conspiracy theories to deflect attention away from the utter failing of intelligence.
- Private, personal gain. Cheney is the most likely person to name here, but a number of high ranking officials and administration-friendly businessmen made tremendous amounts of money from shady business in the war, doing everything from providing hardware to mercenaries. The victors reap the spoils of war, and so certain of these 'victors' have
- The Bush-administration was struggling all throughout 2001 to figure out substantial policy changes to differentiate themselves from the Clinton-era. Aside from a few obvious partisan issues, they failed to do so, opening themselves up to criticism of being 'more of the same'. A 'foreign undertaking' may well have been a welcome decoy.
- The old anti-communist shtick. Resistance to Islamist groups in the middle east was, and for the most part still is, led by socialist and communist groups. The US had, in the '70s and '80s and probably well into the '90s, funded Islamic extremists as stooges against the communists. When that kinda backfired, the US desperately wanted non-socialist opposition to Islamism, which for the most part had to be created from scratch.
brENsKi
[QUOTE] [b]Costa86 wrote:[/b]hen it comes to 9/11, it is a very complex, delicate and sensitive matter.[/QUOTE]
without doubt. agreed
[QUOTE] [b]Costa86 wrote:[/b]To put it briefly, the events of 9/11 were undertaken by terrorists, instigated by such people as Bin Laden - that is true, But such events were subsequently used by the US (and the West in general, to a certain point), to advance a complex array of geo-political interests, the true facts of which were hidden from the public.[/QUOTE]
that would work except that you overlook Syria - there's two bad sides involved there - Assad and ISIS and as much geo-politcal interest as ever, yet the US don't go in?
without doubt. agreed
[QUOTE] [b]Costa86 wrote:[/b]To put it briefly, the events of 9/11 were undertaken by terrorists, instigated by such people as Bin Laden - that is true, But such events were subsequently used by the US (and the West in general, to a certain point), to advance a complex array of geo-political interests, the true facts of which were hidden from the public.[/QUOTE]
that would work except that you overlook Syria - there's two bad sides involved there - Assad and ISIS and as much geo-politcal interest as ever, yet the US don't go in?
Day dop
I've never once met a conspiracy nut who thinks it was a controlled demolition job who is able to answer the following. Every time, they manage to do nothing more than deflect and/or avoid.
1) How could explosives or incendiaries cause progressive sagging in the floor trusses within the impact zone?
2) How could explosives survive the impact, jet fuel explosion and subsequent fires within these zones where the collapse was initiated?
3) How could explosives cause inward bowing and eventual buckling of the exterior columns?
Footage caught on camera of the inward bowing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w
1) How could explosives or incendiaries cause progressive sagging in the floor trusses within the impact zone?
2) How could explosives survive the impact, jet fuel explosion and subsequent fires within these zones where the collapse was initiated?
3) How could explosives cause inward bowing and eventual buckling of the exterior columns?
Footage caught on camera of the inward bowing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w