Third World War / New World Order

[Gizd]

[...]I enjoy reality.

I see.

[SoldatFire]

Why we talk about world war 3 ?
If it ever start that would be the end of the world  no one would survive it.

1.the nuclear explosions....(Russia USA CHINA got atom-bomb's That would blow Europe with 1 missile apart and not few 1 nation got more then 20000 of them    )

2.radiation "cancer and 1000x things (no zombies) dead of all animals and fish etc.

3.the sky turn's black new ice age "atomic winter"  no animals no plants and etc.

4.no one could survive 200 years in a underground bunker no point 4.

NATO could not do anything pff... kids you are rly Stupid

Third World War / New World Order
What New World Order   

[jrgp]

the americans are running low on fuel and will need to attack somebody else soon

...What?

Don't tell me you believe that Al-Qaeda attacked 911 that day. There are even jokes on the internets about americans who still believe that s**t.

....what the fuck? Of course they did. Who else?

[SoldatFire]

....what the f**k? Of course they did. Who else?

You must be so f***ing happy with that brain don't ya ?

[Mexer]

the americans are running low on fuel and will need to attack somebody else soon

...What?

Don't tell me you believe that Al-Qaeda attacked 911 that day. There are even jokes on the internets about americans who still believe that s**t.

....what the f**k? Of course they did. Who else?

How about this: Americans were running low on gas, iraq and all those countries were full of it; They couldn't attack them for no reason cause they're no terrorists. What do you do then? make a fake reason to attack: an air attack on the buildings. (Also if you look at the videos you can f**king see the airplane hitting the building and some 5-10 stories beneath exploding for no reason before the plane explodes into the building itself (like those c4 that you use to destroy buildings).

Lybia has very good quality petrol there: of course the americans airstroke them (what where their interests to bomb a country they're totally not related to). The french are doing the same now, maybe for the same reason; they always were competitive and wanted a larger empire in the world.

[ds dude]

Um, I'm pretty sure there are terrorist in the middle east.

Just sayin'.

But they have the names of the hijackers and everything, how about all that stuff?

[demoniac93]

the americans are running low on fuel and will need to attack somebody else soon

...What?

Don't tell me you believe that Al-Qaeda attacked 911 that day. There are even jokes on the internets about americans who still believe that s**t.

....what the f**k? Of course they did. Who else?

How about this: Americans were running low on gas, iraq and all those countries were full of it; They couldn't attack them for no reason cause they're no terrorists. What do you do then? make a fake reason to attack: an air attack on the buildings. (Also if you look at the videos you can f**king see the airplane hitting the building and some 5-10 stories beneath exploding for no reason before the plane explodes into the building itself (like those c4 that you use to destroy buildings).

Lybia has very good quality petrol there: of course the americans airstroke them (what where their interests to bomb a country they're totally not related to). The french are doing the same now, maybe for the same reason; they always were competitive and wanted a larger empire in the world.

Nah, their excuse for occupying Iraq was "Reports of Saddam possessing nuclear strike capabilities", this time it's obvious that they're going in for the petrol, no excuse needed.
If it's "Power to the people" that they were looking to accomplish, they would have needed a lot less than 110 Tomahawks. That's complete military eradication, once they're done with the regime, they'll find some excuse to take out the rebels next.

And no, I hate conspiracy theories, and yes, I do believe that Al Qaeda was behind 911.

[ds dude]

Huzzaaa!

What demoniac said.

[Mitak]

Mexer you should stop worrying about things so thinly related to you and focus on your hair. Post your pics in the picture thread. No wait, you don't want to end up like a second jrgp :/ Hmmm on second thought I guess we still have a whole year left so what the hell, post that s**t

[Mexer]

And no, I hate conspiracy theories, and yes, I do believe that Al Qaeda was behind 911.

What about the explosions UNDER the place the plane smashed the building?
What about Bush being in hawai or somewhere right when it happened?
and for what reason would Al Qaeda attack america? It's like me slapping a massive angry body builder...

Mexer you should stop worrying about things so thinly related to you and focus on your hair. Post your pics here too. No wait, you don't want to end up like a second jrgp :/ Hmmm on second thought I guess we still have a whole year left so what the hell, post that s**t

go f**k yourself mitak; not here.

[Mitak]

Come on you'll get professional help from the wikipedia physicists and atheist critics with the electronic bibles!!! Don't miss your chance.

[LeetFidle]

And no, I hate conspiracy theories, and yes, I do believe that Al Qaeda was behind 911.

What about the explosions UNDER the place the plane smashed the building?
What about Bush being in hawai or somewhere right when it happened?
and for what reason would Al Qaeda attack america? It's like me slapping a massive angry body builder...

1) What about them? why does that prove that it wasnt terrorists?
2)What if bush was in hawaii? the president is in a different place almost every day. so what if he was in hawaii?
3) never heard of a terrorist eh? they want to cause terror, not to gain power.

[Mexer]

1) What about them? why does that prove that it wasnt terrorists?

Hey, I'm just gonna put those building blasters on the main pylons that keep the building up just in case a hijacked plane hits it.. ?

[LeetFidle]

Still doesnt mean terrorists were not responsible.

[Mexer]

Still doesnt mean terrorists were not responsible.

what's your argument about it then?

[ds dude]

His argument is that if there were explosions on the lower part of the building doesn't mean that the terrorist did not do it.

At least I think that's what he meant.

[jettlarue]

It really sucks most of the people who claim to be "well informed" make idiotic posts. This: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20110307061747765-Interview with Dr. Niels Harrit on Discovery of Nano-Thermite in WTC Dust, well defies all other attempts of avoiding the fact multiple scientists have found thermite and has been the greatest cause of skepticism to the cover story.
Some other things:
US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.
b. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were "real world or exercise." Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an "inside job"?

Those were just copy/pasted from 911truth.org. It's a pretty good site for introduction into 9/11. Although that is quite a small piece of the puzzle. When you start looking at the federal reserve and the multinational banks things get much more interesting. Here's a few more interesting reads:
http://www.welfarestate.com/911/-listing of hijackers and current status
http://www.wtc7.net/background.html- what was in wtc7(as in offices)--
note the mortgages, seems like quite a bit of info was lost that could have indicted them.

The best part is to search for yourself, not read this shit I post. And not read other peoples writings, but to look for hard evidence in all things.

[Mexer]

His argument is that if there were explosions on the lower part of the building doesn't mean that the terrorist did not do it.

At least I think that's what he meant.

X: Hey dude, this friend of mine told me he will kill someone tonight.
Y: I don't think it's true
X: No, he was very serious
Y: He must've lied
X: How come?
Y: I think that what he said was a lie..
X: What's your argument?
Z: I think his argument is that he lied

[12th_account]

Nah, their excuse for occupying Iraq was "Reports of Saddam possessing nuclear strike capabilities", this time it's obvious that they're going in for the petrol, no excuse needed.
If it's "Power to the people" that they were looking to accomplish, they would have needed a lot less than 110 Tomahawks. That's complete military eradication, once they're done with the regime, they'll find some excuse to take out the rebels next.

The coalition forces are according to UNSCR 1973 only authorized to establish a no-fly zone and protect civilians and civilian areas under threat of attack. In order to effectively enforce the no-fly zone and protect them from pro-Gaddafi columns advancing on cities, they need to be able to safely carry out sorties with ground-attack aircraft and patrol the skies. In order to do that they need to take out air defense systems using long-range cruise missiles. I highly doubt the 112 cruise missiles were enough to completely take out all the pro-Gaddafi air defense systems.

I haven't heard any news of sorties being carried out against anything other than pro-Gaddafi forces that were directly threatening civilian lives. And according to UNSCR 1973 it's questionable if they're even allowed to.

And why would the western countries want to secure the oil if Libya was already selling it to them? Their actions have in fact halted Libya's oil shipments and driven up global oil prices. And if their goal was to secure the oil being sold to them in the future, wouldn't the coalition forces want the relatively pro-western anti-Gaddafi forces to oust Colonel Gaddafi? Why would they want to take them out as well? Did you think the coalition forces wanted to colonize Libya and divide the oil between themselves? It makes even less sense considering that coalition nations such as Norway, Qatar and UAE already have an abundance in oil supplies.

Don't you don't think that they could just want to help protect the Libyans because it's appalling to have a mad dictator using the military to attack his own people?

I'm sorry if this turned out too long, but there was just so much wrong with your post.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Stupid, stupid people.  Seriously.  Stop pushing your "9/11 was a conspiracy" bullshit.  It wasn't.  We had a whole discussion about this last year, and the truthers were revealed to be idiots who kept pushing their retarded opinions even when directly confronted with evidence to the contrary.  Read it and shut up about it:
http://forums.soldat.pl/index.php?topic=38887.0