Lihop, Mihop, & Zbigniew Brzezinski Options

[Sanders]

LIHOP, MIHOP, & Zbigniew Brzezinski


This idea that the 'greatest threat to Freedom, America and Western Civilization is Islamic Fundamentalism' is not just a post 9/11 concept, it has been echoing around the back halls of the US government as far back as the collapse of the Soviet Union.

So, how much truth is there in that statement? In fact, that is an absurd question. Our leaders create the enemy, to justify outrageous defense budgets and to keep the American people on edge. It is the oldest trick in the book - like Rome villified Hanibal, Hitler blamed the German's ills on the Jews, and Reagan overstated the Soviet Threat, the "threat of Islamic Fundamentalism" has been nurtured. ...For decades. ..."On purpose".

This goes hand in hand with a concept that I personally subscribe to, that Both LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) and MIHOP (Made It Happen 0n Purpose) are accurate. Some of the hijackers really thought they were going to take down the US. bin Laden isn't completely a tool of the CIA. That's the genius of the plot - it's partly real.

How can LIHOP and MIHOP both be true? Because the line is blurred. One can exist within the other. There are those in the government (or "behind" the government) to whom the MIHOP acronym applies, and there are those in the government to whom the LIHOP acronym applies (and even to which neither apply). One hand does not always know what the other is doing, which is also, "on purpose".

Let me explain.

In 1980 there were no more than about a hundred Islamic mosques scattered around Central Asia. Ten years later there were 10,000. That is a reflection of a huge Islamic movement that took place during that decade. It can be attributed to two things - Islamic fundamentalists took over Iran, and Zbigniew Brzezinski happened.

What can I say about Zbigniew Brzezinski? Leading member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Co-founder (along with David Rockefeller) of the Trilateral Commission. Author of numerous influential books on foreign policy, including 'Between Two Ages' and 'The Grand Chessboard'. One time advisor to presidents John F. Kenedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Jimmy Carter. He is a geo-political genius. And I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. But in one short moment in his life, he was honest. He said something he shouldn't have. He was so proud of himself that he, one man, single handedly took down the Soviet Union, and for the bittersweet knowlege that no one but he knew it and for his vanity, he lost his wits. He admitted that it was he, not Russia, that started the Soviet-Afghan war.

In Brzezinski’s own words in an interview in January, 1998 edition of the Le Nouvel Observateaur:

Question: "The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?"

Brzezinski: “Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 2, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.”

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: "It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.”

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: "Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?..."

There were two versions of this edition of the French 'Le Nouvel Observateur.' The one sold in the United States did not include the Article, "Killing Hope" by William Blum which contained this interview.

So it can be said that Zbigniew Brzezinski, as protagonist of the Soviet/Mujahadeen hostilities, single handedly affected the fall of the Soviet Union. As he points out later in the interview, Afghanistan was Russia’s own "Vietnam", it wrecked their economy --- which is exactly what the U.S. had in mind as they were pumping billions into Afghanistan via Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, who played middle-man between the US and Islamic militants in Central Asia, as they would continue to do right up until 9/11. Brzezinski can also be given credit for with helping whip Islamic nationalists fighting in Afghanistan in the 80's into a religious/nationalist frenzy (he personally made trips to the area himself to pump up the Mujahedeen), and even initiating Osama bin Laden’s meteoric rise to fame and for setting the world stage for what the Executive Intelligence Review predicted would be a “thirty-years war in Eurasia”. ...They probably underestimated, lol.

Now, many don't remember, but the "Mujahedeen", the forefathers of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, were Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan. Funny that, by the early 90's that same Brzezinski was shouting to the world suddenly about the new Islamic Threat. His 'Arc of Crisis' rhetoric is one example of this, his protege Samuel Huntington's famous "Clash of Civilizations" article and book by the same name were so obviously influenced by Brzezinski that the concept is often mistakenly attributed to him.

Brzezinski's warnings were immediately picked up by others (they were probably the subject of numerous CFR meetings with Bush-senior in attendance). Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and under Bush I, the president to inherit the new "single-superpower-world", this new rise of Islamic terrorism was already being cited as the reason why Defense budgets should stay where they were, despite the sudden peace. Cause, you, know, we can't have none of that "peace" crap. (In all fairness there WAS a "peace dividend", but those cuts didn't really kick in until Clinton took office - which in turn prompted the neocons, who had nothing better to do after losing the White House, to form the PNAC along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, and to write their frightening 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' paper. And who knows how much of this swinging pendulum stuff isn't all planned behind the scenes - after all, Clinton is an important member of the CFR as well and a Rhodes scholar to boot - I trust him and what he says only a little more than I trust Brzezinski ... though I sort of like him cause he's really smart and hides it well.)

But back to topic, what was the topic? Oh yeah, Terrorism ! The accepted wisdom, is that in the process of supporting the Mujahedeen in order to destabalise the Soviet Union we created a frankenstein monster. Orin Hatch was asked about this (he was on the committee that recommended approval for all the Soviet-Afghan war funding), and said, I am paraphrasing, "it was worth it". That is the excepted version, that we gave a bunch of money and stinger missiles to a band of Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan in order to destabalize (they wouldn't put it that way, we were fighting off Soviet expansion, but of course Brzezinski sets us all straight on that point) the Soviet Union. Then things got out of control, bin Laden got too popular, turned on his master, bombed some embassies and eventually destroyed the trade towers.

Well, that story almost sounds believable, except for a few persistent, contradictory details, the least of which is the fact that 9/11 was clearly an inside job. To count some of them off quickly, Ali Mohammed, convicted for his part in the African Embassy bombings carried out by "al-Qaeda" (and then "poof", disappearing), was a double agent who also recieved paychecks from the US Army, the CIA and, allegedly, the FBI. Al-Qaeda recuits recieved "express" visas through the Saudi Embassy to come to the US to train. John O'Neill and other FBI agents were hampered in their efforts to investigate al-Qaeda and other terrorist cells. Al-Qaeda fought on the side of the US in Bosnia. And George W. Bush somehow forgot to punish al-Qaeda for the USS Cole incident after his inauguration. (US Intelligence determined that al-Qaeda had been behind the Cole bombing right around the time Bush took office.)

These are all post-Soviet-collapse and pre-9/11 examples that go against the notion that bin Laden and his ex-Mujahedeen gang of thugs had "turned" on the US.

Yet, it would be a mistake to conclude that there is no anti-US sentiment in the Isalmic community (an understatement!), that there aren't terrorists, or even that Osama bin Laden is a friend of the US, in my opinion. It is an enigma, that can only be grasped via the comprehension that (a) bin Laden used us while we were using him (and still is if he's not actually dead now), and, (b ), the threat, both by support and by provoking, has been purposely nurtured by elements in the US over years and years to make the Brzezinski/Huntington idea of a "Clash of Civilizations" a reality.

[Method]

Great post Sanders. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

[e-dog]

I have 1 question for the LIHOP believers.
If it indeed was LIHOP, why was there no Boeing 757 found at the pentagon, and what really hapened to flight 93?
That's all - Thanks.


IT--

[oliver]

LIHOP, MIHOP, & Zbigniew Brzezinski

This idea that the 'greatest threat to Freedom, America and Western Civilization is Islamic Fundamentalism' is not just a post 9/11 concept, it has been echoing around the back halls of the US government as far back as the collapse of the Soviet Union.

So, how much truth is there in that statement?  In fact, that is an absurd question. Our leaders create the enemy, to justify outrageous defense budgets and to keep the American people on edge.  It is the oldest trick in the book - like Rome villified Hanibal, Hitler blamed the German's ills on the Jews, and Reagan overstated the Soviet Threat, the "threat of Islamic Fundamentalism" has been nurtured.  ...For decades. ..."On purpose".

I also see it this way that the government at least used
the terrorist-propaganda very well. Also the fear- and war-
mongering.

This goes hand in hand with a concept that I personally subscribe to, that Both LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) and MIHOP (Made It Happen 0n Purpose) are accurate. Some of the hijackers really thought they were going to take down the US. bin Laden isn't completely a tool of the CIA.  That's the genius of the plot - it's partly real.

Well, the Osama/Cia connection is not confirmed but i
have to read on...

How can LIHOP and MIHOP both be true?  Because the line is blurred. One can exist within the other. There are those in the government (or "behind" the government) to whom the MIHOP acronym applies, and there are those in the government to whom the LIHOP acronym applies (and even to which neither apply). One hand does not always know what the other is doing, which is also, "on purpose".

Let me explain.

In 1980 there were no more than about a hundred Islamic mosques scattered around Central Asia. Ten years later there were 10,000. That is a reflection of a huge Islamic movement that took place during that decade. It can be attributed to two things - Islamic fundamentalists took over Iran, and Zbigniew Brzezinski happened.

What can I say about Zbigniew Brzezinski? Leading member of the Council on Foreign Relations.  Co-founder (along with David Rockefeller) of the Trilateral Commission. Author of numerous influential books on foreign policy, including 'Between Two Ages' and 'The Grand Chessboard'. One time advisor to presidents John F. Kenedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Jimmy Carter.  He is a geo-political genius. And I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. But in one short moment in his life, he was honest. He said something he shouldn't have. He was so proud of himself that he, one man, single handedly took down the Soviet Union, and for the bittersweet knowlege that no one but he knew it and for his vanity, he lost his wits. He admitted that it was he, not Russia, that started the Soviet-Afghan war.

In Brzezinski’s own words in an interview in January, 1998 edition of the Le Nouvel Observateaur:

Question: "The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?"

Brzezinski: “Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 2, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.”

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: "It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.”

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: "Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?..."

There were two versions of this edition of the French 'Le Nouvel Observateur.'  The one sold in the United States did not include the Article, "Killing Hope" by William Blum which contained this interview.

So it can be said that Zbigniew Brzezinski, as protagonist of the Soviet/Mujahadeen hostilities, single handedly affected the fall of the Soviet Union. As he points out later in the interview, Afghanistan was Russia’s own "Vietnam", it wrecked their economy --- which is exactly what the U.S. had in mind as they were pumping billions into Afghanistan via Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, who played middle-man between the US and Islamic militants in Central Asia, as they would continue to do right up until 9/11. Brzezinski can also be given credit for with helping whip Islamic nationalists fighting in Afghanistan in the 80's into a religious/nationalist frenzy (he personally made trips to the area himself to pump up the Mujahedeen), and even initiating Osama bin Laden’s meteoric rise to fame and for setting the world stage for what the Executive Intelligence Review predicted would be a “thirty-years war in Eurasia”. ...They probably underestimated, lol.

As far i read it Osamas gained from the support and protection
of the pakistani government, the Talian, Mohammed Omar and the
ISI - and this was the reason for his rising - beside his wealth. Off
course i know about the CIA-ISI connection but i miss the direct
CIA-Osama connection beside the Osman-rumour.

Now, many don't remember, but the "Mujahedeen", the forefathers of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, were Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan. Funny that, by the early 90's that same Brzezinski was shouting to the world suddenly about the new Islamic Threat. His 'Arc of Crisis' rhetoric is one example of this, his protege Samuel Huntington's famous "Clash of Civilizations" article and book by the same name were so obviously influenced by Brzezinski that the concept is often mistakenly attributed to him.

Brzezinski's warnings were immediately picked up by others (they were probably the subject of numerous CFR meetings with Bush-senior in attendance). Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and under Bush I, the president to inherit the new "single-superpower-world",  this new rise of Islamic terrorism was already being cited as the reason why Defense budgets should stay where they were, despite the sudden peace.  Cause, you, know, we can't have none of that "peace" crap.  (In all fairness there WAS a "peace dividend", but those cuts didn't really kick in until Clinton took office - which in turn prompted the neocons, who had nothing better to do after losing the White House, to form the PNAC along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, and to write their frightening 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' paper.  And who knows how much of this swinging pendulum stuff isn't all planned behind the scenes - after all, Clinton is an important member of the CFR as well and a Rhodes scholar to boot - I trust him and what he says only a little more than I trust Brzezinski ... though I sort of like him cause he's really smart and hides it well.)

So far i have a view questions. I know that the Evil-Empire-strategy
makes sense to push their own interests and i don´t think that AQ
is as big as the government want us to believe but i miss the direct
involvement of the Ncons.

Why did they publish documents like the RADefenses or Northwood?
These would reveal their own secret plans.

Why did Clinton try to hunt down Osama and why did they bomb
that pharmacy-factory?

But back to topic, what was the topic?  Oh yeah, Terrorism !  The accepted wisdom, is that in the process of supporting the Mujahedeen in order to destabalise the Soviet Union we created a frankenstein monster. Orin Hatch was asked about this (he was on the committee that recommended approval for all the Soviet-Afghan war funding), and said, I am paraphrasing, "it was worth it". That is the excepted version, that we gave a bunch of money and stinger missiles to a band of Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan in order to destabalize (they wouldn't put it that way, we were fighting off Soviet expansion, but of course Brzezinski sets us all straight on that point) the Soviet Union. Then things got out of control, bin Laden got too popular, turned on his master, bombed some embassies and eventually destroyed the trade towers.

This is the story i also know so far about the us-intervention
to destabilize the russion invasion.

Well, that story almost sounds believable, except for a few persistent, contradictory details, the least of which is the fact that 9/11 was clearly an inside job.  To count some of them off quickly, Ali Mohammed, convicted for his part in the African Embassy bombings carried out by "al-Qaeda" (and then "poof", disappearing), was a double agent who also recieved paychecks from the US Army, the CIA and, allegedly, the FBI.  Al-Qaeda recuits recieved "express" visas through the Saudi Embassy to come to the US to train.  John O'Neill and other FBI agents were hampered in their efforts to investigate al-Qaeda and other terrorist cells.  Al-Qaeda fought on the side of the US in Bosnia.  And George W. Bush somehow forgot to punish al-Qaeda for the USS Cole incident after his inauguration. (US Intelligence determined that al-Qaeda had been behind the Cole bombing right around the time Bush took office.)

Why didn´t Bush care more about Osama? I mean it would
make the story working if it was an inside job. In the way
it happend it makes him a fool - so i guess if MIHOP was
involved - he didn´t know that or was an idiot who didn´t
realized that the lazyiess will make the gov like idiots.

These are all post-Soviet-collapse and pre-9/11 examples that go against the notion that bin Laden and his ex-Mujahedeen gang of thugs had "turned" on the US.

Yet, it would be a mistake to conclude that there is no anti-US sentiment in the Isalmic community (an understatement!), that there aren't terrorists, or even that Osama bin Laden is a friend of the US, in my opinion.  It is an enigma, that can only be grasped via the comprehension that (a) bin Laden is using us while we are using him, and (b ), the threat, both by support and by provoking, has been purposely nurtured by elements in the US over years and years to make the Brzezinski/Huntington idea of a "Clash of Civilizations" a reality.

Sorry that i have you to ask you that: What evidence
speaks for the Osama-CIA connection beside the ISI´s
connection to Osama? I tried to find a connection but
all i can find are rumours or conspiracy theories.

Also, i read about Brzezińskis and his statement that
he thought he did a big part of defeating the russians
and maybe he´s right. But what has this to do with 9/11?

What about the 93 bombing? The traces to the CIA-
Involvement is very weak as far i read about it.

So far your post speaks more for LI- than for MIHOP.

Cheers,
Oliver

[Sanders]

So far i have a view questions. I know that the Evil-Empire-strategy
makes sense to push their own interests and i don´t think that AQ
is as big as the government want us to believe but i miss the direct
involvement of the Ncons.

Why did they publish documents like the RADefenses or Northwood?
These would reveal their own secret plans.

Why did Clinton try to hunt down Osama and why did they bomb
that pharmacy-factory?

Oh, for Chissakes, man, WAKE UP!


The Neocons are all CFR members. Their Agenda is parallel to the agenda of the Rothschilds, who run the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the CFR's big sister organization in England, the only people in the world who can tell the Rockefellers what to do. They also maintain a strong presesnce on the Defense Policy Board. Don't you get it? There is no DIRECT contact between bin Laden and the CIA, it was all done through the ISI. Just like there was no direct contact between the CIA and the hijackers on 9/11, that was all run through the ISI as well. The storming of Kabul by the Taliban was yet another American designed, CIA run, and Pakistan ISI executed operation. Read 'Taliban, Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia' by Ahmed Rashid if you don't believe me.


Clinton bombed a camp no "al-Qaeda" member had been at in months, where bin Laden was no where near - the Sudan factory was an aspirin factory - and to go a step furhter, there were only 12 American killed out of 300 in both Embassy attacks - all that was for show if you ask me... the proof is that Ali Mohammed was involved, and disappeared (was set free) before his sentencing.


Wake up man, quit acting like a troll...

Also, i read about Brzezi?skis and his statement that
he thought he did a big part of defeating the russians
and maybe he´s right. But what has this to do with 9/11?

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wall.gif)

So far your post speaks more for LI- than for MIHOP.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...07845273&q=wtc7

[oliver]

WTC7:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi


Sorry, how can i wake up if these things with
NWO, Rotschilds, Illuminati and so on only exist
in america? I don´t see them here so i don´t know
why i´m a troll because i´m willing to understand
it and to ask questions (...demand answers)

I have to sleep now because it´s 4:30 in the
morning. Maybe you give it a chance.

[Sanders]

WTC7:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi


Sorry, how can i wake up if these things with
NWO, Rotschilds, Illuminati and so on only exist
in america? I don´t see them here so i don´t know
why i´m a troll because i´m willing to understand
it and to ask questions (...demand answers)

I have to sleep now because it´s 4:30 in the
morning. Maybe you give it a chance.

I didn't say you were a troll, I said quit acting like one.

Last time I talked to you you were on page 10 and asking me about page 9, and I pointed you in the right direction. A month later you are still going on about page 9, even though all the answers you seek are in pages 11 through 20 if you would just take the cues and read on yourself. OBVIOUsly you haven't done any serious searching yourself for the answers to the questions you claim to seek, you just come here and ask the same ones over and over. Am I wrong??


The NWO is as much a British construct as much as it is American, if not more. Germany is not separate from all this, not by a long shot. The NWO is planning a giant complex (for the World Bank I think?) in Israel. ( I don't know much about it, it's one of the things I want to look into more. )


The Rothschilds are German, btw, from Frankfurt.

And who said anything about the Illuminati?

One more thing
The Giant Fire that caused WTC7 to collapse
http://web.archive.org/web/20030926001401/...ages/3073-7.JPG
(P.S., nice pict, batmanchester)

[oliver]

I didn't say you were a troll, I said quit acting like one.

"Ask questions, demand answers". I´m interested about
what happened. No matter what my foreknowledges were
or are.

Last time I talked to you you were on page 10 and asking me about page 9, and I pointed you in the right direction.  A month later you are still going on about page 9, even though all the answers you seek are in pages 11 through 20 if you would just take the cues and read on yourself.  OBVIOUsly you haven't done any serious searching yourself for the answers to the questions you claim to seek, you just come here and ask the same ones over and over.  Am I wrong??

It seems so because i get my information from valid sources
because all the CT-sites contain 1.000.000 different views. That´s
why it´s not only confusing to read them, i also highly believe
that much of it is trash. So you have to consider that my infor-
mation is coming from sources i´m able to back up with other
sources that say the same thing or are conform with my
information.

The NWO is as much a British  construct as much as it is American, if not more.  Germany is not separate from all this, not by a long shot.  The NWO is planning a giant complex (for the World Bank I think?) in Israel.  ( I don't know much about it, it's one of the things I want to look into more. )

Well, i also would like to learn more about it because all of this
is new to me since reading about conspiracies.

And the first question i have in mind regarding this is: Why publish
the Rebuilding America's Defenses or Northwood-Documents if it´s
a secret plan and/or part of an inside job. It´s nothing personal
and you don´t have to answer. It´s just the first thing that does
not sum up with my knowleges.

The Rothschilds are German, btw, from Frankfurt.
And who said anything about the Illuminati?

I seriously wonder why germans don´t know about the
Rothschild-conspiracy. It would make a great story here.
No kidding or criticizing.

One more thing
The Giant Fire that caused WTC7 to collapse
http://web.archive.org/web/20030926001401/...ages/3073-7.JPG
(P.S., nice pict, batmanchester)

I know that the front of the building does not show as
much fires than the backside. Also the frontside did not
show the damage of the tower-debris we all never saw
on any visual media. However - i think that damge and
fires are able to make much damage - even if i don´t
know for sure if they caused the collapse.

Here´s the fire filmed from the backside of WTC7:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

What is your honest thought about it?

- Oliver

This post has been edited by oliver: Nov 10 2006, 12:01 PM

[IVXX]

I know that the front of the building does not show as
much fires than the backside. Also the frontside did not
show the damage of the tower-debris we all never saw
on any visual media. However - i think that damge and
fires are able to make much damage - even if i don´t
know for sure if they caused the collapse.

Here´s the fire filmed from the backside of WTC7:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

What is your honest thought about it?

- Oliver

If damage and fires alone caused the collapse why didn't 7 fall towards the south where the most damage was?? Kind of like WTC 2 started to fall to the side of impact. Instead 7 falls straight down.

Also what about buildings 4, 5 & 6?? These buildings were right under the towers. They were hit by more debris, suffered more damage, had raging fires yet they stood for weeks after 9/11.

What about Deutsche Bank Building and other buildings closer to the towers, not a block away that suffered a lot of damamge but did not collapse??

I guess we'll have to wait until next year to see what the NIST experts say about building 7 cause even they aren't signning off on just damage and fires as the cause of collapse.

[Sanders]

I didn't say you were a troll, I said quit acting like one.

"Ask questions, demand answers". I´m interested about
what happened. No matter what my foreknowledges were
or are.

Dylan used the quote, "Ask questions, demand answers" in his movie, Loose Change. That was as in, demand answers from your GOVERNMENT (I'm talking about Americans asking their US government of course) about why their explanation for why 9/11 happened and who did it an how and why we are in Iraq and sending 75% of our Navy to the Pesian Gulf right how DON'T ADD UP. We deserve answers to those questions from our government. But you are demanding answers to your questions from who? From us. It's not the same - that's not my/our responsibility. - You posted this in your thread "Was it MIHOP or LIHOP?, Please explain it to me...":

I´m sorry but after doing my research about alex
jones, he´s no serious source to me - beside the
fact, that he is not able to post the content of W199i.

Could someone post me a link to the W199i content?

You don't even say please. Seriously, what gave you the idea that we have nothing better to do that to go find the content of W199i for you? Tarya was nice enough to post a link for you. That's the kind of person you will find many of here. Very nice people. But what really goes through my mind is, why don't you go find it yourself? How hard is it to google W199i? Yeah, sure, there's a lot of crap on the internet, sure you have to sort through it, but guess what - WE ALL DID THAT. WE ALL DO THAT. That's what we do. We sort through reams and reams of all manner of written material looking for the truth, month after month, year after year, following story after story - trying to figure out what's what. You think it's hard to figure it out? You shoulda been around 5 years ago before there was all this material on the net about all this stuff. Get off your @ss and google and sort and read and figure and discern. For yourself - IT'S NOT OUR JOB to convince you of anything. The title of that thread in the lounge says it all IMHO, oliver. "Was it MIHOP or LIHOP?, Please explain it to me...". Please explain it to me. No, no, figure it out for yourself, then spend some quality time talking to people of like mind about what you have discovered. For yourself. That, my friend is what this site is about. Quit being a pest.

As for WTC7, I can't have a discussion with anyone who honestly thinks WTC7 fell straight down at free-fall speed because of some fires. Go back to the govt loyalist site, bud. I'm serious as a heart attack. You are not Pilots' material. Not near.

The nicest thing I've ever done for you is spend 15 minutes of my time, which is valuable to me, to write this post.

-Sanders.

[oliver]

If damage and fires alone caused the collapse why didn't 7 fall towards the south where the most damage was?? Kind of like WTC 2 started to fall to the side of impact. Instead 7 falls straight down.

Also what about buildings 4, 5 & 6?? These buildings were right under the towers. They were hit by more debris, suffered more damage, had raging fires yet they stood for weeks after 9/11.

What about Deutsche Bank Building and other buildings closer to the towers, not a block away that suffered a lot of damamge but did not collapse??

I guess we'll have to wait until next year to see what the NIST experts say about building 7 cause even they aren't signning off on just damage and fires as the cause of collapse.

Maybe it fell this way bacuse it was a building, made
of many relative `small` pieces in comparison to the
huge building. Also the penthouse fell first - so it might
be possible that the mainbeam that carried the penthouse
failed and was damaged because the collapse.

Until the penthouse fell, it damaged the building and
the rest collapsed, too. To me that would not sounds
like a science-fiction story if someone would tell me
a building collapsed because this explanation.

Well, the other WTC-7 buildings were smaller. They
did not carry such an amount of weight - which is
a logical and important factor to find out what
happened.

Let´s see what NIST says but i´m pretty sure that
a lot of guys just don´t believe what they say or they
find more evidence for a controlled demolition - even
if this would be the worlds stupiest government that
would give the conspiracy theorists more hints for
a secret controlled demolition...

[oliver]

(I'm talking about Americans asking their US government of course) about why their explanation for why 9/11 happened and who did it an how and why we are in Iraq and sending 75% of our Navy to the Pesian Gulf right how DON'T ADD UP. We deserve answers to those questions from our government. But you are demanding answers to your questions from who? From us. It's not the same - that's not my/our responsibility. - You posted this in your thread "Was it MIHOP or LIHOP?, Please explain it to me...":

I´m sorry but after doing my research about alex
jones, he´s no serious source to me - beside the
fact, that he is not able to post the content of W199i.

Could someone post me a link to the W199i content?

You don't even say please. Seriously, what gave you the idea that we have nothing better to do that to go find the content of W199i for you? Tarya was nice enough to post a link for you. That's the kind of person you will find many of here. Very nice people. But what really goes through my mind is, why don't you go find it yourself? How hard is it to google W199i? Yeah, sure, there's a lot of crap on the internet, sure you have to sort through it, but guess what - WE ALL DID THAT. WE ALL DO THAT. That's what we do. We sort through reams and reams of all manner of written material looking for the truth, month after month, year after year, following story after story - trying to figure out what's what. You think it's hard to figure it out? You shoulda been around 5 years ago before there was all this material on the net about all this stuff. Get off your @ss and google and sort and read and figure and discern. For yourself - IT'S NOT OUR JOB to convince you of anything. The title of that thread in the lounge says it all IMHO, oliver. "Was it MIHOP or LIHOP?, Please explain it to me...". Please explain it to me. No, no, figure it out for yourself, then spend some quality time talking to people of like mind about what you have discovered. For yourself. That, my friend is what this site is about. Quit being a pest.

As for WTC7, I can't have a discussion with anyone who honestly thinks WTC7 fell straight down at free-fall speed because of some fires. Go back to the govt loyalist site, bud. I'm serious as a heart attack. You are not Pilots' material. Not near.

The nicest thing I've ever done for you is spend 15 minutes of my time, which is valuable to me, to write this post.

-Sanders.

Well, i don´t know for sure why the lied about WMD´s
and invading Iraq. Fact is that they did send a committee
before the war to find WMD´s. After they did find nothing,
the gov requested them to lie about it.

Hans Brix told about this in public.

I´m sure they would have done a more unfathomable
plan instead killing 3000 own people and blame the
false people for it. Al Q. had nothing to do with Iraq.
There were 1000 more reasons to invade pakistan
because 9/11.

What whould i research about w199? There is no
copy of it´s message. This is as much evidence that
Alex Jones lie that the reichstagsfeuer was an inside
job? You brought it up.

Well, for me it was (possibly) LIHOP after a lot of reading
serious sources. Maybe i misunderstood the title of
this board. It should be >Gubmint-Haters for anti-propaganda<

Wrong?

[Sanders]

Oliver, your "serious sources" are venues for disinformation
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...dpost&p=4901597

I am out of breath trying to explain it to you - yet your posts indicate that you haven't read my words, or you don't understand them, or you don't want to try and understand them. I can understand that, you are holding on to ideas that will not let the real nature of the conspiracy sink in. But I cannot open your mind for you. Good luck to ya...

[Cary]

Oliver,

I don't have the patience of Sanders to keep feeding you this stuff. Get off your ass and do your own research. Reach your own conclusions. Your ongoing questions in the face of what you've been shown smack of intentional distraction and trolling.

Zbignew Brzezinski started al Qaeda back in 1979. Look it up. As Sanders original post shows in Zbig's own words, it was created to draw the Soviets into Afghanistan giving them their own Vietnam. Here's a link to get you started. Either contribute something positive by doing your own research or stop asking questions of people who've given you way more help than I'd be willing to in light of your seeming inability to comprehend what's been show to you.

http://www.takeoverworld.info/#Meet_the_Founder_of_Al-Qaida

[Method]

Oliver = (IMG:http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/54/spoonfeedbabyam8.jpg)