Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Tower 7 Collapse- 9/11- BBC2 Documentary
Options
Comments
-
If nothing had gone on, we wouldnt all be still talking about it.
Do you know what's missing here? An investigation.
But instead of this we get these bi-annual 9/11 theories debunking shows on BBC, heightened government power, daily talk of 'terror' fears on the news leading to an easily manipulated, scared public.
They really arent doing themselves any favours by doing everything a government wanting control would do and nothing a government wanting to protect it's public would do.
Not to mention the similarities of the event with the Tower card of the Tarot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tower_(Tarot_card)
It's well known many ex-presidents of the U.S are into the Occult.
I'd like to remind everyone that the occult is simply hidden knowledge, accepting it's relevance could be very important in finding the hidden knowledge of the Illuminati.
I fail to see how any fire/plane or anything other than a demolition can explain WTC7.
No fire has ever done that to a building, ever. I also question the arguement that 'conspiracy theorists' (what an example of 'group think' the connotation that those words bring) find it 'conveinient' to believe such things, it's far from convienient adjusting to new truths.0 -
Thats Amazing!Smudgeyboy wrote: »
Not to mention the similarities of the event with the Tower card of the Tarot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tower_(Tarot_card)
Remember how all those tarot readers where able to predict the attacks before hand and warned everyone.
Ooh wait.......0 -
Hey, you tell me why the illuminati believe in it.0
-
Because the their existence and actions are apparently deeply dependant on your imagination.Smudgeyboy wrote: »Hey, you tell me why the illuminati believe in it.
But tell me, how do you know they use tarot cards?
And for that matter do you want to try and explain why not a single tarot reader predicted 9/11 or are they in on it too?0 -
If you dont know the illuminati are into the occult or 'hidden knowledge' by now you dont want to know, Im sick of providing links to people who dont want them.
The tarot itself an illuminati teaching.
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Tarot
If you question this, why not question the subject yourself further instead of coming back on here and speaking to me in such a demeaning way again.
I remind you we've never had a conversation and you have no idea who I am. Insults only come from someone afraid. Take what you want from that.0 -
Advertisement
-
Smudgeyboy wrote: »If you dont know the illuminati are into the occult or 'hidden knowledge' by now you dont want to know, Im sick of providing links to people who dont want them.
The tarot itself an illuminati teaching.
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Tarot
Well if you read it on the internet is must be true>
I do question it, because your arguments lack any logical basis.Smudgeyboy wrote: »If you question this, why not question the subject yourself further instead of coming back on here and speaking to me in such a demeaning way again.
I remind you we've never had a conversation and you have no idea who I am. Insults only come from someone afraid. Take what you want from that.
So what exactly am I afraid of? I'd love to know.0 -
Im sorry but I think your a bit mistaken. The program was on the investigation, the results of which were released this year. It also dealt with the main alternative theories surrounding the event. Though admittedly there was no mention of tarrot cards......Smudgeyboy wrote:If nothing had gone on, we wouldnt all be still talking about it.
Do you know what's missing here? An investigation.
Oh and the reason people are still talking about it is because people love a good story, especially if it involves corrupt people in power and the struggle to reveal the truth.0 -
Smudgeyboy wrote: »I fail to see how any fire/plane or anything other than a demolition can explain WTC7.
No fire has ever done that to a building, ever. I also question the arguement that 'conspiracy theorists' (what an example of 'group think' the connotation that those words bring) find it 'conveinient' to believe such things, it's far from convienient adjusting to new truths.
But it wasnt just the fire. Dont forget that 2 very large buildings collapsed right beside it. The amount of debris which hit the building coupled with the vibrational effects of the towers collapsing PLUS the fire all contributed to WTC7s collapse. No fire has ever done that to a building, ever. But another building falling on it would0 -
I can see how debris and the vibration of the other building's demolition (in my opinion) could effect WTC7, but not in the way it happened. No building fell of WTC7
Debris could knock off corners, etc. of the building, and weaken it slightly, remember the scale of the building we're talking about. That's a very slow kind of 'chipping away' at a building if that's the cause.
But that's not how it happened at all...
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=WTC7+collapse&emb=0#
Bang- and it's gone, the same as the other two, on it's own foot print.
This means that whatever was holding this building up (hundreds of steel joins) all got knocked out at the exact same time, and that's impossible with the fire and debris explanation.
Look at it closely, the middle of the building kinks, then it folds in on itself so it doesnt destroy anything around it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo
And then there's the owner saying they decided to 'pull' the building.
Also, if the explanation for the collapse of the twin towers was jet fuel (which doesnt even burn at a high enough temperature to burn through steel) then that means the jet fuel burned through the holding points of steel core structure of the buildings all at once, an amazing thing to happen.
Not only this but on the same day, right beside this outstanding feat of jet fuel, bricks and normal fire did the exact same thing!
"That's unpossible!"0 -
so you're an engineer then?Smudgeyboy wrote: »
Bang- and it's gone, the same as the other two, on it's own foot print.
This means that whatever was holding this building up (hundreds of steel joins) all got knocked out at the exact same time, and that's impossible with the fire and debris explanation.
Expert in demolitions?
Do you ever critically examine anything you read on the internet or do you accept it as gospel truth from the get go?
Steel loses strength as it heats up, at the temperature of the fire it would have lost half it's strength. The fire didn't need to burn through steel.Smudgeyboy wrote: »Also, if the explanation for the collapse of the twin towers was jet fuel (which doesnt even burn at a high enough temperature to burn through steel) then that means the jet fuel burned through the holding points of steel core structure of the buildings all at once, an amazing thing to happen.0 -
Advertisement
-
so you're an engineer then?
Expert in demolitions?
Steel loses strength as it heats up, at the temperature of the fire it would have lost half it's strength. The fire didn't need to burn through steel.
No I'm not, I have some basic common knowledge of building and sense, have you any real question regarding what I said?
You have no idea what the basis of my arguement is, for all I know you have only seen that documentary on BBC, you dont hear me demeaning you. This is your excuse for not knowing if I'm right or not, a lack of research.
I find it funny how you go on like this after my stating that insults only come from the afraid.
Why does this seem like a fight over who's right with you rather than trying to find out what is right?
What you said about steel is pretty irrelevant.
If the fire was the cause, which is very unlikely to happen as fires dont collapse buildings, it would lose strength in different parts at different time.
This would cause a much slower fall and most probably not a total collapse.0 -
Smudgeyboy wrote: »No I'm not, I have some basic common knowledge of building and sense, have you any real question regarding what I said?
You have no idea what the basis of my arguement is, for all I know you have only seen that documentary on BBC, you dont hear me demeaning you. This is your excuse for not knowing if I'm right or not, a lack of research.
I find it funny how you go on like this after my stating that insults only come from the afraid.
Why does this seem like a fight over who's right with you rather than trying to find out what is right?
What you said about steel is pretty irrelevant.
If the fire was the cause, which is very unlikely to happen as fires dont collapse buildings, it would lose strength in different parts at different time.
This would cause a much slower fall and most probably not a total collapse.
You don't know what you are talking about. You have your common sense and intuition about what should happen. Both can be very misleading especially with something as complex and rare as this event.0 -
So how do you know the difference between a collaspe and a demolition and that they can't look similar.Smudgeyboy wrote: »No I'm not, I have some basic common knowledge of building and sense, have you any real question regarding what I said?
Oh no not the truth, not the completely illogical baseless and evidence free truth!Smudgeyboy wrote: »You have no idea what the basis of my arguement is, for all I know you have only seen that documentary on BBC, you dont hear me demeaning you. This is your excuse for not knowing if I'm right or not, a lack of research.
I find it funny how you go on like this after my stating that insults only come from the afraid.
At 50% of it strength a beam would no longer be able to hold it's intended load and fail, thus adding to the load of other beams which are also considerably weakened and then those would, and so on until collapse.Smudgeyboy wrote: »What you said about steel is pretty irrelevant.
If the fire was the cause, which is very unlikely to happen as fires dont collapse buildings, it would lose strength in different parts at different time.
This would cause a much slower fall and most probably not a total collapse.0 -
You have yet to post a real arguement, that's a very rare occurance your are talking about.
If that is what would happen, it wouldnt all fall at the one time.
This is how all courts work, you look at what happened, look at all evidence available and you make up your mind.
So far, on one side we have a few dodgey explanations from the politicians accused along with some 'debunking' shows backing up what the government said on government sponsored television.
On the other, we have
9/11 as the main accelerator of a very real new world order.
Two dirty wars, and counting
Heightened government power worldwide
Side by side comparison of a controlled demolition of the same type of building. They are identical.
Celebrities coming out saying it was an inside job, and then demonized on corporate media by new world order pushers like Bill O'Reilly on Murdock's Fox news.
BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 early.
The owner of WTC7 saying in interview he got a phone call and they decided to 'pull the building'
a common phrase in the demolition industry.
The smoke coming from the chemical used to cut the steel prior to collapse
The insurance policys taken out before the 'attack'
The reason for the attack was even ridiculous, a very rich man in a cave is jealous of the U.S's freedom? They then use 'The Patriot Act' (incredible name) to take away what's left of American's freedom.
Have you looked in Waco? The 7/7 Bombings? The list of evidence really goes on.
The list goes on as time goes on...0 -
Smudgeyboy wrote: »You have yet to post a real arguement, that's a very rare occurance your are talking about.
If that is what would happen, it wouldnt all fall at the one time.
This is how all courts work, you look at what happened, look at all evidence available and you make up your mind.
So far, on one side we have a few dodgey explanations from the politicians accused along with some 'debunking' shows backing up what the government said on government sponsored television.
On the other, we have 9/11 as the main accelerator of a very real new world order.
Two dirty wars, and counting
Heightened government power worldwide
Side by side comparison of a controlled demolition of the same type of building. They are identical.
Celebrities coming out saying it was an inside job.
The list goes on as time goes on...
Again evidence of how this mental illness works. Facts discarded to fit the bigger story. How about all the non-govt. affiliated engineers who have explained the physics behind the collapse?0 -
They are pretty few and far between, far outweighed by the non-govt. affiliated engineers who say it couldnt have happened that way.
Once again an insult coming from someone with nothing else to say.0 -
Smudgeyboy wrote: »They are pretty few and far between, far outweighed by the non-govt. affiliated engineers who say it couldnt have happened that way.
Once again an insult coming from someone with nothing else to say.
I can't help if you are insulted by the truth. Its a known psychological disorder and you are blind to the fact that you suffer from it. You sound very like Jim Corr in your posts.0 -
And your evidence is faulty and based on logical fallacies.Smudgeyboy wrote: »
This is how all courts work, you look at what happened, look at all evidence available and you make up your mind.
Politicians aren't expert engineers so i give as much credence to their explanations as yours. I do give credence to people who know what they're talking about.Smudgeyboy wrote: »So far, on one side we have a few dodgey explanations from the politicians accused along with some 'debunking' shows backing up what the government said on government sponsored television.
So is anyone arguing against the conspiracy part of it then?
Yes this is true but it does not follow that it must have been an inside job.Smudgeyboy wrote: »On the other, we have
9/11 as the main accelerator of a very real new world order.
Two dirty wars, and counting
Heightened government power worldwide
Non-sequiter and red herring.
What are demonlitions but structural collapses, is possible they can look the same?Smudgeyboy wrote: »Side by side comparison of a controlled demolition of the same type of building. They are identical.
Also argument from ignorance
Argument from authority. Celebrates have no special knowledge and are subject to the same bad reasoning that you use. Bill O'Reilly is a tool.Smudgeyboy wrote: »Celebrities coming out saying it was an inside job, and then demonized on corporate media by new world order pushers like Bill O'Reilly on Murdock's Fox news.
Cherry picking. Both these quotes are taken out of context and you know it.Smudgeyboy wrote: »BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 early.
The owner of WTC7 saying in interview he got a phone call and they decided to 'pull the building'
a common phrase in the demolition industry.
The bbc report the wtc7 had collapsed because of the amount of confusion on the site, and that the firefighter had been saying it was about to collapse.
The "pull it" quote was referring to the operation by fire fighters to save the building. And even if it was refering to a demolition why would he say it to fire fighters?
What smoke? What chemical? What insurance policys?Smudgeyboy wrote: »The smoke coming from the chemical used to cut the steel prior to collapse
The insurance policys taken out before the 'attack'
In court you have to back stuff like this up with a little proof.
Strawman argument argument from personal incredulity and red herring.Smudgeyboy wrote: »The reason for the attack was even ridiculous, a very rich man in a cave is jealous of the U.S's freedom? They then use 'The Patriot Act' (incredible name) to take away what's left of American's freedom.
None of which have anything to do with the collapse of a building. Red herring.Smudgeyboy wrote: »Have you looked in Waco? The 7/7 Bombings? The list of evidence really goes on.
The hard you look for conspiracies the more you see.Smudgeyboy wrote: »The list goes on as time goes on...0 -
Ok boys, whatever, watch out for them rich guys in caves America pays, they hate America's capitalism.0
-
Smudgeyboy wrote: »Ok boys, whatever, watch out for them rich guys in caves America pays, they hate America's capitalism.
Because we live in crippling fear of him every day?
Bet you have tons of proof that he's paid by the US too.0 -
Advertisement
-
One thread should be enough for you boys to duke it out in.
0 -
The point I was making is that the accused has no motive to attack the U.S, why would he? It's obvious the U.S would make war over it, and destroy the accused country. What's more is they got Iraq and Pakistan (when Obama gets in) out of it.
He's filthy rich and is obviously not a spiritual man against America's actions, you dont show this with violence.
His family has huge ties to the U.S. Not only to the U.S but to the Bush family.
His family were taken out of the U.S when all planes were grounded
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/30/archive/main313048.shtml
This page explains the Taliban/U.S connection. No, dont believe it all hook, line and sinker, look up what it says and find out if it's true for your self.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/09_18_01_bushbin.html
I actually find it ridiculous to argue this subject.
Why did NORAD stand down?
The sad truth is, the U.S and U.K are into heroin production.0 -
Smudgeyboy wrote: »The point I was making is that the accused has no motive to attack the U.S, why would he? It's obvious the U.S would make war over it, and destroy the accused country. What's more is they got Iraq and Pakistan (when Obama gets in) out of it.
He's filthy rich and is obviously not a spiritual man against America's actions, you dont show this with violence.
His family has huge ties to the U.S. Not only to the U.S but to the Bush family.
His family were taken out of the U.S when all planes were grounded
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/30/archive/main313048.shtml
This page explains the Taliban/U.S connection. No, dont believe it all hook, line and sinker, look up what it says and find out if it's true for your self.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/09_18_01_bushbin.html
I actually find it ridiculous to argue this subject.
Why did NORAD stand down?
Wow that's a lot of fallacies.
We got argument for personal incredulity, a couple of unstated major premises, and few non sequiturs.
How do you know NORAD stood down exactly?
Proof too much too ask?Smudgeyboy wrote: »The sad truth is, the U.S and U.K are into heroin production.0 -
Smudgeyboy wrote: »9/11 as the main accelerator of a very real new world order.
And even if this is true why does that automatically make 911 an inside job?Smudgeyboy wrote: »Two dirty wars, and counting
Heightened government power worldwide
Opportunism at it's best. Some governments took advantage of 911 and other acts of terrorism but that doesn't mean they planned the whole thing. Find me a government that could actually pull this off, considering how inept and bureaucratic they tend to be.Smudgeyboy wrote: »Side by side comparison of a controlled demolition of the same type of building. They are identical.
They certainly are similar. But I've looked at a load of videos of controlled demolitions and in ALL of them the explosions can be clearly be heard. When new ways of demolition have to be invented to fit the theory i think it's safe to say the theory isn't a runner in the real world.Smudgeyboy wrote: »Celebrities coming out saying it was an inside job, and then demonized on corporate media by new world order pushers like Bill O'Reilly on Murdock's Fox news.
Your point, as King Mob has said O'Reilly is asshole and Fox is the most one sided TV station since the old Soviet news agencies.Smudgeyboy wrote: »BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 early.
The TV stations had been informed that the building was in trouble and there was a likelihood it might collapse. The BBC jumped the gun on the back of a mistaken report from somewhere else. I've seen the same woman interviewed and she says it was a simple mistake. If there were no conflicting reports on the day that would be highly suspicious given the overall level of confusion.Smudgeyboy wrote: »The owner of WTC7 saying in interview he got a phone call and they decided to 'pull the building' a common phrase in the demolition industry.
This is such a strawman argument. No one has ever shown the phrase 'Pull it' to be any reference to demolitions and again as King Mob said why would he be telling this to the fire-fighters unless it meant stop trying to save the building.Smudgeyboy wrote: »The smoke coming from the chemical used to cut the steel prior to collapse
So a huge building is on fire... the desks, the chairs, the cleaning products, the wiring, the carpets etc... I would safely say there was toxic smoke coming out of the building. So was the building taken down by explosives or thermite, you see to be suggesting it was both? or was something new invented again?Smudgeyboy wrote: »The insurance policys taken out before the 'attack'
I have some insurance policies too, am I planning something nasty? He would be obliged to have insurance and he certainly didn't make a profit from this. All the WTC buildings were basically full so why destroy them, makes no business sense whatsoever.Smudgeyboy wrote: »The reason for the attack was even ridiculous, a very rich man in a cave is jealous of the U.S's freedom? They then use 'The Patriot Act' (incredible name) to take away what's left of American's freedom.
He hates the US no doubt, but some people will hate you no matter what you do. Every day in Iraq people blow themselves up for 'god'. A Republican government took advantage of the situation and brought in the Patriot Act, shows the American government to be just the same as they always are.
I'm still waiting for someone in here to show another buliding of similar design that went on fire and didn't collapse. The problem is the design of these buildings is fairly unique so that can't be shown yet we supposed to believe that they simply couldn't collapse the way they did.0 -
Smudgeyboy wrote: »If the fire was the cause, which is very unlikely to happen as fires dont collapse buildings, it would lose strength in different parts at different time.
This would cause a much slower fall and most probably not a total collapse.
not if the strength is lost at a major section of the structure. And once the strength is lost there, parts of the building may collapse. But remember that the twin towers were very tall, thin buildings. If the strength is lost and part of the building begins to collapse, where do you think the storeys above where the plane hit were going to go? They began to fall down, thereby overloading the structure beneath and causing it to collapse. People say the building fell at free-fall speed. It didnt. It was at least 40% slower than that as video evidence from reputable sources have proven. And believe me, I know a few things about this subject. I design steel beams and columns0 -
pfft, then obviously you're part of the conspiracy:pac:paddyirishman85 wrote: »And believe me, I know a few things about this subject. I design steel beams and columns0 -
NORAD on September 11th explained hereWow that's a lot of fallacies.
We got argument for personal incredulity, a couple of unstated major premises, and few non sequiturs.
How do you know NORAD stood down exactly?
Proof too much too ask?
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/index.html
1965-1970
U.S. involvement in Vietnam is blamed for the surge in illegal heroin being smuggled into the States. To aid U.S. allies, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) sets up a charter airline, Air America, to transport raw opium from Burma and Laos. As well, some of the opium would be transported to Marseilles by Corsican gangsters to be refined into heroin and shipped to the U.S via the French connection. The number of heroin addicts in the U.S. reaches an estimated 750,000.
1978
The U.S. and Mexican governments find a means to eliminate the source of raw opium - by spraying poppy fields with Agent Orange. The eradication plan is termed a success as the amount of "Mexican Mud" in the U.S. drug market declines. In response to the decrease in availability of "Mexican Mud", another source of heroin is found in the Golden Crescent area - Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, creating a dramatic upsurge in the production and trade of illegal heroin.
1999
Bumper opium crop of 4,600 tons in Afghanistan. UN Drug Control Program estimates around 75% of world's heroin production is of Afghan origin.
Autumn 2001
War in Afghanistan; heroin floods the Pakistan market. Taliban regime overthrown.
October 2002
U.N. Drug Control and Crime Prevention Agency announces Afghanistan has regained its position as the world's largest opium producer.
December 2002
UK Government health plan will make heroin available free on National Health Service "to all those with a clinical need for it". Consumers are sceptical
April 2003
State sponsored heroin trafficking: Korea's attempt to penetrate the Australian heroin market hits rocky waters.
May 2006
In Mexico, Congress passes a bill legalising the private personal use of all drugs, including opium and all opiate-based drugs.
March 2008
A report by The Pew Centre, a Washington think tank, reveals that one in 100 adults in the USA is now in jail: some 2,300,000 prisoners, triple the rate in the 1980s. American prisons now hold around one quarter of the world's inmates. Nearly half of US federal prisoners are imprisoned for non-violent, drug-related "crimes". Law professor Paul Cassell of the University of Utah comments on the size of the US prison population: "it's the price of living in the most free society in the world.”- Afghanistan cultivated a record 193,000 hectares (477,000 acres) of opium in 2007, a 14 percent increase over the previous year. Total production, spurred by unusually high rainfall, increased even further, by 34 percent.
- In 2007, 93% of the opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan, with a quarter of profits being earned by opium farmers and the rest going to district officials, insurgents, warlords and drug traffickers
- Poppy cultivation in Afghanistan doubled between 2002 and 2003 to a level 36 times higher than in the last year of rule by the Taliban, according to White House figures released Friday 28th November 2003
0 -
paddyirishman85 wrote: »not if the strength is lost at a major section of the structure. And once the strength is lost there, parts of the building may collapse. But remember that the twin towers were very tall, thin buildings. If the strength is lost and part of the building begins to collapse, where do you think the storeys above where the plane hit were going to go? They began to fall down, thereby overloading the structure beneath and causing it to collapse. People say the building fell at free-fall speed. It didnt. It was at least 40% slower than that as video evidence from reputable sources have proven. And believe me, I know a few things about this subject. I design steel beams and columns
Im sure you know about steel beams and columns, but I'm more inclined to believe demolition experts when asking 'is this a demolition?'
Maybe it didnt fall at free fall speed but it did fall at the same speed throughout. Another neccesary part of this, if it was a demolition, is the destruction of the middle of the building, in order for it to fall in on itself. This is present in the evidence.
I mean picture it, say the steel was weakened in the bottom left, the building would fall on the bottom left, with some the top steel structure probably intact on the ground, destroying buildings around it.
Instead, we have the kink in the middle, tidy implosion and the entire steel frame smouldering on the ground for days after.0 -
Not exactly the most credible source there.Smudgeyboy wrote: »NORAD on September 11th explained here
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/index.htmlSmudgeyboy wrote: »1965-1970
U.S. involvement in Vietnam is blamed for the surge in illegal heroin being smuggled into the States. To aid U.S. allies, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) sets up a charter airline, Air America, to transport raw opium from Burma and Laos. As well, some of the opium would be transported to Marseilles by Corsican gangsters to be refined into heroin and shipped to the U.S via the French connection. The number of heroin addicts in the U.S. reaches an estimated 750,000.
1978
The U.S. and Mexican governments find a means to eliminate the source of raw opium - by spraying poppy fields with Agent Orange. The eradication plan is termed a success as the amount of "Mexican Mud" in the U.S. drug market declines. In response to the decrease in availability of "Mexican Mud", another source of heroin is found in the Golden Crescent area - Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, creating a dramatic upsurge in the production and trade of illegal heroin.
1999
Bumper opium crop of 4,600 tons in Afghanistan. UN Drug Control Program estimates around 75% of world's heroin production is of Afghan origin.
Autumn 2001
War in Afghanistan; heroin floods the Pakistan market. Taliban regime overthrown.
October 2002
U.N. Drug Control and Crime Prevention Agency announces Afghanistan has regained its position as the world's largest opium producer.
December 2002
UK Government health plan will make heroin available free on National Health Service "to all those with a clinical need for it". Consumers are sceptical
April 2003
State sponsored heroin trafficking: Korea's attempt to penetrate the Australian heroin market hits rocky waters.
May 2006
In Mexico, Congress passes a bill legalising the private personal use of all drugs, including opium and all opiate-based drugs.
March 2008
A report by The Pew Centre, a Washington think tank, reveals that one in 100 adults in the USA is now in jail: some 2,300,000 prisoners, triple the rate in the 1980s. American prisons now hold around one quarter of the world's inmates. Nearly half of US federal prisoners are imprisoned for non-violent, drug-related "crimes". Law professor Paul Cassell of the University of Utah comments on the size of the US prison population: "it's the price of living in the most free society in the world.”- Afghanistan cultivated a record 193,000 hectares (477,000 acres) of opium in 2007, a 14 percent increase over the previous year. Total production, spurred by unusually high rainfall, increased even further, by 34 percent.
- In 2007, 93% of the opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan, with a quarter of profits being earned by opium farmers and the rest going to district officials, insurgents, warlords and drug traffickers
- Poppy cultivation in Afghanistan doubled between 2002 and 2003 to a level 36 times higher than in the last year of rule by the Taliban, according to White House figures released Friday 28th November 2003
And that proves something other than alot of opuim comes from Afghanistan?
Or that a destabilised region makes it easier to grow poppies?0 -
Advertisement
-
Smudgeyboy wrote: »NORAD on September 11th explained here
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/index.html
Here's a question for you... there were somewhere between 3000 and 4000 aircraft in the skies over the US on 911 so how easy would it be to find 4 planes with their transponders turned off? And more importantly how quickly could it be done?
Not sure what the relevance of the rest of our post is.0
Advertisement