Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1) quotes from William Casey from dubious websites (or facebook) aren't impressive. I don't know if he said it. Couldn't find it on snopes. . .and even if he did say it. . .don't know the context.
2) As far as I know. . .its well accepted history that America funded the rebels in Afghanistan that would in turn become the Taliban and etc later down the line. Just as we setup a puppet in Iran that turned the country against us. . .no big hidden conspiracy there
No. There's not. And that picture is not of Osama Bin Laden.
Bin Laden never received any funds or training from the CIA. Period.
Nice try though.
I note your own sources admit that Al Qaeda did not exist at the time of the CIA funding. Thanks for confirming.
His name was "Tim Osman" when he worked with the CIA. And thanks, but I'll take the word of the former British Foreign Secretary and others with credentials over "Historian Dude" anyday. LOL, how ironic...
His name was "Tim Osman" when he worked with the CIA. And thanks, but I'll take the word of the former British Foreign Secretary and others with credentials over "Historian Dude" anyday. LOL, how ironic...
I had no idea how far down the rabbit hole you already were.
You can take the word of anybody you want. I prefer the motto of the Royal Society... "Nullius in Verba."
That you believed that picture to be of Bin Laden already demonstrates that you are thoughtlessly credulous and believe more than one idiotic thing somebody else has told you. Don't answer any emails from Nigerian princes. It could cost you more than just your dignity.
A cue ball on a pool table has no additional acceleration after it has been hit by the cue. A falling cue ball on the other hand is continuously being accelerated by gravity.
And a cue ball does not have to BREAK THINGS to make the mass move. And the supports must be strong enough to support the weight against gravity. In addition to a safety factor.
I provided an experiment. And tried to deliberately leave out the safety factor.
But my model is too small and light to be conclusive.
It is so curious that expensive engineering schools haven't come up with a better one in TWELVE YEARS.
The nation that put men on the Moon and has robots on Mars can't do experiments to test the proposition of collapsing skyscrapers. Instead we have the 9/11 Religion that will be an eternal embarrassment to science. The 9/11 Affair will be the exact opposite of the Galileo Affair.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
