[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Yoko Takeo

I only meant that as a figure of speech. My point is that the engines on the planes that crashed on both the Twin Towers and the Pentagon (as well as Pennsylvania), couldn't have been vaporized without a single trace. I saw a documentary on this as well a long time ago. Even common sense should be able to tell you this though. When a plane crashes, it doesn't vaporize. The engines operate to work at extreme heat and speed. The heat expelled from the crash sites in the Pentagon and Pennsylvania, at least, could not have been greater than the heat in which the engines normally operate in. That being said, it's impossible for the engines to have vaporized.

They didn't. Peices of the plane were recovered. There are pictures of debris. However, a lot of it actually would vaporize and most of what's left would be inside the building. Seriously, look this stuff up rather than taking things like Loose Change at their word. What is with people and this "I saw it in a documentary so it must be true!" thinking no matter how much evidence there is against it.

Also, that vid you showed me in no way reflects what happened in either the Twin Towers or The Pentagon. It proves a plane can disintegrate on impact, but are you trying to tell me the concrete walls of the Pentagon or more importantly a random clearing in a forest are as tough and durable as a concrete wall of a nuclear power station? Sorry, but that vid doesn't prove anything to me.

If you say the walls aren't as tough, what does that mean in terms of where the majority of the wreckage from the plane would be? Inside the buildings maybe? Wreckage was found, and the parts that would be expected to survive, like the turbines in the engines, did survive. As for flight 93, most of the plane was recovered. What you don't see is large pieces of a plane because you're not going to see any after a plane crashes at over 500 mph.

If you look back and read my posts, that's exactly what I said. Go through it again.

No, no it wasn't. After I refuted your line about Bush needing to "divert attention" prior to 9-11, you retorted with, and I quote, "Also, in America, the ratings were not that bad, I know that. We're referring to Europe and possibly other places more than anything. Bush wanted to obtain more support and decided to provide the people with a common enemy." Key line there in bold. You explicitly said you were referring to Europe.

It was for the oil, and what I mean by oil is the potential market for the oil there. One of the largest oil reserves in the world and one of the most extensive pipelines formerly used by the Soviets would have given Bush great influence over the oil industry in general, especially in that part of Asia.

Except that once again Afghanistan doesn't have that much oil. I've cited a source on that too btw. There is no extensive pipeline built there by the Russians either. There is a plan to build such a pipeline, however, and in fact at one point a deal was struck with the Taliban to do so, though it fell through due to funding issues. Still, a pipeline would get constructed eventually invasion or not.

And yes, the oil would've also given Bush great political power and leverage considering oil is one of the biggest industries in the world today.

They don't have that much oil. The US could get more oil then Afghanistan is even believed to have by simply killing a few caribou in Alaska. That pipeline? It isn't even for oil, it's for natural gas.

As for the Talibans, they're an offshoot of Bush's "war on terrorism." What the media says about the Talibans is that they offered refuge to Al Queda, and Bush, wanting to go against Bin Laden, would have to face them as well. If it wasn't for that, the Talibans wouldn't be a problem. They don't have any considerable reasources to start a war to begin with. Also, considering Russia and China are in the vicinity, they cannot have the advantage its neighbours do from a geographical position.

Even without 9-11 and Al Qaeda, the Taliban were still brutally oppressing the Afghan people and destroying priceless historical artifacts, like those buddhist statues they blew up. More than enough reason to go in, if the US really wanted to do so. We've intervened in other countries for less. Of course 9-11 did happen and it was Al Qaeda, who were in Afghanistan, so it's a moot point now.