JUST WAR THEORY

[newview]

Are Christians to love their enemies or shoot them?
If you are to shoot them because the government told you to - do you run over and share the gospel with them first?...or do you just shoot them or drop a bomb on a house from 1000 feet in the air and do it by the authority of Jesus? Which you know the scriptures say - in word or deed, do it all in the name of Jesus?
Does one bless the bombs that are to kill people down on the ground?

I mean how is an earthly war fought in the name of the Prince of Peace?
Somebody help me out.

Or at least help a soldier rationalize killing their enemy instead of feeding and clothing them as Jesus taught.

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

Hitler blow up his own building. The Nazi government did the same thing before, causing public panic against "homeland terrorists" and "outside threats". This gave Homeland Security full power, and eventually, Hitler was voted in by that German Congress as the supreme leader able to guide them thru the hard times.

[Chaplain Pat Harris]

In a nutshell . . .ONE WORLD POWER & CONTROL.

And, who do you think is behind all of this?
The Secret Societies? - nah, they are merely agents serving the same "god."

[Chaplain Pat Harris]

The Hard Evidence Down Under Tour Leads to Conversation with Jan Utzon, Sidney Opera House, Architect


Our Terrorists

by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed
October, 2009
New Internationalist.org
Islamic fundamentalist militants are the enemies of Israel and Western governments, right? Think again. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed reports.

Once upon a time, the CIA trained, financed and supported Osama bin Laden and his mujahidin networks in Afghanistan to repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. After the end of the Cold War, bin Laden turned against the West and we no longer had any use for him. His persistent terrorist attacks against us for more than a decade, culminating in 9/11, provoked our own response, in the form of the ‘War on Terror’. This is the official narrative. And it’s false. Not only did Western intelligence services continue to foster Islamist extremist and terrorist groups connected to al-Qaeda after the Cold War; they continued to do so even after 9/11.
The CIA’s jihad

The story begins in the summer of 1979, six months before the Soviet invasion, when the CIA had already begun financing elements of an emerging Islamist mujahidin force inside Afghanistan. The idea, according to former US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and former CIA Director Robert Gates, was to increase the probability of a Soviet invasion, and entrap ‘the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire’.1

Osama bin Laden arrived in the country later that year, sent by then-Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Faisal, where he set up the Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK) which helped finance, recruit and train mujahidin fighters.2 Bin Laden, the MAK, and the Afghan mujahidin in total received about half a billion dollars a year from the CIA, and roughly the same from the Saudis, funnelled through Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI).3

By around 1988, as Jane’s Defence Weekly reports, ‘with US knowledge, Bin Laden created al-Qaeda (The Base): a conglomerate of quasi-independent Islamic terrorist cells spread across at least 26 countries’.4 US and Western intelligence agencies facilitated this process, seeing rightwing Islamist movements as a counterweight to Communist, leftwing and nationalist political trends. They supported the Saudis and other Gulf states, as well as Pakistan, Turkey and Azerbaijan among others, in proliferating Islamist extremist institutions in far-flung countries such as Algeria, Yemen, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Funding for these activities was intertwined with the establishment of organized criminal financial centres in Malaysia, Madagascar, South Africa, Nigeria, Latin America, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Turkestan, and elsewhere.5
Islamism and the CIA’s destabilization doctrine

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, and in particular in 1991 when the Saudis accepted the stationing of 300,000 US troops in the country due to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Osama bin Laden reportedly turned against his former masters in Riyadh and Washington. Since then, bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist network became our enemy, targeting Western citizens and interests throughout the 1990s, culminating in the most devastating strike of all in the form of the 9/11 atrocities in the US.

Unfortunately, this is where the official story begins to break down. Because after 1991, Islamists affiliated to bin Laden and al-Qaeda continued to receive selective support from Western intelligence services. The policy was alluded to by Graham Fuller, former Deputy Director of the CIA’s National Council on Intelligence, when he stated: ‘The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvellously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army. The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia.’6
Afghanistan, Big Oil and the Taliban

Throughout the 1990s, the selective US intelligence sponsorship of Islamist extremist networks was linked not simply to destabilizing potential Russian and Chinese influence, but further to securing US-led Western control over strategic energy reserves. When bin Laden moved from Sudan to Afghanistan in June 1996, the State Department warned that the move ‘could prove more dangerous to US interests’, granting him ‘the capability to support individuals and groups who have the motive and wherewithal to attack US interests almost worldwide’.7 He had been offered protection by Pakistan in May on condition that he align his mujahidin forces with the Taliban. The new al-Qaeda-Taliban alliance was reportedly blessed by the Saudis.8

Yet as the respected Pakistani correspondent Ahmed Rashid reported, US intelligence supported the Taliban as a vehicle of regional influence at least between 1994 and 1998. This policy continued up to the year 2000, despite growing cautions. Thus, when the Taliban conquered Kabul in 1996, a State Department spokesperson explained that the US found ‘nothing objectionable’ in the event. One year later, a US diplomat commented: ‘The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis… There will be Aramco (consortium of oil companies controlling Saudi oil), pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that.’9

Continued US sponsorship of the al-Qaeda-Taliban nexus in Afghanistan was confirmed as late as 2000 in Congressional hearings. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on South Asia, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher – former White House Special Assistant to President Reagan and now Senior Member of the House International Relations Committee – declared that ‘this administration has a covert policy that has empowered the Taliban and enabled this brutal movement to hold on to power’. The assumption is that ‘the Taliban would bring stability to Afghanistan and permit the building of oil pipelines from Central Asia through Afghanistan to Pakistan’.10 US companies involved in the project included UNOCAL and ENRON. As early as May 1996, UNOCAL had officially announced plans to build a pipeline to transport natural gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan through western Afghanistan.

US officials held several meetings with the Taliban from 2000 to summer 2001, in an effort to get the Taliban to agree to a joint federal government with their local enemies, the Northern Alliance, promising financial aid and international legitimacy if the deal was struck. By then, US policymakers had belatedly concluded that the Taliban would never bring the stability needed for the pipeline project. According to Pakistani Foreign Minister Niaz Naik, who was present at the meetings, US officials threatened the Taliban with military action if they failed to comply with the federalization plan. Even the date of threatened military action, October 2001, was proposed. Needless to say, the Taliban rejected the plan.11 So months before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a war on Afghanistan was already on the table. Jean-Charles Brisard, a former French intelligence officer, thus speculates that 9/11 may have been a pre-emptive attack by al-Qaeda to head off the declared US military invasion of Afghanistan.12

There is still keen interest in the pipeline. ‘Since the US-led offensive that ousted the Taliban from power,’ reported Forbes in 2005, ‘the project has been revived and drawn strong US support’ as it would allow the Central Asian republics to export energy to Western markets ‘without relying on Russian routes’. Then-US Ambassador to Turkmenistan Ann Jacobsen noted that: ‘We are seriously looking at the project, and it is quite possible that American companies will join it.’13 The problem remains that the southern section of the proposed pipeline runs through territory still de facto controlled by Taliban forces.
Mega Oil and mujahidin from the Balkans to the Caucasus

Unfortunately, we now know that US flirtations with the al-Qaeda-Taliban nexus in Afghanistan throughout the 1990s were only one moment in a much wider covert US geostrategy to secure control over strategic energy resources across the Eurasian continent, by co-opting Islamist networks affiliated with bin Laden.

In 1991, the first Bush Administration wanted an oil pipeline from Azerbaijan, across the Caucasus, to Turkey. That year, three US Air Force officers, Richard Secord (a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs), Heinie Aderholt and Ed Dearborn, landed in Baku, and set up a front company, ‘MEGA Oil’. They were veterans of previous CIA covert operations in Laos and later with Lt. Col. Oliver North’s Contra scandal. In Azerbaijan, they setup an airline to secretly fly hundreds of al-Qaeda mujahidin from Afghanistan into Azerbaijan. By 1993, MEGA Oil had recruited and armed 2,000 mujahidin, converting Baku into a base for regional jihadi operations.14

The covert operation contributed to the military coup that toppled elected president Abulfaz Elchibey that year, and installed US puppet Heidar Aliyev. A secret Turkish intelligence report leaked to the Sunday Times confirmed that ‘two petrol giants, BP and Amoco, British and American respectively, which together form the AIOC (Azerbaijan International Oil Consortium), are behind the coup d’état.15

From 1992 to 1995, the Pentagon flew thousands of al-Qaeda mujahidin from Central Asia into Europe, to fight alongside Bosnian Muslims against the Serbs. The mujahidin were ‘accompanied by US Special Forces equipped with high-tech communications equipment,’ according to intelligence sources. Bin Laden’s mercenaries were used as shock troops by the Pentagon ‘to coordinate and support Bosnian Muslim offensives’.16

The pattern continued in Kosovo, where ethnic violence broke out between Albanians and Serbs. In 1998, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization financed by bin Laden and the heroin trade. Bin Laden had sent a senior lieutenant, Muhammed al-Zawahiri (brother of al-Qaeda deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri), to lead an élite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict. He had direct radio contact with NATO leadership. Indeed, British SAS and American Delta Force instructors were training KLA fighters as early as 1996. The CIA supplied military assistance up to and during the 1999 bombing campaign, including military training manuals and field advice, under the cover of OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) ceasefire monitors.17

After the Kosovo War, when the KLA switched operations to Macedonia under the banner of the National Liberation Army (NLA), its links with al-Qaeda were as strong as ever according to US, Macedonian, Albanian and Yugoslav intelligence sources. Yet by 2001, Canadian military correspondent Scott Taylor reported after a visit to Tetovo that ‘there is no denying the massive amount of material and expertise supplied by NATO to the guerrillas’.18

So why the Balkans? Gen. Sir Mike Jackson, then-commander of NATO troops in the region, summed it up in 1999: ‘We will certainly stay here for a long time in order to guarantee the safety of the energy corridors which cross Macedonia.’ The General was talking about the Trans-Balkan pipeline passing through Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania, planned to be a primary route to the West for Central Asian oil and gas.19

Around the same time, US intelligence stepped up sponsorship of al-Qaeda mujahidin in Chechnya. Chechnya is traditionally a predominantly Sufi society, yet the increasing encroachment of US-sponsored mujahidin operatives linked to Osama bin Laden transformed the character of the Chechen resistance movement, empowering al-Qaeda’s hardline Islamist ideology. US intelligence ties had been established in the early 1990s in Baku under Dick Secord’s operation, where mujahidin activities had quickly extended into Dagestan and Chechnya, turning Baku into a shipping point for Afghan heroin to the Chechen mafia.20

From the mid-1990s, bin Laden funded Chechen guerrilla leaders Shamil Basayev and Omar ibn al-Khattab to the tune of several millions of dollars per month, sidelining the moderate Chechen majority.21 US intelligence remained deeply involved until the end of the decade. According to Yossef Bodanksy, then-Director of the US Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, Washington was actively involved in ‘yet another anti-Russian jihad, ‘seeking to support and empower the most virulent anti-Western Islamist forces’. US Government officials participated in ‘a formal meeting in Azerbaijan’ in December 1999 ‘in which specific programmes for the training and equipping of mujahidin from the Caucasus, Central/South Asia and the Arab world were discussed and agreed upon’, culminating in ‘Washington’s tacit encouragement of both Muslim allies (mainly Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) and US “private security companies”... to assist the Chechens and their Islamist allies to surge in the spring of 2000 and sustain the ensuing jihad for a long time.’ The US saw the sponsorship of ‘Islamist jihad in the Caucasus’ as a way to ‘deprive Russia of a viable pipeline route through spiralling violence and terrorism’.22
Algeria – state terrorism in disguise

Parallel covert operations were deployed in the same period in Algeria, where the army cancelled national democratic elections in 1992 that would have brought the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) to power in a landslide victory. Tens of thousands of FIS voters were rounded up into detention camps in the Sahara, while the FIS and other Islamist political parties were banned. Not long after the coup, hundreds of civilians were being mysteriously massacred by an unknown terrorist group, identified by the Algerian junta as a radical offshoot of the FIS calling itself the Armed Islamic Group (GIA). The GIA was formed largely of Algerian veterans of bin Laden’s mujahidin forces in Afghanistan who had returned in the late 1980s.23 To date, the total death toll from the massacres by the GIA is an estimated 150,000 civilians.24

Yet in the late 1990s, evidence began to emerge from dissident Algerian Government and intelligence sources that the GIA atrocities were in fact perpetrated by the state. ‘Yussuf-Joseph’, a career secret agent in Algeria’s sécurité militaire for 14 years, defected to Britain in 1997 and told the Guardian that civilian massacres in Algeria, blamed on the GIA, were ‘the work of secret police and army death squads… not Islamic extremists’. GIA terrorism was ‘orchestrated’ by ‘Mohammed Mediane, head of the Algerian secret service’, and ‘General Smain Lamari’, head of ‘the counter intelligence agency’. According to Joseph: ‘The GIA is a pure product of Smain’s secret service. I used to read all the secret telexes. I know that the GIA has been infiltrated and manipulated by the Government. The GIA has been completely turned by the Government… In 1992 Smain created a special group, L’Escadron de la Mort (the Squadron of Death)... The death squads organize the massacres... The FIS aren’t doing the massacres.’

Joseph also confirmed that Algerian intelligence agents organized ‘at least’ two of the bombs in Paris in summer 1995. ‘The operation was run by Colonel Souames Mahmoud, alias Habib, head of the secret service at the Algerian embassy in Paris.’ Joseph’s testimony has been corroborated by numerous defectors from the Algerian secret services.25

Western intelligence agencies are implicated. Secret British Foreign Office documents revealed in a terrorist trial in 2000 showed that ‘British intelligence believed the Algerian Government was involved in atrocities, contradicting the view the Government was claiming in public’. The documents referred to the ‘manipulation of the GIA being used as a cover to carry out their own operations’, and that ‘there was no evidence to link 1995 Paris bombings to Algerian militants’.26

Algeria has the fifth largest reserves of natural gas in the world, and is the second largest gas exporter, with 130 trillion proven natural gas reserves. It ranks fourteenth for oil reserves, with official estimates at 9.2 billion barrels. Approximately 90 per cent of Algeria’s crude oil exports go to Western Europe, including Britain, France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain. Algeria’s major trading partners are Italy, France, the United States, Germany, and Spain.

Currently, the militant Algerian splinter group, the al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb – formerly known as the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) – plays a predominant role in regional terrorist violence. Yet in a series of extensive analyses for the Review of African Political Economy, social anthropologist Dr Jeremy Keenan – Director of Sahara Studies at the University of East Anglia – documents ‘an increasing amount of evidence to suggest that the alleged spread of terrorist activities across much of the Sahelian Sahara, has indeed been an elaborate deception on the part of US and Algerian military intelligence services’. He discusses evidence that an al-Qaeda hostage-taking of European tourists in early 2003 ‘was initiated and orchestrated by elements within the Algerian military establishment’, an operation ‘condoned by the US’, and that al-Qaeda leader Ammar Saifi (also known as Abderazzak El Para, or ‘the Maghreb’s bin Laden’) ‘was “turned” by the Algerian security forces in January 2003’.27

Energy hegemony is a key priority. Reported al-Qaeda activity in North Africa has focused on oil-rich nations, particularly the Niger Delta, Nigeria, and Chad. Thus, in July 2003, Keenan reports, under US auspices Algeria, Chad, Niger and Nigeria ‘signed a co-operation agreement on counter-terrorism that effectively joined the two oil-rich sides of the Sahara together in a complex of security arrangements whose architecture is American’. This has now evolved into the $500 million Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Initiative, in which Algeria plays a pivotal role in US plans for future regional military deployment. The region-wide security arrangement coincides with the inauguration of a $6 billion World Bank project, the Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline.28
Islamist extremism and the Israeli connection

Curiously, Israel has played a key role in some of these policies, starting with the involvement of Congressman Charlie Wilson, who used his position in the House Select Committee on Intelligence, gained with the support of then Senator Dick Cheney, to ramp up billions of dollars’ worth of support for both Israel and the Afghan mujahidin.29 Gust Avracotos, the CIA’s Station Chief in Islamabad, commented that Wilson brought ‘the Israelis into the CIA’s Muslim jihad’, opening opportunities for Mossad penetration of the ISI and al-Qaeda and securing Israeli arms contracts and intelligence ties with Pakistan.30

Closer to home, Israel played a very similar game in its ambiguous relationship to Hamas. US Government and intelligence sources confirm that Israel provided direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas in the late 1970s as a counterbalance to the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).31 According to the Israeli military affairs experts Ze’ev Schiff and Ehud Ya’ari, at the time of the first Intifadah, Fatah ‘suspected the Israelis of a plot first to let Hamas gather strength and then to unleash it against the PLO, turning the uprising into a civil war... many Israeli staff officers believed that the rise of fundamentalism in Gaza could be exploited to weaken the power of the PLO’.32

Israeli support for Hamas reportedly continued even after the signing of the Oslo accords in 1993, during the period of some of the worst suicide bombings.33 Even the late Palestinian Authority (PA) President Yassir Arafat said in 2001 that Hamas ‘continued to benefit from permits and authorizations, while we have been limited, even [for permits] to build a tomato factory... Some collaborationists of Israel are involved in these [terrorist] attacks.’34

Indeed, there are indications that the Israeli assassination of Hamas leader Abu Hanoud in November 2001 was a ploy to provoke more terror bombings. Three months earlier, the Israeli Insider reported Ariel Sharon’s plan for an all-out attack on the PA to permanently destroy its infrastructure, noting that the plan would only ‘be launched immediately following the next high-casualty suicide bombing’ – which was later provoked by Israel’s extrajudicial killing of Hanoud. As Israeli military security analyst Alex Fishman noted: ‘Whoever gave a green light to this act of liquidation knew full well that he was thereby shattering in one blow the gentleman’s agreement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. Under that agreement, Hamas was to avoid in the near future suicide bombings inside the Green Line (pre-1967 border), having come to the understanding that it would be better not to play into Israel’s hands by mass attacks on its population centres. This understanding was, however, shattered by the assassination the day before yesterday – and whoever decided upon the liquidation of Abu knew in advance that that would be the price. The subject had been extensively discussed both by the military and the political echelon, before it was decided to carry out the liquidation.’35

Elements of the Israeli far-right, including senior cabinet officials, recognized that the plan to destroy the PA would facilitate the rise of Hamas. In an Israeli Cabinet meeting in December 2001, for instance, one minister declared: ‘Between Hamas and Arafat, I prefer Hamas.’ He added that Arafat is a ‘terrorist in a diplomat’s suit, while Hamas can be hit unmercifully… there won’t be any international protests’.36
Ties with terror

Islamist terrorism cannot be understood without acknowledging the extent to which its networks are being used by Western military intelligence services, both to control strategic energy resources and to counter their geopolitical rivals. Even now, nearly a decade after 9/11, covert sponsorship of al-Qaeda networks continues. In recent dispatches for the New Yorker, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh cites US Government and intelligence officials’ confirmation that the CIA and the Pentagon have funnelled millions of dollars via Saudi Arabia to al-Qaeda affiliated Sunni extremist groups, across the Middle East and Central Asia. The policy, which Hersh says began in 2003, has spilled over into regions like Iraq and Lebanon, fuelling Sunni-Shi’a sectarian conflict.37 The programme is part of a drive to counter Iranian Shi’a influence in the region. In early 2008, a US Presidential Finding to Congress corroborated Hersh’s reporting, affirming CIA funding worth $400 million to diverse anti-Shi’a extremist and terrorist groups. This was not contested by any Democratic members of the House.38 Now, President Obama has retained Bush’s Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, as his own. Yet Gates was the architect of the covert strategy against Iran. To date, Obama has given no indication that this strategy will change. The history outlined here throws into doubt our entire understanding of the ‘war on terror’. How can we fight a war against an enemy that our own governments are covertly financing for short-sighted geopolitical interests?

If the ‘war on terror’ is to end, it won’t be won by fighting the next futile oil war. It will be won at home by holding the secretive structures of government to account and prosecuting officials for aiding and abetting terrorism – whether knowingly or by criminal negligence. Ultimately only this will rein in the ‘security’ agencies that foster the ‘enemy’ we are supposed to be fighting.

[Chaplain Pat Harris]

The Twin Towers:
What Really Destroyed Them?
The South Tower's top first started to lean, then disintegrated before falling.

Nearly everyone was shocked to see the towers explode into dust in mid-air, but we were not given any time to ask how this happened, as the official explanation was already at hand: the buildings, we were told, collapsed of their own weight.

We were told that no-one had ever anticipated fuel-laden jumbo-jets crashing into the towers, and that the jet fuel burned with the heat of a nuclear power plant and melted the steal columns of the towers' cores. Faced with the fact that a jet fuel fire could only reach a fraction of the temperature required to melt the buildings' structural steel, the "truss theory" was promoted. Later endorsed by FEMA, it holds that the fires weakened flimsy trusses supporting the floors, causing the floors to fall on one another in a chain-reaction.
This document examines fallacies in the official explanation:

* It is not consistent with the laws of physics.
* Its collapse scenario doesn't look anything like what happened.
* It misrepresents engineering practices and the Twin Towers' design.
* It was uninformed by any forensic analysis of the physical evidence.

Officials Destroyed the Physical Evidence.

After the disaster, the site was sealed off. People were threatened with arrest for merely taking pictures of Ground Zero. Officials running the "clean up" operation implemented a plan by Controlled Demolition Inc. to recycle the steel: the remains of the towers were shipped by scrap metal vendors to overseas blast furnaces, mainly in India and China. The vast majority of the structural steel was never seen by investigators, FEMA's Building Assessment Performance Team, who were not even allowed access to Ground Zero.

The site of the vast crime that "changed everything", and of the largest and least understood structural failures in history, was not allowed to be examined for clues.

Nor can the public verify details about the buildings' design crucial to FEMA's theory, since the blueprints have not been released. The description of the towers' structure in their official report leaves over 20% of the steel known to have been used in their construction unaccounted for. By the time FEMA's report was published, Ground Zero had been scrubbed.
The towers easily survived the jet impacts. The impact holes quickly became dark, indicating absence of fires in the the towers' cores.
The Towers Were Designed to Survive Large Jet Collisions.

Each tower was designed to survive the impact and fire from a collision by a 707-340 carrying 23,000 gallons of fuel. The similar- sized 767-200s that hit the towers were each carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel.

Each tower was supported by both a palisade of columns forming its outer wall and a bundle of 47 massive steel columns in its core structure. Like all large engineered structures, the towers were over-engineered to support many times anticipated loads, to survive severe and improbable events, including bombings and fires. The plane crashes severed about 33 of the North Tower's and 24 of the South Tower's 240 perimeter columns. The South Tower impact trajectory suggests its core structure was barely damaged. Absent severe winds and earthquakes, each tower should have easily survived damage to even a majority of its columns. Each tower's crash and fire damage was limited to an asymmetrical minority of columns and a few floors. Yet each tower collapsed symmetrically, and into small pieces.
The Fires Were Not Unusually Severe.

Since jet fuel (kerosene) boils easily and its vapors ignite easily, it burns off rapidly. FEMA admits the fuel must have been used up within "a few minutes". Thereafter the fires burned fuels similar to those in ordinary office fires. The impact holes became dard shortly after each collision, and the smoke darkened over time -- a sign of oxygen-starved fires. After the South Tower had been hit, at least 18 people evacuated from above the impact zone down stairwells passing through it.

There is no evidence that, even at their hottest immediately after the impacts, the fires approached the 700 degrees C required to significantly soften steel. Such temperatures would have caused regions of the building to glow red hot in broad daylight. The oxygen-starved fires likely remained below 400 degrees C, and would be harmless to the steel frame even in the absence of insulation. There is no evidence that the fires ever damaged the core structures. Note that softening of steel by high temperatures is reversible, and that steel is a good conductor of heat. If any structural steel had lost strength in the first minutes of the fires, it would have regained most of it as the fires cooled after consuming the jet fuel.
Fires Don't Cause Skyscrapers to Collapse.

If WTC towers 1 and 2 and WTC 7 collapsed because of the fires it would be the first time in history that a steel-frame skyscraper totally collapsed because of fires or any other cause or combination of causes other than controlled demolition.
47-story WTC 7 sustained no impacts from aircraft or large falling objects, and only small fires were observed within it prior to its precisely vertical "collapse" into a small tidy rubble pile, 7 hours after the North Tower fell.
The South Tower exploded into dust, 56 minutes after the jet impact.
Vertical Collapses Indicate Demolition.

The towers fell almost perfectly vertically, while spewing debris laterally. It is impossible that the aircraft impacts and fires could result in damage so perfectly synchronized and symmetrical as to cause the simultaneous and balanced failures in the structure required for such vertical collapses.

The official explanation that the outer wall channeled the collapse to within the building's footprint doesn't fit the reality that the outer wall was shredded before the bulk of the falling mass reached it. It also fails to acknowledge that the dense core would make the building's top fall like a tree.
The Towers Exploded.

In a gravity-driven collapse of the type we were told happened, the floors would crash down within the outer wall, and the wall's steel columns might buckle. The core would remain standing even if the outer wall fell apart.

The explosive disintegrations we witnessed don't look anything like that. Thick clouds of dust and debris are seen billowing from the towers even in the first seconds of their destructions when their tops were falling slowly. The remains of the towers consisted of scraps of metal, papers, and fine dust. The concrete, glass, gypsum, and other nonmetallic building constituents were thoroughly pulverized to microscopic particles.
The Towers Were Pulverized and Shredded in the Air.

The towers exploded into columns of dust resembling the pyroclastic flows of volcanoes. The thick clouds of pulverized concrete were ejected at regular intervals below the huge mushrooming clouds of dust that devoured each tower. Gravity might explain pulverization of concrete hitting the ground, but not in the air, and not in the early stage of each collapse when the top was moving slowly.

The steel box-beam grids of the buildings' outer walls were chopped onto small sections, and hurled tens and hundreds of feet, rather than peeling off. The massive steel box beams of the buildings' cores were also broken up into short pieces.
The North Tower was thoroughly pulverized in the air, creating a volcano-like cloud thick dust that expanded to several times the building's volume.

The collapse of floors and buckling of the outer walls proposed by the "truss theory" cannot account for the conversion of the concrete into dust in mid-air, the fine chopping of the outer walls and hurling of their pieces hundreds of feet, or the complete destruction of the buildings' resilient cores.
The Towers' Tops Fell Without Resistance.

The towers fell at near the speed of a falling object encountering no resistance. Video recordings show both towers fell completely in about 15 seconds -- only slightly longer than would take an object to fall from the towers' roofs in a vacuum. But unless the intact portion of the building were demolished before the falling portion encountered it, it would have greatly slowed (and in fact halted) the fall, since the energy to crush each story and accelerate its mass downward would have to come from the kinetic energy of falling mass.

The towers could not have collapsed for the reasons cited, and if they could, they would not have exploded into dust and dropped at near free-fall speed.

Find detailed evidence about the Twin Towers' demolition
at these websites:
wtc7.net
911research.wtc7.net
911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/

[Chaplain Pat Harris]

This New World Order is not some prophetically speculative or futuristic fairy tale, but a real world reality. It is not some "wacko conspiracy theory" advanced by the fringe of society like the powers that be would have us believe. It is not a "conspiracy," rather it's an agenda. Anybody that will end their soma induced "holiday" and unplug from the delusional "matrix" will see the evidence all around them.

It has been a long time in the making, its pieces fitting into place from divergent realms and different players. Gears and levers of history have been moved and adjusted, and a large-scale game of Monopoly has been played, with real currency and real assets shifting hands - a game with very real winners and losers.

The players in this grand deception understand it is a dangerous and risky undertaking, for they are vastly outnumbered. If average Americans woke up and understood their true agenda, there would be an uprising of revolutionary proportions.

Therefore, demonizing the opposition and controlling people through disinformation and fear is critical as they conceal their true agenda. Published government documents characterize patriots as terrorists and a threat to law enforcement. World economic systems are threatened with catastrophic consequences unless the international banksters are allowed to consolidate their power into a global banking system.

"It is well the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

Even though the power of a small group of International banksters is colossal today according to Harvard and Princeton professor emeritus, Carroll Quigley, they are finding it increasingly difficult to conceal their true nature. He said of this group:

"Their aim is nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. The system was to be controlled in a feudalistic fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences." (Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1966)

While it is nearly impossible to accurately trace the interlocking agendas of these organizations, the supernatural dimension is the one that gives the puzzle meaning. While some may ascribe leadership of the New World Order to elitists's in the Bilderbergers, Trilateral Commission or Council of Foreign Relations, the truth is these people are mere pawns in a much grander agenda of the Antichrist.

He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark of his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. [Revelation 13:16-17]

Scripture tells us of the establishment of a New World Order by the Antichrist in the last days. Indeed, the devil must have a dictatorial form of government if he is to rule the world. It is being slowly implemented in our governments through legislation and in our churches with a new spirituality until ultimately it will be in the hands of an elite of intelligent politically-connected religious-minded people in league with the Antichrist.

[BruthaPharoah]

Sista Harris,
you are correct ,i believe we put all on faith ,but alot of this info has been revealed in the spirit of prophecy, where the lord tells us what is going to happen on earth(this is why it's is nessesary to know who the israelites are ,not a racial reason,but by reason of knowing who it is your looking at)

I myself don't believe in conspiracy theories.
Because YHWH called the end from the beginning.
It would be foolish of me to think, he didn't know all in between.
But when you identifie all the players it is amazing what YHWH had done.

[Chaplain Pat Harris]

Bro. Pharaoh,

". . . .alot of this info has been revealed in the spirit of prophecy, where the lord tells us what is going to happen on earth. . . ."

No doubt, this was prophesied, and because so, it will play itself out. Because of the evilness (pride and greed) in man's (not all men, of course) heart, we are now dealing with such conspiracies. But, this was not something that man thought of himself, it is the seed of Satan. All of this (conspiracies) is in preparation of his season to literally rule the earth during the Tribulation Period.

"Because YHWH called the end from the beginning." This is all inclusive in God's master plan to redeem His people and rid us of Satan and his followers for all eternity.

[newview]

If you kill for Rome - you are wrong as two left shoes...

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

OK, how did they find their way into this subject?

[Chaplain Pat Harris]

"If you kill for Rome - you are wrong as two left shoes..."

"OK, how did they find their way into this subject?"

Yeah - inquiring minds want to know!

[newview]

" OK, how did they find their way into this subject? "

What - the two left shoes or Rome?
I think you are asking about Rome :-)

I say Rome in the sense that one would be killing in the name of a wordly government ---> 'Rome'

When I use 'Rome' - I am speaking of ANY government of the world...America or any country she happens to be at war with for the moment.

[BruthaPharoah]

1957 european economic community / the re establishment of the roman empire- the forth kingdom (dan2 when the stone smote the image in the foot)