Tell Me a Secret

Thursday, February 03, 2005

something fishy is hapening in Baghdad..
since the day after the day of the elections, Baghdad became damn silent, although all the security measurments have stopped after the elections, the streets are opened again and the concrete blocks disapeared from the streets and bridges.
my ears are about to hurt me, no explosions at all!
i ALL!
so: Life of Iraqis have defenately improved because of the elections.
wait a second...
now, couldn't this be exactly what "they" want us to think?
which brings back the supposadly naive issue back to the surface: is it possible that the Americans themselves are making, or at last prticipating in making these explosions in the city?
dont give me these looks!
walk with me in the streets and lets make a servey!
who thinks that the American are responsible for these actions?
you would be amazed of the percentage of people that do!
in so many occasions, when a car bomb explodes, you find an eye witness telling you that he saw an American helicopter launching a missile towards a car in the street, i talked to one of those eye witnesses myself right after one of the car bombs exploded.
a car bomb exploded a while ago, on a bridge, and made a hole with diameter of about 2 meters right through the bridge, i looked at the hole from under the bridge, and saw, besides a 2m diameter window to the sky, the enforcement steel hanging down, now i need you to go see an engineer, and ask him: what does it realy take to make that happen?
The car bomb explosion effect goes horizontally, much more that it does vertically, i have seen the location of explosion of many car bombs (being in Baghdad, you know), and the street was damaged under them, but not really that much, just fractions and descent in the asphalt.
it looks much more easier to believe that a missle hit the bridge.
find me an explination, one more explination, for the phenomenon of the complete silence after the elections?
note: the theory that the insurjants suddenly decided that they should be a part of the American democracy isn't very acceptable:)
note 2: no i dont mean the "Americans", i mean the American admistration.
note3: there isnt a note three actually but i like odd numbers so i added this one, hehe:)


Blogger Trevor said...

Out of curiousity, do you also think "the Americans" blew up the World Trade Center?

6/19/2005 11:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

sadly, I wouldn't be surprised in the least. The Shrub administration has done some pretty heinous stuff to get their agendas up and running. I live in Oregon, and know for a fact that the shrub admin orchestrated the starting of wildfires out in my area purely to force the passing of some bad logging laws that directly lines the pockets of the Powers that Be. There were witnesses at the very beginning of these fires, which by the way decimated large areas in Oregon, that saw what looked like Secret Service types blocking off the road at ground zero and heard an explosion shortly afterwards.

6/22/2005 06:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you're a smart guy khalid :) question everything.

7/12/2005 02:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In regards to your question "do you think the Americans blew up the WTC on 9/11?": If one were to take more than a superficial look at 9/11, the truth becomes painfully clear; the "official" story is utter bunk.
This can be proven in many, many ways. Of course everyone was SUPPOSED TO take it at face value, not really examining it, and I myself at first took it at face value, but figured that considering the vast indiscriminate death and destruction for its own corporate interests that America has for so long wrought upon those it thinks it can get away with it around the world, I figured "well, they had it coming". But if one looks at it a little more closely, disturbing things surface that the "official" story cannot explain away.
For example, Bush's behaviour when he was first told by Andy Card that a second plane had crashed into the WTC. If the "official" story were true, then Bush and his Secret Service crew would've HAD TO ASSUME that he was a potential target on 9/11, and whisked him away to a safer and less-publicly known location. But what happened? Bush sat there in that classroom for several minutes listening to a book about a goat, before making small-talk with teachers there and THEN he carried on with his pre-scheduled press conference pushing his "No Child Left Behind" act. He didn't leave that elementary school until about an HOUR after Card told him the news. The only way this could be possible would be for Bush to have known he was not a potential target on 9/11, meaning he knew the plan, it was an inside job. Or consider that the "hijacked airliners" had over an hour to make it to their targets without any air force fighters on their wing, when every time before that and since, every time an airliner deviates from its flight plan there are fighters scrambled in a few minutes they are up there by the deviant airliner. One even hit the Pentagon, their military headquarters, which fired no surface-to-air missiles in its own defence!! It is standard operating procedure to scramble at the sign of a deviant airliner, and it would take an order from higher up to countermand it and stand down those fighters. This is the most expensive air force in the world and took place in the most heavily-watched airspace in the country, the Northeast, and "19 hijackers" somehow caused it to stand down and not intercept??!! This makes no sense unless it was an inside job. These two points right there are plenty enough to sink the "official" story individually, but there's plenty more. Just watch the video footage of the World Trade Centre towers "collapsing". They went down in ten seconds apiece, the same rate an object freefalls. This is IMPOSSIBLE according to the laws of physics UNLESS all of its support columns were disintegrated at once. Slow it down and go frame by frame, you can see explosions from the cutting charges and jets of dust called "squibs" shooting out of windows below the pall of smoke, then it just sinks right into its footprint, a copy-book controlled demolition. In some footage, the camera (on a tripod) is visibly shaken by a tremor (caused by the massive amounts of demolition charges going off in the sub-basement levels where the main supports meet the Manhattan bedrock. A few seconds later the charges near the top of the (North) Tower blow, and it goes down like a stick of butter melting in ten seconds. Definitely controlled demolition. Same with WTC # 7, the 47-storey building nearby; it received very little damage and yet it "collapsed" in exactly the same manner a few hours later. Check out

Or another thing they can't explain is how the "airliner" that hit the Pentagon left no wings, no tail section, no fuselage, no luggage, no body parts, etc. on the Pentagon's lawn. Or why the "plane" circled around and hit the part of the Pentagon that was under renovation (very few military personnel present in that part, mostly civilian construction workers). This was the FARTHEST possible part of the Pentagon from where Rumsfeld and the top brass were, and the section that was hit had recently had it's side walls reinforced to prevent a massive fire there from spreading elsewhere throughout the building. Within five minutes of the crash, the F.B.I. confiscated the tapes of two civilian security cameras that were pointing at the part of the Pentagon that was hit, one was at a petrol station across the road. Good sites for the Pentagon's wonderfully resilient, gougeless lawn that can have an "airliner" crash on it and not have a gouge in it or identifiable debris, see and also check out

There was obvious foreknowledge on the part of somebody or several individuals in high places because in the week just before 9/11, there were record amounts of "put" options purchased on United Airlines, American Airlines, and Merrill Lynch (HQ in the WTC building) stock. "Put" options are basically betting that a certain company's stock is going to lose value. The Securities & Exchanges Commission knows who this is but has done NOTHING about it. See
Also obvious foreknowledge is the warning of San Francisco mayor Willie Brown and others to avoid flying and the Trade Centre on 9/11. See
Other things the "official" story cannot answer are the matte rof NO Middle Eastern names were on ANY of the four flight manifests. None. What about the passport of one of the "hijackers" that was "found" [read:planted] near the WTC rubble?? How did it miraculously survive the "intense" fire that we were told incinerated all the passengers and plane, even the "black boxes"?? (It didn't; it was planted). By the way, if that was one of the "hijackers" passports then why did his name not show up on any of the flight manifests?? Wouldn't it have to if his passport was "found" near the rubble??And remember the matter of at least seven "hijackers" turning up alive days AFTER 9/11? This was mentioned on BBC and I think the Daily Telegraph on 23 September 2001 I think it was. Certainly other sources carried the story as well. Or the matter of real airliners not being able to pull the kind of high G-force turns and maneouvres necessary to hit the South Tower and the Pentagon on 9/11. Airline pilots noticed that.

Also, by all accounts the "suicide pilots" were no good at even flying Cessnas and Piper Cubs, let alone flying airliners like that, and we can easily establish real airliners cannot make those kind of manoeuvres anyway. Another nail in their story's coffin is the fact that after New York firefighters that survived 9/11 started talking about hearing several explosions in the WTC just before "collapse", they were placed under a court-mandated gag order to not talk about what they saw and heard on 9/11. Creepy, huh? Furthermore, most of the tapes of their radio communications that day is classified. Why? Because they don't want the public to hear that the firemen had the fires (at least in the South Tower) under control and almost finished when the building "collapsed", AND also there would likely be the sounds of explosions at the end of the tape. The Federal Aviation Administration's air traffic controllers are under a similar gag order to not speak of what they heard or saw on their radar screens on 9/11. If this isn't an obvious cover-up, then I ask you, what is? Also consider, what are the odds of the C.I.A. and the air force scheduling an "exercise" for 11 September 2001 that involved "multiple hijackings", false radar injects and "planes crashing into a building"?? The Federal Emergency Management Agency had an "exercise" the day before and "just happened" to still be in Manhattan. Also in town on 9/11 was a company called Controlled Demolitions Incorporated who specialize in removal of debris from, yes, controlled demolitions (like the Trade Centre). The odds of all these being a coincidence are one in a googolplex, infinitesimally small to nonexistent. And if Bush had nothing to hide, then why did he refuse to testify in front of the 9/11 [whitewash] commission in open session, instead insisting on "testifying" behind closed doors, with Dick Cheney and his weasel lawyer Gonzales present, and with no tape recordings and no notes taken? That only says "guilty". So how did they do it? Here's how: When the real airliners took off that morning, four remotely-piloted drones took off as well, mirroring their flight paths but at a much higher altitude. Three were about the size of a large fighter or a small commuter jet like a Lear jet, and the other was a remotely-piloted air force tanker aircraft. All were painted up in the United Airlines and American Airlines paint schemes. They were controlled by operators in an E-3A Sentry A.W.A.C.S. aircraft. At a certain point, NORAD told the four real airliners that a "terrorist attack" at some airports was in progress and they must turn off their transponders and loiter over the Atlantic until it can be determined which airports are safe. So they do, but the drones fly on toward their targets. Meanwhile, air force fighters in the aforementioned "exercises" were patrolling over the Atlantic and told that the incoming aircraft (the real airliners) were drones simulating "hijacked airliners", and to shoot them down as part of the exercise. So they did and to this day if they're still alive the fighter pilots probably think they were shooting down drones for target practice on 9/11. So the real airliners are in small pieces on the Atlantic Ocean floor. Then one smaller drone slammed into the North Tower of the WTC (this is why first reports of this event said it was a "small plane", not an airliner). Then once the media's cameras had arrived on the scene, the tanker drone full of jet fuel hit the South Tower (hence the big fireball like in the movies, quite unlike what it would have been if it really were an airliner with just a fraction of its fuel left). Then a smaller drone hit the Pentagon (hence the early reports of a "small plane" hitting the Pentagon). The fourth drone, likely intended for the White House or Capitol Building, was unneccessary as the other three had done precisely what was wanted. So a different fighter pilot, this one from the North Dakota air national guard, is told it is a "hijacked airliner" headed for the nation's capital and to shoot it down. So he did, and if he is still alive he probably thinks he saved the White House or Capitol Building. Then of course they used the demolition charges already in place in the WTC to "collapse" it, starting with the South Tower (because the fire was quickly dying and the firemen would soon have it out, eliminating their "excuse" for the "collapse"). The exactly 30 minutes later the North Tower (the more heavily-damaged of the two) comes down in the same manner. The explosives were likely in place ever since the aftermath of the explosive-filled van that went off in the WTC's basement in the 1990s, otherwise it would be hard to get other companies to stay in the nearby buildings or be insured, since if one of the towers fell over it would land on them unless a "failsafe" self-destruct mechanism was in place to demolish the towers with massive use of explosives and bring them down right into their "footprint", which is what happened. They were likely set off from the concrete bunker-like emergency command centre for the mayor, located on the 23rd floor of, you guessed it, WTC # 7 building which was ALSO brought down in a controlled demolition later that day to destroy the evidence in the command centre. That's how it happened, and they have been using 9/11 as an "excuse" for EVERYTHING since then. If this is too shocking to believe then I suggest you please check out these websites:

8/10/2005 02:30:00 AM  
Blogger jon said...

Looking for home security alarm info and perimiter cams I found our site. I agree totally!

10/02/2005 02:24:00 PM  
Blogger seslimuhabbet said...

Really trustworthy blog. Please keep updating with great posts like this one. I have booked marked your site and am about to email it to a few friends of mine that I know would enjoy reading
Sesli sohbet Sesli chat
Seslisohbet Seslichat
Sesli sohbet siteleri Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli Chat
Sohbet Sesli siteler
Sohbet siteleri Chat siteleri
Sohbet merkezi chat merkezi
Sesli merkezi sesli Sohbet merkezi
Sesli chat merkezi Sohbetmerkezi
Sesli Sohbet Sesli Chat
SesliSohbet Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli sohbet siteleri SesliChat
Sesli Sesli siteler
Seslimuhabbet sesli muhabbet
sesli sohbet sesli chat siteleri
sesli sohbet siteleri sesli chat
seslisohbet seslichat
seslikent sesli kent
sesli sohbet sesli sohbet siteleri
sesli chat sesli chat siteleri
seslisohbet seslichat

8/07/2010 03:04:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home, The World's Blog Aggregator