The Taliban did! They abhored the use of drugs but had no qualms about selling them to Europeans and N.America.

heroin production has actually substantially increased since we "liberated" it. The taliban are vile misogynous fundamentalists, without a doubt, but they had actually stopped a great deal of the heroin production in Afghanistan.


September 27, 2001: ISI Has Connections to Taliban, Drug Trade, CIA
The Sydney Morning Herald discusses the connections between the CIA and Pakistan's ISI, and the ISI's long-standing control over the Taliban. Drugs are a big part of their operation: “opium cultivation and heroin production in Pakistan's northern tribal belt and adjoining Afghanistan were a vital offshoot of the ISI-CIA cooperation. It succeeded in turning some of the Soviet troops into addicts. Heroin sales in Europe and the US, carried out through an elaborate web of deception, transport networks, couriers, and payoffs, offset the cost of the decade-long war in Afghanistan.” [Sydney Morning Herald, 9/27/01]

http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/20...eymh092701.html

Afghanistan retakes heroin crown
Heroin manufacturer
Production has surged since the end of the Taliban regime
Afghanistan retook its place as the world's leading producer of heroin last year, after US-led forces overthrew the Taleban which had banned cultivation of opium poppies.

The finding was made in a key drug report, distributed in Kabul on Sunday by the US State Department, which supports almost identical findings by the United Nations last week.

Low-grade heroin is refined in Afghanistan from opium, which is manufactured from the extract of poppies.

"The size of the opium harvest in 2002 makes Afghanistan the world's leading opium producer," the report said.

The International Narcotics Control Strategy Report said the area of land used to cultivate opium poppies reached 30,750 hectares, compared with 1,685 hectares in 2001.

Afghanistan overtook Burma - whose production fell for the sixth straight year, to 630 tonnes - as the leading opium producer.

The British government is the leading sponsor of the anti-drugs campaign in Afghanistan.

Contradictory claims

The report said fighting illegal drug trafficking was key to the US war on terrorism.

Heroin manufacturer
Production has surged since the end of the Taliban

"The US campaign against global terrorism in 2002 highlighted the importance of our international drug control programs," it said.

Despite its own figures showing the Taleban had cut Afghanistan's heroin production by about 95%, the report claimed that heroin had "financed the former Taleban regime".

The UN International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) report, released on 26 February, said that Afghanistan produced 3,400 tonnes last year, up from 185 tonnes in 2001.

While the US report praised US-backed Afghan president Hamid Karzai for the measures he has introduced to cut heroin production, the UN report said his two executive orders had no practical impact.

Growing problem

The Pentagon and the State Department are reportedly split over how heroin production should be tackled in the country.

Taliban anti-drugs sign
The Taliban banned production

While the Pentagon insists that the military operations in Afghanistan should be limited to fighting terrorists, while the State Department thinks armed forces should tackle opium production.

The US report also praised Pakistan for "excellent" co-operation with US anti-drugs efforts.

Last week the head of Pakistan's Anti-Narcotics Force, Major General Zafar Abbas, said that heroin production in Afghanistan this year is expected to reach more than 4,000 tonnes.

Russian guards patrolling Afghanistan's 1,340-kilometre border with Tajikistan, the main transport route for Afghan drugs to European markets, have seized 1.5 tonnes of heroin already this year.

Last year, Russian and Tajik border guards seized 6.7 tonnes of drugs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2814861.stm

Gordon,
Why are you chasing inconsequential events?

I don't agree that it is inconsequential, since the ejections indicate that something was going on, at or around that area, at that time. Identifying the cause would help to narrow down the possibilities

As can be seen in the pictures what the CT'ers refer to as "squibs" are inconsequential. Nothing happens on the floors they occur on, except that these very small blasts of air/debris occur.
The glass doesn't blow out, the walls don't buckle, no flashes are seen, etc etc.
We may NEVER figure out what they are, or what set of circumstances caused them (the possiblities are almost endless), but what IS obvious is they had nothing to do with the TOP DOWN COLLAPSE.

Again, this is our point of contention. I can't believe that the possibilities are endless because I haven't heard a single plausible possibility and if they were nothing to do with the top down collapse what were they to do with?


The collapse CLEARLY begins at the point of impact.
Do you deny this?
If you don't, then explain any mechanism for preplanted explosives to cause the the failure at the point of impact, after burning for 1 hour after impact, and then to proceed from that point downward.
Arthur


No, on that point we do agree?
However, and remembering that I am no expert on controlled demolition, I would take out a lower section of the core, maybe with a relatively slow acting thermite-like agent.
This would first be evidenced from outside the building by a downward movement of the antennae on the top.
Load would shift onto the perimeter columns caused by this induced failure and downward movement of the core, and this increased loading, combined with the same downward movement of the core causing the floors to pull in on the perimeter columns. would induce a buckling failure of the perimeter columns.
This failure would almost certainly take place firstly at the area previously weakened by aircraft impact as you say.
Once the buckle hinges had formed on a column or a small number of columns, their neighbours would have to handle an increased load and would fail in turn.
Downward movement of the upper section would begin and quickly follow the core downwards
At this point I would have to again disagree with you as I disagree with NIST who say that total collapse was inevitable once collapse had been initiated. I believe that additional energies would still have to be introduced and so.
Further charges of some description would still need to be used to take out other core sections and crucial load bearing points such as at the maintenance levels, where heavier beams were reportedly used.
The main load carrying columns were in the core, so with these taken out the perimeter columns wouldn't need as much possibly visible assistance than if they were the main load carriers.
My ideas are not fully formed and complete yet, but I don't think I've stepped outside the known data and evidence so far.

Gordon.

Collapse times paper.

Same author regarding NIST

Note; This is a recent post that has been edited. The lower half has been reworded.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...&q=loose+change

If you scroll through the time code to about the 30:40 (min./sec.) point, you'll be just in front of a section which shows the collapse of the south tower from a south-westerly perspective. Not surprisingly, you see the upper section listing to the south. You also see, the inwardly tensiled, horizontal band effecting the south face along the peripheral support plane. NIST established its' newest theory around this phenomenon. Based on the rotation of the upper section about a compromised core , how could this section NOT be pulled in. From the perspective of the camera the upper section is rotating clockwise to the south (to the right). The lower part (of the upper section) has no choice but to move north or in to the building. It has to pull the local peripheral support with it, hence, creating that horizontal band of deformity. It's not primarily the heat of the fires that's doing this, it's the angular momentum of the upper section. Yet, from observing the inevitable consequences of the listing sector, just before collapse, they try to kill 2 birds with 1 stone. Explain away the rotational trajectory by using the observed effect as a cause of systemic core destruction. Just in the nick of time, the floor joists tensile the core against the periphery causing the lower section to fail before and almost as fast as the upper section is descending. The upper section's rotation is arrested, because, it's encountering reduced de-acceleration. The lower section isn't pushing back much, because it's under-going complete, systematic, structural failure from below. It would take time to neutralize the structural integrity of such a steel core. The initiation of compromise would have to be significantly out in front of the descending focus of destruction. As Gordon might say, 'what available mechanism could cause this'? That's the 64k question. Accepting, for the sake of argument, the theory of joist tensioning; how does the mechanism get far enough ahead, in order to present to the face of the collapsing event, a significantly reduced structural impedance? Yesitdid, put forth a concept of a hammer being welded to the nail head, immediately after impact. This I assume, implied a momentary impact window as the 2 objects would then shared a common downward inertia together. This also implies failure well before and below the impact site; as if the work bench, in pre failure mode, then failed completely, at the same moment you hit the nail into the wood that rested on its' surface. The hammer would follow the nail, for as long as the stroke would permit. Was the lower section in pre-failure mode?

In the first 2 seconds, there is explosive plumage, upwardly trajecting. This would imply, at least, immediate, massive, concussive deceleration. Yet the building fell like butter from beneath the impact site. Again, this doesn't make sense unless there was another mechanism involved.

The great NIST has spoken. Ignore the agency behind the curtain.

Bush compounds "war on terrorism" lie with "foiled Los Angeles Terror Plot" story

Counter-terrorism officials question allegation

--Factual realities expose Bush’s lies

As amply documented at the independent web site you are now reading, and related web sites and publications, 9/11 was a crime that was planned, orchestrated and carried out by the US government and its proxies. There is exhaustive evidence exposing the fact that the 9/11 pretext is a lie, the "war on terrorism" is a lie,---

--Even as the lies continue to be compounded, distorted and spun in increasingly grotesque fashion by Bush and functionaries, the entire "war on terrorism" façade collapses with a simple glance at documented facts ---

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=1950