Was Al Qaeda responsible for 9-11?
I was told this, "The Islamo-fascists who captured the planes of September 11 were singing 'Allah Akbar!' as the planes approached the twin towers on September 11, 2001. It was the last recorded messages from the cockpit before impact."
Where is this proof of this?This I have to say I don't find interesting and I don't think it matters, but I'll repost this anyway.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … lanes.html
4) United Airlines Flight 93
"At 10.01, Jarrah repeats "Allah is the Greatest!" before asking another hijacker: "Is that it? Shall we put it down?"
His ally replied: "Yes pull it down".
Jarrah rolled the plane onto its back, with shouts of "Allah is the Greatest" continuing in the cockpit.
The counter-attack could still be heard as the Flight 93 plunged downwards, crashing just after 10.03 into an empty field in Pennsylvania, 20 minutes' flight time from Washington.
As the 9/11 Report concluded: "Jarrah's objective was to crash his airliner into symbols of the American Republic He was defeated by the alerted, unarmed passengers of United 93.""
This is just an account from the black box, I haven't found the tape yet, and I don't have time to look right now, to be fair both could have been fabricated. I'm not a fan of the U.S. government of the time and wouldn't be surprised if they were involved. I'm not convince any plane crashed into the pentagon, but that is neither here nor there.
You may be able to download the audio here http://www.airdisaster.com/cvr/atcwav.shtml
But it's doesn't matter because all of it could have been fabricated.Don't post me stuff that you say, "It doesn't matter".
That flight recorder proved nothing. I didn't hear, "Allah Akbar!" Anyway, flight 93 was shot down. There was no fighting for the controls:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNuosBnl … re=related
Dick Cheney confessed he was the one who ordered Flight 93 to be shot down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5GgZa9V0A8Oh Claire, those links mean nothing. Wether it was shot down or not still means nothing. I had seen a video that shows him helping victims of the pentagon at the time 93 crashed so he was not able to give the order anyway. I'm not sure if any of it is relevant in showing cause. Much of it can be fabricated after the fact anyway. The way the towers fell at almost the speed gravity would pull a free flowing object to the ground is also of concern, but doesn't prove a conspiracy.
Rad Man, it means everything! It means the US government was lying that the passengers fought for the controls and a struggle ensured between the hijackers and passengers with a recording that says, "Allah Akbar!" What else are they lying about??
It came from Dick Cheney's own mouth that he gave the order and from Rumsfeld's own mouth that Flight 93 was shot down. Since Cheney knew that 9-11 was going to happen, he could give an order to shoot the plane down and "help" Pentagon victims at the same time. Lol.
What does the falling of the towers at free fall speed tell you? It tells you the towers didn't fall from heat stress and that it was a demolition. What else does it look like?it looks like Al-Queda hi-jacked planes and crashed them into buildings, this has all been de-bunked.
Where was NORAD on that day? Please don't tell me you believe this nonsense. What has all been debunked?
NORAD was their however not given great advance by FAA. And I dont believe conspiracy theories, especially ones that have been debunked.
Can you explain this, please?
Before 9/11, it has always been standard operating procedure (SOP) for the Federal Aviation Administration, in cooperation with NORAD, to scramble jet fighters whenever an aircraft wanders off course or loses radio contact with air traffic controllers. In fact, it has been estimated that between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times. In the year 2000, fighter jets were scrambled 129 times. So how did it happen that on 9/11 that not a single fighter jet engaged four commercial jets over a 90-minute period? How was it possible that the Pentagon, the headquarters of the biggest national military in the world, was hit a full 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation’s capital? Why has there been no disciplinary action for this appalling case of negligence?
Go through the discussion. I have posted the relevant links there.
I watched those videos. Cheney said he gave the order that 93 be shot down, but also says IT WASN'T!
I am unaware of any empirical proof of the "Allah Akbar!" claim.
What is the impetus for this question?Brian from Canada said that "Allah Akbar!" on the recordings of one of the hijacked flights is proof that religion, particularly Islam, was responsible for 9-11. As you said, there is no empirical proof of such a thing and I'm going to need a HELL lot more than that to convince me Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11.
Al-Qaeda and "religion" aren't the same thing. Either way, zealotry was responsible for 9/11.
I suppose people argue that if one kills in the name of Allah that is the Islam religion. Doesn't it say in the Quran to kill infidels?
How much research have you done into who is responsible for 9-11 and just how ridiculous the official story is?yes thats exactly what that means actually.
They probably shouted these things because they were about to die. People make the sign of the cross for many different things such as prior to an at bat in a baseball game or possibly just when a plane takes off (my boss does it everytime we travel). It is very common and for them to say it before their death is an extension of this in my view.
Just who do you think was responsible for 9/11
Mossad. Those complicit were the US government (they knew before hand), Pakistan and Saudi Arab that I am aware of.
Here is what Benjamin Netanyahu (psycho) said about 9-11:
"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,"
What a sicko.Just a couple of things to consider:
Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, has told Italy’s oldest and most widely read newspaper that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad, and that this was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies. In what translates awkwardly into English, Cossiga told the newspaper Corriere della Sera:
“All the [intelligence services] of America and Europe…know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the Mossad, with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part … in Iraq [and] Afghanistan.”
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=622552
Five Israeli army veterans were seen dancing with glee after the towers fell and they were arrested by the FBI.
You can see them here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw
British intelligence reported in February 2002 that the Israeli Mossad ran the Arab hijacker cells that were later blamed by the U.S. government's 9/11 Commission for carrying out the aerial attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. WMR has received details of the British intelligence report which was suppressed by the government of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair.
A Mossad unit consisting of six Egyptian- and Yemeni-born Jews infiltrated "Al Qaeda" cells in Hamburg (the Atta-Mamoun Darkanzali cell), south Florida, and Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates in the months before 9/11. The Mossad not only infiltrated cells but began to run them and give them specific orders that would eventually culminate in their being on board four regularly-scheduled flights originating in Boston, Washington Dulles, and Newark, New Jersey on 9/11.
The Mossad infiltration team comprised six Israelis, comprising two cells of three agents, who all received special training at a Mossad base in the Negev Desert in their future control and handling of the "Al Qaeda" cells. One Mossad cell traveled to Amsterdam where they submitted to the operational control of the Mossad's Europe Station, which operates from the El Al complex at Schiphol International Airport. The three-man Mossad unit then traveled to Hamburg where it made contact with Mohammed Atta, who believed they were sent by Osama Bin Laden. In fact, they were sent by Ephraim Halevy, the chief of Mossad.
The second three-man Mossad team flew to New York and then to southern Florida where they began to direct the "Al Qaeda" cells operating from Hollywood, Miami, Vero Beach, Delray Beach, and West Palm Beach. Israeli "art students," already under investigation by the Drug Enforcement Administration for casing the offices and homes of federal law enforcement officers, had been living among and conducting surveillance of the activities, including flight school training, of the future Arab "hijacker" cells, particularly in Hollywood and Vero Beach.
In August 2001, the first Mossad team flew with Atta and other Hamburg "Al Qaeda" members to Boston. Logan International Airport's security was contracted to Huntleigh USA, a firm owned by an Israeli airport security firm closely connected to Mossad - International Consultants on Targeted Security - ICTS. ICTS's owners were politically connected to the Likud Party, particularly the Netanyahu faction and then-Jerusalem mayor and future Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. It was Olmert who personally interceded with New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani to have released from prison five Urban Moving Systems employees, identified by the CIA and FBI agents as Mossad agents. The Israelis were the only suspects arrested anywhere in the United States on 9/11 who were thought to have been involved in the 9/11 attacks.
More:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/22267 … -operation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5f4fbkn … r_embedded
If you want to know the US and Pakistan involvement, go to my hub, "The US, Pakistan and Taliban love triangle."Loose Change does a very good job exposing the Bush Admin. as the one responsible for 9-11. I believed it was the Arabs before watching this movie. Also, much info on the internet exposing all the main parties involved in 9-11 - Bush, Cheney, Chertoff, Larry Silverstein. Mossad
Bottom line, all the people captured on 9-11 suspected of being involved in terrorist activities, were Israelis (including driving vans loaded with explosives!). Chertoff ordered all of them released - so they could go back to Israel. Just google 9-11 and Mossad, do the research and you can see for yourselves who pulled off 9-11 and why. The gov't version is ridiculousYou are absolutely correct. It is also suspicious when you read the Mossad motto:
"By way of deception, thou shalt do war"
Of the MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS (Army School of Advanced Military Studies) officers say: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act." Army School of Advanced Military Studies
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=622552
Al Qaeda is not really at war with America and Israel. They are recruited by them. Here's the evidence:
Look at the Star of David around that Jihadist's neck.
See the link to see a better view:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL … orist.html
The Netanyahu quote about 9/11 benefitting Israel is here, and puts the comment in perspective.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/report-neta … l-1.244044How does it put it into perspective? What a sick thing of Netanyahu to say that 9-11 benefited them. You know what 9-11 achieved? It villianized the Muslims and made it look as if Israel had every right to call them terrorists.
That is what he meant.
Amazing how things change when you see the words in context .
"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."
Netanyahu reportedly made the comments during a conference at Bar-Ilan University on the division of Jerusalem as part of a peace deal with the Palestinians.
His comment while possibly unfortunate was true; it engaged the US militarily against the enemies of Israel. It is just a statement of fact and does not prove any prior knowledge. The commnet stand on its own.
If you look closely at the 2nd plane that hit the 2nd tower there are no windows (such as windows on a passenger jet) there are no tail markings (as there are on passenger jets) and the plane is grey such as a military plane. Who here believes in the "magic bullet" theory that killed Kennedy?!
What about them saying they did it? Seems to be proof to me.
Huh, Al Qaeda said they did it? Go through the entire comments section. I'm not repeating myself.
Osama bin laden
...we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on...Muhammad (Atta) from the Egyptian family (meaning the al-Qaeda Egyptian group), was in charge of the group...The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes
Repair Guy,
Yes they did, Osama Bin Laden bragged about it in one of his famous tape releases shortly after 9/11
This is just one of several tapes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkdFNLqJajMIf it is a fact that Bin Laden was involved why does the FBI say it has no hard evidence that Bin Laden was involved?
The conspiracy theorists believe Bin Laden just woke up the morning of Sept. 12, turned on the tv and said, "Wow, why didn't I think of that?"
And, then decided to take credit for it when no one else stepped forward.
Uh-huh.Wow, so you didn't know the part where Osama bin Laden denies having involvement?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxmUFG9wOOQYes at first he denied it then confessed, it's very simple.
What the f? Why did he deny it at first? You do know that the CIA has been busted faking Bin Laden tapes, don't you?
Because like most criminals he didn't want to get caught... But then once it became apparent that the CIA knew he fessed up. Also no they have not.
LMAO! Well, the CIA should have given that hard evidence to the FBI. I'm sure they would be highly impressed. Jihadists don't deny what they do. They are proud of it. The only "evidence" the CIA have is faked videos.
Anyway, why should Bin Laden have been scared of the CIA? He "eluded" them for "11 years" knowing that no one could find him in the thousands of caves in Afghanistan.He "eluded" them so well he is now dead
They didn't have "hard" evidence but they had enough circumstantial etc. to know it was him so he confessed.
Usually terrorists do brag about it from the start but this was, as he himself said, way more successful and devastating than he ever imagined, big enough to start wars and ensure his organization would be massively damaged if not destroyed so naturally enough he got cold feet, and rightly so the fact he did it got him killed and Al-Qaeda all but destroyed with the vast majority of it's initial membership dead.
The 9/11 conspiracy is a hilarious lie. Aside from all the facts it's inconceivable that as many people as would have been required to stage this could keep a secret this long. "Two men can keep a secret, if one is dead".Yes, and you just believe that rubbish story even though the Pentagon said they have no record of his death.
Isn't a confession hard evidence?
Yes, it was quite an amazing feat for someone dying and living in a cave. Oh wait, he was visited in a Dubai hospital by the CIA (Bin Laden once being an agent) in July 2001. So Bin Laden didn't think for one moment that the world's superpower would not attempt to wipe out every Muslim like in Afghanistan and Iraq? He just thought they'd forgive him? Who are the initial members of Al Qaeda? They are those who fought on behalf of the United States in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Their job is to commit terrorism on instruction of the West. I mean, they are such buddies with the USA that Al Awlaki, Al Qaeda member, dined at the Pentagon months after 9-11. Strange bed fellows!
If it was such a huge secret why is there so much evidence for a conspiracy? How many architects, FAA people, Congress people, members of the 9-11 Commission, military and intelligence have spoken out? Many!
http://www.infowars.com/highly-credible … stion-911/
You can't have molten steel at Ground Zero and expect no one to question it.
That conspiracy is no secret.
Yes, he did deny it, after he admitted in several tapes, to Al-Jazera journalist that he indeed was in charge. Could it be he denied it when he saw how Pissed Bush was saying he was going to go after those who were in charge? Bin Laden saw how the world was rallying around the US, he backed off.
So he first admitted it and then denied it? Someone else said he denied it then admitted. Why would Bin Laden deny it and then admit it in the same interview?
I showed you the denial video. Now this is the same video just with subtitles with him "confessing".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWVC4JBj … re=related
It is clear that Al Jezeera has manipulated some of the subtitles as they are in conflict with one another. Why would they do that?
Apparently, the phrase is actually "Allahu Akbar," meaning "God is greater," "God is [the] Greatest," or "God is Great."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allahu_Akbar.
They could have said "Go Browns!" or "Zeppelin rules!" or "Wouldn't you really rather drive a Buick?" but that wouldn't change the fact that al Qaeda was responsible. They have admitted it, all the evidence points to them. There is no reason to doubt, unless you're justifying your tinfoil hat.
Oh, where is there admission?
Check this interview with Osama bin Laden shortly after 9-11:
Following is the interview in full detail:
"Ummat: You have been accused of involvement in the attacks in New York and Washington. What do you want to say about this? If you are not involved, who might be?
Usamah [Osama bin Laden]: In the name of Allah, the most beneficent, the most merciful. Praise be to Allah, Who is the creator of the whole universe and Who made the earth as an abode for peace, for the whole mankind. Allah is the Sustainer, who sent Prophet Muhammad for our guidance. I am thankful to the Ummat Group of Publications, which gave me the opportunity to convey my viewpoint to the people, particularly the valiant and Momin true Muslim people of Pakistan who refused to believe in lie of the demon.
I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/interview- … t-in-9-11/
My goodness, do you know how many times the CIA have faked videos of Al Qaeda?So do you believe Obama has committed a crime by ordering the murder of bin Laden?
Also this link discusses the confession video aired on Al Jazeera back in 2004; Are you saying Al Jazeera was duped and aired a CIA doctored video? And if so how do you know this?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2004 … 41029.html
One more thing: are you a holocaust denier? I just want to know the extent of your assumptions about Jews.First of all, the whole Obama bin Laden "murder" was a fake. It never happened.
Former CIA agent interviewed back in 2008 confirmed bin Laden had been dead years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njp0XYO6 … re=related
You can hear it from his own mouth.
The Pentagon has no records of bin Laden's death in the compound:
I am not sure if you are aware that bin Laden was deathly ill when 9-11 happened. He was dying of Marfan syndrome which caused kidney failure. He would have needed dialysis if he hoped to remain alive.
Taken from http://www.opposingviews.com/i/why-osam … rnment-lie
"There are literally thousands of news sources that have documented 9 different instances in which Osama bin Laden was said to have died, but the most reliable story came from former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and Council on Foreign Relations member, Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik. In an April 2002 interview with Alex Jones, Pieczenik said, “I worked with Osama bin Laden in ’78, ’81, and ‘79 when he was in Afghanistan…. And so we have a blowback with Osama. But what made it more difficult was, I found out through my sources that he had had kidney disease. And as a physician, I knew that he had to have two dialysis machines and he was dying. And you could see in those films, those made-up photos that they were sending us out of nowhere. I mean, suddenly, we would see a video of bin Laden today and then out of nowhere, they said oh it was sent to us anonymously, meaning that someone in the government, our government, was trying to keep up the morale on our side and say oh we still have to chase this guy when, in fact, he’s been dead for months…. I mean the whole thing was a, I mean it was such a hoax. I mean I said you would have to be, you know, blind and stupid to not realize that this is really being manipulating in trying to manipulate us…. And I think that Musharraf, the President of Pakistan, spilled the beans by accident three months ago when he said that bin Laden was dead because his kidney dialysis machines were destroyed in East Afghanistan”.
The CIA has conceded to faking bin Laden confession videos:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/former-cia- … video.html
You can read about the history of those videos here:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/epic-fail-t … tapes.html
Even if the bin Laden killing back in 2011 was real, the NAVY seals had no right to shoot an unarmed man. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial.
Al Jazeera is owned by the Illuminati. Of course they lie.
I don't see why you asked me if I am a Halocaust denier. What's that got to do with anything? It's like if you mention anything about Jews, like Mossad in my case, you must be anti-semetic have an agenda and hatred towards them.I consider Holocaust deniars to be Jew haters and emotionally compromised. Thanks for the info. I see what you believe. I'm done with the topic. Thank you...
How dare you imply I'm a Jew hater! So no Jew is responsible for evil? And when someone points out the criminality of the Israeli Jewish intelligence agency, one is a Jew hater? So if one condemns the Nazis, you are a German hater?
Grow up.
"Al Jazeera is owned by the Illuminati."
That explains a lot. Good day, madam.LMAO! In other words, you've been pawned.
How naive must you be to not know there are secret societies out there that own the world?
But Al Qaeda hijacking planes makes far more sense!Sweetie - I think you're the one who's been pawned.
You're seeing Mossad boogeymen hiding behind every tree. Very few of your "sources" are legit - and many of the videos cut out pertinent content because it counters the conspiracy.
I'm sad for you. I really am.Prove what sources is not legit. Refute the claims Mossad wasn't responsible. Don't you think it's strange that some Mossad agents filmed the first plane hitting the towers and danced and shrieked with delight. It's pretty amazing they caught the first plane on video and pretty sick they'd celebrate it.
Yes, it does actually. You finally got it.
Why are you in denial? You've provide NO evidence that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11.
And how do you know this interview is real?
It's quite ironic you doubt the authenticity of this interview when you believe 100% Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11.
The claim was that bin Laden admitted to 9-11 which was a lie because the interview of bin Laden denying 9-11, came before any "admissions" that he was responsible.
Let's say we don't know the authenticity of either claims. What is a fact is that Osama bin Laden was at death's door when 9-11 happened. He had been sick for quiet some time and I don't think he'd have the health to plan such a thing.That isn't irony. Also Bin laden admitting to 9/11 is fact , unless of course you have proof stating otherwise. You just stated not knowing authenticity of either claims then go and spout off statements to be fact. And then another claim to be fact, yet no proof. So what illness did he have and why would said illness keep him from using his brain?
The FBI would consider an admission from bin Laden as hard evidence but they say they have no hard evidence to accuse bin Laden on 9-11.
If one was dying of kidney failure, I don't think they'd bother with attacks in America. French intelligence said a CIA visited bin Laden at a Dubai hospital 2 months before 9-11.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/no … .terrorism
Read more here:
http://www.infowars.com/top-doctor-conf … -syndrome/
We the USA are responsible for the attacks on 911. We planted the seed of unrest by awarding other peoples land to form Israel and we continue to back without question what Israel wants. What I don't understand is how the Palestinians could even agree to any negotitions implemented by the USA knowing how they were robbed by the United Nations of their land spearheaded by the USA in 1947. Truman didn't even like the idea as he signed it on behalf of the US. The general consensus from everybody on the Israeli side to the Palestinians is "get over it!". This will never come to an agreeable resolution until the parties that created this mess make an effort to rectify the unjust action in an unbiased way.
So the next time someone says we (USA) suffered an "unprovoked" attack on 911, think about how you would feel if someone just declared your land somebody elses and the beneficiaries of that broad stroke of the pen bulldozed your house and moved you out to the suburbs with no compensation. Especially if your land had been in the family for centuries.Are you saying that USA is responsible for blow back or that Al Qaeda was not responsible for the attacks? Al Qaeda is in bed with the US and Mossad. Al Qaeda does what they say and the US does what Israel says.
Did you know Israel created Hamas?
Yes. This is such old news that it is ridiculous.
Perhaps the truth is so well concealed that we human beings will never know what caused 9/11 and more specifically who was behind it. If 9/11 tells us anything it tells us that our word is dangerously in the hands of extremists and we need to make many changes if we are ever to be safe. Could I say for certain that it was the work of Al Qaydah. No I couldn't say it was that terrorist group for sure. What I can say thought is that hate for America has long been a part of some Islamist groups and perhaps in the aftermath of 9/11 we need to deal with filtering out extremism from our societies. Some people will agree with me on this and many will carry on being radical. The rest of us live painfully aware of what hate and extremism can do.
The fact that Israelis were caught driving around NYC (ground zero and at the brooklyn bridge) in vans loaded with explosives...is no myth. The fact that larry siverstein's building #7 fell in a free fall is also no myth. In fact, he went on PBS and specifically stated that he gave the order (along with a fire captain_) to "pull" the building (avail on google youtube). Well, ok, why did lary silverstein have enough - carefully concealed - explosives in his building to demolish it? Larry Silverstein has never explained that. And why did larry silverstien have double indemnity clauses on his three leased buildings? Also, where are the plane parts from the pentagon? Where are the plane parts from Shanksville?
It's true we'll never know a lot of things regarding 9-11. But it is now an absolute certainty who pulled it off:: Bush, Cheney, Chernoff, Mossad.I believe it is time for you to wake up. America has caused a lot of suffering around the world and that is why it is hated by many. As a society, we need to expose who really is responsible for such atrocious acts such as 9-11 and that is partly due to our world leaders. There are shadow governments but that's a different story.
We need to remember that Al Qaeda is a creation of the United States. They used those terrorists to advance themselves in Afghanistan in the 70s. America is supporting the Syrian rebels who are comprised of Al Qaeda and other terrorists.
@Claire I'm responding to the post in the other forum.
1. I don't think the hijackers were worried about leaving anything behind, they were going to die.
2. Im sure they were in a high state of distress so a checklist wouldn't have been a stupid idea.
3. yes people who go to the airport generally have passports.
4. The plane was in fact not shot down it crashed near shanksville due to passenger revolt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93You can't really believe number 1 and 2? Did Mohammed Atta also need to pack a document called, "How to be a terrorist in the US"?
In the rental car of the Flight 11 hijackers is a manual on how to fly a plane.
You'd think they'd now how to fly a plane by the time they hijacked the planes on 9-11.
You miss my point about the passports. One of the passports was on the plane, it survived the fireball when the plane hit the towers and fell during the implosion and got buried in the pyroclastic dust and then the FBI found it.
That's just laughable.
Flight 93 was shot down. That was verified by Donald Rumsfeld.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNuosBnl … re=related
There is no cockpit recording of any sort of struggle and there is no plane nor bodies at the Pennsylvania crash site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsS-xpyqi1w
6) One of the accused (Mohammed Atta) packs a suitcase (in case he wants to visit relatives for a few days after the attack) with a "how to be a terrorist in the US" document (just part of the professionalism, mentioned above) that just happens not to be loaded on the plane (so that the incriminating document survives,.. what a surprise!).1. Pointing and laughing is not a counter argument.
2. Most people know how to drive when buying a car yet manuals come with them.
3.No, I didn't miss your point about the passports.The plane did not hit the towers it crashed in shanksville,PA.
4. No, flight 93 had crashed due to passenger revolt I already gave you the link about that.
5. Suitcases tend to be missplaced, stolen, or lost. It happens.
Terrorism is about making a statement otherwise they wouldnt be worried about covering every little detail, especially after Osama coming out and taking responsibility for the attacks.IAm, honestly, some people just don't respond well to facts. Claire appears to be one of them. You'll beat your head into the wall trying to show her the error of her ways - but it won't have an effect on her.
There are people who live in the world of conspiracy - it lends some sort of value to their lives. They thrive on it. Heaven forbid you shine a light on their mistakes.
I'd give it up if I were you. I took a look at her "sources." Grainy/cut/edited videos, questionable "hit" sites and complete conjecture. Her evidence won't get any better than this. She's put her best stuff out there.
You know she's wrong. I know she's wrong. But, she will fight tooth and nail against common sense.Lol my brother told me the same thing but I am new at this so I figure it to be good practice.
You didn't answer this:
Before 9/11, it has always been standard operating procedure (SOP) for the Federal Aviation Administration, in cooperation with NORAD, to scramble jet fighters whenever an aircraft wanders off course or loses radio contact with air traffic controllers. In fact, it has been estimated that between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times. In the year 2000, fighter jets were scrambled 129 times. So how did it happen that on 9/11 that not a single fighter jet engaged four commercial jets over a 90-minute period? How was it possible that the Pentagon, the headquarters of the biggest national military in the world, was hit a full 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation’s capital? Why has there been no disciplinary action for this appalling case of negligence?The protocols in place on September 11th for both the FAA and NORAD to respond to a hijacking presumed several things:
1.The hijacked aircraft would be readily identifiable and would not attempt to disappear;
2.There would be time to address the problem through the appropriate FAA and NORAD chains of command;
3.Hijacking would take the tradition form, which is, it would not be a suicide hijacking designed to convert the aircraft into a guided missile.
The FAA and other air traffic control centers alerted NEADS (the Northeast Air Defense Sector, a part of NORAD) of the four hijackings, though with little or no advance notice for NEADS or NORAD to mount a response:
They had a maximum 9 minutes advanced notice of the first jacking of American Airlines Flight 11
They were notified about United Airlines Flight 175 at 9:03 AM, the same time that it crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center
They had four minutes advance notice of American Airlines Flight 77
They were notified about United Airlines Flight 93 at 10:07 AM, after it had already crashed. It is a long process for it to get to NORAD.
The hijackers had turned the transponders in 3 of the 4 planes off making it much more difficult to locate. And scrambling jets is a longer process than you think. Not sure about the andrews air force base. and as for the pentagon, The people in the radar room had assumed it to be a fighter jet due to the maneuverability of the plane, they had then asked a hercules in the air to confirm, in the haze he had picked out a silver fuselage confirming it to be from american airlines boeing 757 or 767 by that time the plane had crashed.The first sign of trouble was at 08:13 am when the pilot wouldn't respond. At 08:40 am only did the FAA inform NORAD that the plane was hijacked. A controller heard a voice from the cockpit at 08:24 am that said: "We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you will be OK. We are returning to the airport. Nobody move."
Pilots who realize their planes are being hijacked are required to punch in a 4 digit code that warns the ground that the planes had been hijacked. It was never used.
I cannot believe that the FAA and NORAD could be this incompetent especially since after the first plane hit. To not intercept the second plane is mind-boggling.
The capabilities of NORAD is as follows:
"The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is a United States and Canada bi-national organization charged with the missions of aerospace warning and aerospace control for North America. Aerospace warning includes the monitoring of man-made objects in space, and the detection, validation, and warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles, through mutual support arrangements with other commands."
Objects from space? Attacks by space vehicles? But Flight 11 and others was too hard?
Altogether, NORAD planes didn't intercept any plane after 1 and a half hours between Flight 11 hijacking and the crash into the Pentagon.
Note the reaction time of NORAD in this example:
"MINA, S.D., Oct. 25—A Learjet carrying professional golfer Payne Stewart and at least four others streaked uncontrolled for thousands of miles across the heart of the country today, its occupants apparently unconscious or already dead, before it plunged nose first and crashed in a field near this north-central South Dakota hamlet.
No one on the ground was hurt and there were no survivors aboard the aircraft, which came down in a marshy area about two miles southwest of here.
The cause of the uncontrolled flight and crash after the Learjet 35 apparently ran out of fuel were not known, but aviation experts speculated that the aircraft may have lost pressurization and that emergency backup systems failed as the plane's autopilot kept it in the air. Loss of pressurization above 30,000 feet would cause occupants of the aircraft to lose consciousness from oxygen deficiency in one to two minutes, the experts said.
During some of its eerie, almost four-hour journey from Orlando to a swampy grassland in South Dakota, the Learjet was shadowed by Air Force and Air National Guard jet fighters, whose pilots reported that the aircraft's windows were frosted over, suggesting that it had lost pressurization. The Air Force pilots also reported that the Learjet meandered from as low as 22,000 feet to as high as 51,000 feet, but never strayed from a northwest heading.
The military aircraft were not armed with air-to-air missiles, and Pentagon officials said they never considered shooting down the Learjet.
"The [Federal Aviation Administration] said this thing was headed to a sparsely populated part of the country, so let it go," a senior defense official said.
According to the FAA, the plane left Orlando, where Stewart lived, at 9:19 a.m. Eastern time today and was bound for Dallas. Stewart, a two-time U.S. Open champion, was scheduled to play later this week in the PGA Championship in Houston, the tour's final event of the year.
The FAA said air traffic controllers lost radio contact with the plane at 9:44 a.m., just after they had cleared the twin-engine jet to climb to 39,000 feet northwest of Gainesville, Fla. An FAA spokesman said that air traffic controllers noted "significant changes in altitude" by the plane, but that the aircraft's crew did not respond to repeated radio calls from the ground.
Pentagon officials said the military began its pursuit of the ghostly civilian aircraft at 10:08 a.m., when two Air Force F-16 fighters from Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida that were on a routine training mission were asked by the FAA to intercept it. The F-16s did not reach the Learjet, but an Air Force F-15 fighter from Eglin Air Force Base in Florida that also was asked to locate it got within sight of the aircraft and stayed with it from 11:09 a.m. to 11:44 a.m., when the military fighter was diverted to St. Louis for fuel.
Fifteen minutes later, four Air National Guard F-16s and a KC-135 tanker from Tulsa were ordered to try to catch up with the Learjet but got only within 100 miles. But two other Air National Guard F-16s from Fargo, N.D., intercepted the Learjet at 12:54 p.m, reporting that the aircraft's windows were fogged with ice and that no flight control movement could be seen. At 1:14 p.m., the F-16s reported that the Learjet was beginning to spiral toward the ground."
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/inde … opic=19634
But it takes one and a half hours on 9-11 for an jets to be scrambled by NORAD.
In fact, this who NORAD/FAA business on 9-11 is such a bundle of lies that even those involved in the 9-11 Commissions reports were suspicious:
ome staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.
In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.
"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
Although the commission's landmark report made it clear that the Defense Department's early versions of events on the day of the attacks were inaccurate, the revelation that it considered criminal referrals reveals how skeptically those reports were viewed by the panel and provides a glimpse of the tension between it and the Bush administration.
A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday that the inspector general's office will soon release a report addressing whether testimony delivered to the commission was "knowingly false." A separate report, delivered secretly to Congress in May 2005, blamed inaccuracies in part on problems with the way the Defense Department kept its records, according to a summary released yesterday.
For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.
In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.
Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold and Col. Alan Scott told the commission that NORAD had begun tracking United 93 at 9:16 a.m., but the commission determined that the airliner was not hijacked until 12 minutes later. The military was not aware of the flight until after it had crashed in Pennsylvania.
These and other discrepancies did not become clear until the commission, forced to use subpoenas, obtained audiotapes from the FAA and NORAD, officials said. The agencies' reluctance to release the tapes -- along with e-mails, erroneous public statements and other evidence -- led some of the panel's staff members and commissioners to believe that authorities sought to mislead the commission and the public about what happened on Sept. 11.
"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01300.html
And the FAA shredded tapes of 9-11 air traffic controllers statements:
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/article … idence.htm
Why? The whole official story of 9-11 is one monumental lie.You have completely disregarded everything I said in the past response.
On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked—the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.
Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol … ws/1227842What don't you understand about what I just posted? Yes, this is the official bogus they told the public because even those on the 9-11 Commission panel was suspicious of this. So NORAD was still looking for outward threats when the hijackers clearly were in the USA? So they had no idea what the planes were doing for one hour? The planes were crossing over some of the most militarized parts of the country.
Why did no computer network alert NORAD of missing planes? This is so incredibly ridiculous. NORAD can detect threats from space vehicles but commercial planes were too tough for them? What a bias source the public officer of NORAD is!
As for the confusion about radar:
"New radar evidence obtained by CBS News strongly suggests that the hijacked jetliner which crashed into the Pentagon hit its intended target.
Top government officials have suggested that American Airlines Flight 77 was originally headed for the White House and possibly circled the Capitol building. CBS News Transportation Correspondent Bob Orr reports that's not what the recorded flight path shows.
Eight minutes before the crash, at 9:30 a.m. EDT, radar tracked the plane as it closed to within 30 miles of Washington. Sources say the hijacked jet continued east at a high speed toward the city, but flew several miles south of the restricted airspace around the White House."
So the radar clearly picked up the hijacked planes and knew its exact projected path. They clearly were looking inward and not outside the continent.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/ … 0721.shtml
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911stand.html
What facts have been provided? I haven't received any! You need to tell which of my sources are not credible.
What evidence have you provided that proves Al Qaeda was responsible?
1.)I'm sorry, but the story is just so ridiculous that I cannot help laugh. I'm not laughing at you.
2.) Manuals come with cars showing you where the various things are like which side the indicators on, e.g. They don't tell you how to drive a car like how to use the breaks, the functions of indicators, how to use the steering wheel, how to parallel park, etc. These hijackers were supposed to have been trained for quite a while although they were quite bad at flying.
3.) I'm sorry, I assumed you knew which flight I was talking about because the manual was found in the rental car of the FLIGHT 11 hijackers. So the passport was "found" at the twin towers or whatever was left of it. No passport would have been found at the Shanksville crash site because there was nothing to be found. No bodies, no plane, no nothing.
4.) And what did you link prove? Nothing? So what was Rumsfeld going on about when he said the plane was shot down? Are you just believing everything you read?
5.) The point is? Osama bin Laden made no such admission to attacking 9-11. The FBI concedes that. Did you know that on the FBI's most wanted list, bin Laden was never wanted for 9-11?
You can see it here:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden
When asked about this, the FBI said it was because there was no hard evidence against bin Laden.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/fbi-says-n … n-to-9-11/These hijackers were not expertly trained, all they needed to do was turn a plane around fly it through the air then aim at a building however they are still human like the rest of us and prone to mistake. As far as the passports, im not sure I could give you an expert explenation, my best guess is that when the plane crashed into the North tower that small debris was propelled through the building before the flames could engulf and destroy it.
Why is it that my links prove nothing yet yours do? Also that is true they didn't have enough to prosecute for 9/11, however in 2004 a video was released where he admitted to 9/11 and why.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_bin_Laden_video
Oh and no I don't believe everything I read, I don't believe you.Actually, it takes quite a bit of training to fly a plane. In fact, the Pentagon sources suggest that 5 of the hijackers were trained in Florida at US military bases.
"THREE OF THE alleged hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla. known as the Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation, according to a high-ranking U.S. Navy source."
However,
"But there are slight discrepancies between the military training records and the official FBI list of suspected hijackers either in the spellings of their names or with their birthdates. One military source said it is possible that the hijackers may have stolen the identities of the foreign nationals who studied at the U.S. installations.
http://prisonplanet.com/alleged_hijacke … bases.html
Either way, among the hijackers were Saudi Arabia Force pilots therefore they were sufficiently trained.
You cannot tell me that your explanation on how the passport was found is credible in the slightest. Do you know how many tons of debris the towers left behind? And a passport somehow got found among the rubble? Why can't you be reasonable?
And admission is all that is needed for the FBI to make him wanted for 9-11. In fact, the Taliban said to the US, "Give us evidence bin Laden is involved and we will give him to you." None was presented.
See how easy it is to fake these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUiNiB2yVCQ
One must ask oneself why Bin Laden denied 9-11 days after the fact yet comes out and says he is responsible. He hardly looks as if he is dying in those confession videos.
As I mentioned, bin Laden had Marfan Syndrome:
"There are literally thousands of news sources that have documented 9 different instances in which Osama bin Laden was said to have died, but the most reliable story came from former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and Council on Foreign Relations member, Dr. Steve R. Pieczenik. In an April 2002 interview with Alex Jones, Pieczenik said, “I worked with Osama bin Laden in ’78, ’81, and ‘79 when he was in Afghanistan…. And so we have a blowback with Osama. But what made it more difficult was, I found out through my sources that he had had kidney disease. And as a physician, I knew that he had to have two dialysis machines and he was dying. And you could see in those films, those made-up photos that they were sending us out of nowhere. I mean, suddenly, we would see a video of bin Laden today and then out of nowhere, they said oh it was sent to us anonymously, meaning that someone in the government, our government, was trying to keep up the morale on our side and say oh we still have to chase this guy when, in fact, he’s been dead for months…. I mean the whole thing was a, I mean it was such a hoax. I mean I said you would have to be, you know, blind and stupid to not realize that this is really being manipulating in trying to manipulate us…. And I think that Musharraf, the President of Pakistan, spilled the beans by accident three months ago when he said that bin Laden was dead because his kidney dialysis machines were destroyed in East Afghanistan”.
In the 2004 confession tape, bin Laden had no problem moving his arm despite him in actuality him not being able to move his left arm properly due to his Marfan Syndrome.
Have a look and tell me which you think the odd one out is in the stills of the various bin Laden tapes on this website:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/socio … aden01.htm
The reason why your links are not reliable is because it just states things without providing any evidence.
Is there any link of mine you don't think holds any merit?In "No Easy Day," the SEALS took DNA samples from the body and those samples matched those on file for bin Laden.
What would really be the point in faking the death of a dead man? A decade after he supposedly died?Is that so? Why does the Pentagon has no record of it?
"Citing the law, The Associated Press asked for files about the raid in more than 20 separate requests, mostly submitted the day after bin Laden's death. The Pentagon told the AP this month it could not locate any photographs or video taken during the raid or showing bin Laden's body. It also said it could not find any images of bin Laden's body on the Navy aircraft carrier where the al-Qaida leader's body was taken.
The Pentagon said it could not find any death certificate, autopsy report or results of DNA identification tests for bin Laden, or any pre-raid materials discussing how the government planned to dispose of bin Laden's body if he were killed. It said it searched files at the Pentagon, US Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., and the Navy command in San Diego that controls the USS Carl Vinson, the aircraft carrier used in the mission.
The Defense Department told the AP in late February it could not find any emails about the bin Laden mission or his "Geronimo" code name that were sent or received in the year before the raid by William McRaven, the three-star admiral at the Joint Special Operations Command who organized and oversaw the mission. It also could not find any emails from other senior officers who would have been involved in the mission's planning. It found only three such emails written by or sent to then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and these consisted of 12 pages sent to Gates summarizing news reports after the raid."
http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/5061
Why would they fake the death of Bin Laden? To perpetuate the War on Terror, of course. People wanted justice for 9-11 so they would support a man-hunt for Bin Laden even it is meant bombing innocent countries. It also made Obama look like a hero which is convenient since his approval ratings dropped. Bush's approval rating jumped exponentially after 9-11 and I'm sure the Bin Laden "confession video" in 2004 days before the US election secured Bush a second term.
Yes, I understand alot of training goes into learning to fly a plane. But thats from take off to landing and everything in between. Like I said hijackers weren't professional pilots.
I didn't explain how they found the passport actually, I explained how they could have survived the crash. Why can't you be reasonable?
The 2004 could mean that he didn't really have marfan syndrome. And why dont you check the sources on my links, following your logic the same reason my links aren't credible is the reason your links aren't credible.Two of the Saudi hijackers were professional pilots reportedly. Yes, they were supposedly terrible pilots but they still had to learn to take off and land and use the controls. There's another theory: they didn't have any flight training at all and the planes were guided into the towers by remote control.
Going back to the "training manual" business, etc, I came across a quote from FBI director Robert Mueller:
"The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind. They used hundreds of different pay phones and cell phones, often with prepaid calling cards that are extremely difficult to trace. And they made sure that all the money sent to them to fund their attacks was wired in small amounts to avoid detection."
Originally stated on this site:
www.fbi.gov/pressrel/speeches/speech041902.htm
...but the page has been removed. What a surprise.
5 of the hijackers are still alive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm
In order for you to believe that passport was preserved, it had to be found and how could it be found among ton of debris not damaged?
You need to read my links. It is a fact he has Marfan Syndrome and that is a life-long thing. You don't recover from it. You don't suddenly have paralysis and then recover.
“He is Marfanoid,” says Dr. Richard Devereux, a clinician who treats patients with the illness at the Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York. “He seems to have long fingers and long arms. His head appears to be elongated and his face narrow … It’s certainly conceivable that he has the Marfan syndrome and could be evaluated for it.”
Can you not see the difference in appearances in the various shots of bin Laden? He is plumper in some and in one has a jet black beard.
Anyway, I found a video of Bin Laden denying involvement in 9-11:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxmUFG9wOOQ
On Al Jezeera of all places. The video was soon pulled down and replaced by the same video of Bin Laden with the subtitles changed claiming he said he was involved.
Here is why I believe your Wikipedia source is unreliable.
1.) The plane was shot down according to Donald Rumsfeld.
2.) There was no evidence of a plane crash let alone any sign of a black box at the crash scene.
3.) Cellphones didn't work in planes back in 2001.
"The husband of a flight attendant on one of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 has, during an interview, revealed his astonishment at receiving a cell phone call from his wife that morning. The reason for his surprise: "because cell phones don't work on a plane."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBjgV1pl … r_embedded
To investigate this matter, scientist A. K. Dewdney conducted a series of experiments using mobile phones from a small propeller aircraft, over the city of London, Ontario in Canada. (He noted that, "not only is the cell phone technological base in Canada identical to its U.S. counterpart, but Canadian communication technology is second to none, Canada being a world leader in research and development." [4]) Dewdney found:
[C]ell phone calls from commercial aircraft much over 8,000 feet are essentially impossible, while those below 8,000 feet are highly unlikely down to about 2,000, where they become merely unlikely. Moreover, even at the latter altitude (and below), the handoff problem appears. Any airliner at or below this altitude, flying at the normal speed of approximately 500 mph, would encounter the handoff problem. An aircraft traveling at this speed would not be over the cell site long enough to complete the electronic "handshake" (which takes several seconds to complete) before arriving over the next cell site, when the call has to be handed off from the first cell site to the next one. This also takes a few seconds, the result being, in the optimal case, a series of broken transmissions that must end, sooner or later, in failure. [5]
http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2008/ … -cell.html
I think at the most, the cellphone reception would have been intolerable. I don't think a single word would have been word because of the poor reception.
Then how are God's green earth did they contact their loved ones? The voices appeared to be the same as the victims. Were they coerced? The passengers may not have been in planes at all but on the ground.
Here is a call from CeeCee Lyles, one of the airhostesses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6LPSRGwkoA
At the end of the call, a voice is heard saying, "This is great."
Why can't you accept you have been lied to? If the FBI lied about details of 9-11, then why should we believe what they say?
I'll get back to the Norad comment.I've made cell calls for over a decade during flights as long as the plane wasn't over the ocean.
The BBC site that says some of the hijackers were alive was published two days after the attacks. The FBI admitted that the identities were in doubt at that time.
Air traffic controllers recorded the voices of the hijackers in some cases - meaning "something" was going down on those planes. Otherwise, the pilots could have easily overridden any "remote" control.
The idea that the passengers were coerced to make calls from the ground is ludicrous. That suggests they were taken somewhere and then slaughtered. Yet, DNA from passengers was found at both the Pentagon and in PA.
Maybe Osama was or was not ill, but there is such a thing as "misdiagnosis," at any rate.
The problem with all these conspiracies is that they don't hold up under a microscope.You are not allowed to use cellphones on a plane.
There was a list of who was responsible allegedly in one of the hijackers luggage. It's possible that there identities were stolen, I'll admit.
Why has the FBI never revised the list of hijackers? Why has the FBI refused to release the original passenger lists?
http://newcrisispapers.com/noevidence.pdf
I'm just wondering if those recordings are genuine because American and United Airlines refuse to show the authenticated passenger list of the planes hijacked on 9-11. Then we have adding and deleting of passenger names:
On September 14, 2001, the name of Mosear Caned (ph) was released by CNN as one of the suspected hijackers on "a list of names (...) that is supposed to be officially released by justice sometime later today".[5] His name disappeared a few hours later from the list of suspects and replaced with that of Hani Hanjour when CNN posted a new list of suspects released by the FBI[6] . It was never explained why Caned's name had appeared in the first place, who this person was and why it was then replaced by the name of Hani Hanjour.[7]
According to CNN of September 14, 2001, "[f]ederal sources initially identified [Adnan] Bukhari and Ameer Bukhari as possible hijackers who boarded one of the planes that originated in Boston." (emphasis added). Yet, a few hours later, CNN issued the following correction: "Based on information from multiple law enforcement sources, CNN reported that Adnan Bukhari and Ameer Bukhari of Vero Beach Florida, were suspected to be two of the pilots who crashed planes into the World Trade Center. CNN later learned that Adnan Bukhari is still in Florida, where he was questioned by the FBI...Ameer Bukhari died in a small plane crash" on September 11, 2000 (emphasis added). These names disappeared from later published but unauthenticated passenger lists and replaced by new names. The fact that law enforcement sources said these two individuals had "boarded" one of the planes that originated in Boston and "suspected" them to have been pilots who had crashed planes into the World Trade Center, indicates that their names had been gleaned from the original version of the passenger lists.
Now really...why would the FBI release a passenger list that is false without a thorough investigation?
There has been one at least one Westerner passenger who name was on one of the passengers list who has turned out to be alive:
"On 12 September 2001, various newspapers published partial passenger lists of the crashed flights. These reports included the names of Jude Larsson, 31, and his wife, Natalie, 24, as passengers aboard flight AA11.[12] As example thereof, here is an excerpt from a news report published by the Honolulu Star Bulletin on September 12, 2001:
"Also among the confirmed dead was Jude Larson, the 31-year old son of Maui artist Curtis Larson, who was aboard American's hijacked Flight 11. Jude Larson and his wife Natalie were en route to the University of California at Los Angeles, where he was attending college...Larson's wife Natalie, whose family lives in Boston, was a rising fashion model and had been to Italy four times in the last 18 months to work for Gucci."[13]
Yet on September 18, 2001, the Honolulu Star Bulletin reported that the newspaper had received an email from Jude, notifying that he and his wife were alive.[14]According to the paper, "a person claiming to be with the airlines" had called Jude's father and told him that his son and daughter-in-law had been passengers on flight AA11.[15] The Honolulu Advertiser of September 20, 2001, which published a detailed report on this apparent hoax, wrote that Curtis Larson, a "sculptor and jewelry maker" now claims he had been duped. But it was Larson, who initially told reporters, that "his son was in medical school at UCLA, that his daughter-in-law was pregnant and that the couple had visited her family in Boston." According to Jude, his real name was not Larson but Olsen. He also said he is 30, not 31, years old, that he does not study in Los Angeles but works as a landscaper in Olympia, Washington and that his wife is not pregnant.[16] The names of Jude and Natalie Larson then disappeared from publicized passenger lists. Such a mistake would be unthinkable, had media reports been based on authentic passenger lists. This in turn raises the question – not pursued in the present study – how it was possible for a prestigious news agency and for mainstream newspapers to publish the names of victims of an aircraft crash without first checking with the airlines and the police.
Still stranger is the fact, that the names and photographs of Jude and Natalie Larson, not anymore officially listed as flight AA11 victims, were still listed in 2011 on the National Obituary Archive list of those who died on 9/11. "
Something fishy?
The theory is that the remote control was operated from the ground by someone not on the plane.
Don't just say DNA from passengers were found. You think this is fact because you were told this. Prove this. Give me an argument this is true. There were no bodies at the Shanksville site.
Nope, doctors have confirmed it. He have Marfan Syndrome and was in hospital months before 9-11 for kidney failure.
You argument is extremely poor. You've proven nothing.A similar argument could be used to decimate all of your "facts," unless you are claiming firsthand experience.
What do you dispute the information I've posted?
I can't dispute your claims, Claire, nor can anyone. You've made it quite plain that you believe whatever you want.
You are a True Believer:
"No amount of evidence, no matter how good it is or how much there is of it, is ever going to convince the True Believer to the contrary."
(I think this quote originates with James Randi; I'm not sure.)
Anyway, as you've demonstrated many times, it is pointless to argue with a True Believer.
You wrote to HowardBThiname, "You think this is fact because you were told this," when the same is equally true of you.
I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy.That's rich. Iamanatheist believes what she wants even when the facts/logic dispute what she says. For heaven's sake, why would I want to believe 9-11 is an inside job? I just go where the evidence leads me. Come on, have a debate with me. Let's see if you can refute my arguments.
No, actually I do my research considering both sides of the story. I will not believe the US government when they have been caught on in countless lies. Would you trust a repeat liar?I don't automatically accept or reject any factual claim based on its source. I evaluate all claims based on merit only.
As far as having a debate with you, I've tried that before, and you feigned offense and indignation to avoid facing a real argument. Oh, and you also played your "Holy Spirit" trump card.
I'm not willing to subject myself to that level of intellectual dishonesty again, especially since debate is more than just dueling citations.
I would consent to a debate with you only if I had reassurances that it would proceed in a purely empirical-rational fashion (i.e., no histrionics, no citation wars, and no invocation of the Holy Spirit).The Holy Spirit has nothing to do with debating about 9-11. This is not a religious topic.
If you don't want to debate, fine. I'm not going to force you. Think what you like.So, now you are backing out using the deliberate misreading tactic. Typical.
LMAO! Chasuk, you just said that you weren't willing to subject yourself to such level of intellectual dishonesty. So what am I to say? Beg you to debate with me?
I have a crystal ball and it says that he I debate with you, you will accuse me of being illogical and intellectually dishonest. You wrote:
"I can't dispute your claims, Claire, nor can anyone. You've made it quite plain that you believe whatever you want.
You are a True Believer:
"No amount of evidence, no matter how good it is or how much there is of it, is ever going to convince the True Believer to the contrary."
(I think this quote originates with James Randi; I'm not sure.)
Anyway, as you've demonstrated many times, it is pointless to argue with a True Believer. "
Therefore you think it's futile to debate with me.You omit this part:
"I would consent to a debate with you only if I had reassurances that it would proceed in a purely empirical-rational fashion (i.e., no histrionics, no citation wars, and no invocation of the Holy Spirit)."
You've already said that the Holy Spirit is irrelevant to this topic.
Make the rest of the commitment, and I'll be happy to debate you.Do you think I'm capable of a debate without you telling me I'm illogical and intellectually dishonest? Don't you know me by now? If you say I'm logical and intellectually dishonest, then the debate is terminated.
You can start by refuting the points I gave Iamanatheist.
Not good when you generalize "these conspiracies."
One "voice recording" from a passenger had a man saying to his mother his first and last name and then asking if his mother believed him. What a lousy script.I thought that was really strange too. I couldn't imagine introducing myself to my mother with my full name. It seemed as if it was deliberately said to "authenticate" the passenger Mark Bingham.
How many questions are you going to ask me about his passport? I dont know how do you find things, Claire? WOW, you dont like my links because they disagree with you? Yeah thats why I posted them, because we are in a debate? that video you posted could be fake? Oh and here this is about the cell phone dillema http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at … de.htmlWhy cant you except that maybe you have been lied too?
You find things when it is actually possible. Isn't your common sense screaming at you that finding the passport intact, legible too, under tons of rubbles and pyroclastic dust is impossible? Or at least 1 in a few billion chances?
I don't like your link because it doesn't agree with the facts. It has nothing to do with my opinion. I'll address your link you have just posted:
When it comes to land and air, the capabilities of a cell phone don’t change. But what makes it possible to use a handheld while in a plane 10,000 feet in the air, and why should it work there when it doesn’t work in your own neighborhood?
"It all depends on where the phone is, says Marco Thompson, president of the San Diego Telecom Council. “Cell phones are not designed to work on a plane. Although they do.” The rough rule is that when the plane is slow and over a city, the phone will work up to 10,000 feet or so. “Also, it depends on how fast the plane is moving and its proximity to antennas,” Thompson says. “At 30,000 feet, it may work momentarily while near a cell site, but it’s chancy and the connection won’t last.” Also, the hand-off process from cell site to cell site is more difficult. It is created for a maximum speed of 60 mph to 100 mph. “They are not built for 400 mph airplanes.”
http://www.sandiegometro.com/2001/oct/s … html"
The plane never dropped below 29 000 feet. At the times that the first cellphone calls were made on Flight 93, the plane was cruising at 34 300 feet. That is above 30 000. According to the information above, at 30 000 feet, the connection, although unlikely made, would be choppy and cut off all the time. The cellphone exchange between the victims and family was crystal clear and went on for several minutes in some cases.
Well, first of all Al Jezeera is owned by Qatar and that country is an ally of the United States. It would seem fitting that after that Bin Laden denial tape, that it would be pulled off and replaced with subtitles that claim that he says he was responsible.
A similar thing happened with the BBC. BBC aired a footage of the Syrian rebels forcing people to become suicide bombers. It was quickly removed from the BBC website.
So we can deduce that there is no way you could say for a fact that Bin Laden confessed to 9-11. My case is stronger in that it is definite that it is Bin Laden in that video. The 2004 one shows a healthy Bin Laden when he was supposed to be dying.
What beliefs of yours have been debunked?
1.) A struggle between the passengers.
2.) The cellphone calls
3.) The luggage that had training manuals, etc because FBI director Robert Mueller said there was no paper trail.
I am assuming you believe 3 is your belief or else you would concede you had been lied to. We have been lied to about Bin Laden's supposed death in 2011 and we were lied to about there being weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Why would anyone want to believe the US government is complicit in 9-11 anyway?Yes, you do find things when its possible.
You don't like my links because it disagrees with what you think to be fact,it apparently has everything to do with your opinion.
No, there is nothing to deduce. No, your case isn't stronger. You havent given anything but bias sources and links that claims this.
Also you havent debunked anything
1 and 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93
and 3 was your assertion, not mine, so you "debunked" yourself on that oneDon't talk nonsense. It is not my opinion that Robert Mueller, FBI director, said there was no paper trial leading to the alleged hijackers. That's fact. It's fact that if a cellphone connection could be made at 30 000 feet, it would be inaudible and the connection would drop within seconds.
You know your links prove absolutely nothing because they are illogical. Name one of my bias sources. If my sources are biased then yours is, too.
Is it your belief that there was a struggle with the passengers and the hijackers? Do you believe cellphones calls can be made with clarity on planes and do you believe that the hijackers left training manuals in their rental car?
If you answer no, then I have proven my argument to be true. It means you agree with me. If the US government didn't lie about a thing, then you would believe the latter if you trust them. If they lie about one thing, what else are they lying about? Why lie at all?I'm not the one talking nonsense, you apparently dont read what I send you.
You were the one who said they had left a paper trail. I have given you multiple links stating that phones calls were made and a link on how it was possible.
I answer yes, because you haven't proved anything. My links are perfectly logical, either you don't understand logic or your own bias is getting in the way of you having an intellectually honest debate.It's logical to not believe the official story of 9-11 when the government, the FBI, NORAD, etc, have been busted in countless lies.
I gave you an explanation why phone calls from cellphones could not have been made in the case of 9-11 because at 30 000 feet, the connection drops at best and is intelligible. You cannot have a 2 minute conversation with someone with clear reception. Even your link agrees with that.
Is it not your belief that training manuals, etc, were left at the airports by the hijackers according to what we are told by the government? Yes or no? If you believe it is yes then that belief is wrong because the FBI says there is no paper trail.
If someone tried to tell you a story contradicting themselves dozens of times, would you believe them? Would you say what they said is fact? Or would you try and do your own investigation to see what the truth really is?Actually that in itself suggests the very opposite. If the most powerful body in the world preplanned a massive terrorist attack on the country then they would have a conclusive story to give you and it wouldn't change and would meet all the evidence, the fact that the story changed and new thins surfaced rather shows that they were learning new things as they went rather than just following a script.
They could not possibly have a conclusive story to tell anyone. People get caught up in lies all the time. It is not possible that everyone involved in the FAA, NORAD, FBI, Congress, etc, could have none it was an inside job.
You'd think that by the time the 9-11 Commissions Report was completed, they'd have their facts straight. It's an absolute mess. Here are a couple of examples:
The Report states: "The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States -- and using them as guided missiles -- was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11." (The Report repeats the assertion three times.) Yet media reports, such as the USA Today article entitled "NORAD had drills of jets as weapons" describe pre-9/11 NORAD drills involving hijacked jetliners crashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
I got two different sources for the drills:
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sep … ercise.htm
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/was … orad_x.htm
The Report notes that Hani Hanjour's pilot application was rejected, and that he was a "terrible pilot," on the one hand, but asserts that he was "operation's most experienced pilot," and piloted Flight 77 through a 330-degree spiral dive maneuver, on the other.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disin … jour1.html
The Report states: "The protocols did not contemplate an intercept. They assumed the fighter escort would be discreet, 'vectored to a position five miles directly behind the hijacked aircraft,' where it could perform its mission to monitor the aircraft's flight path." Yet the order referenced by the footnote for this statement (Order 7610.4J: Special Military Operations), states:
7-2-1. FACILITY NOTIFICATION
The FAA hijack coordinator will advise the appropriate center/control tower of the identification of the military unit and location tasked to provide the hijack escort. The center/control tower shall coordinate with the designated NORAD SOCC/ROCC/military unit advising of the hijack aircraft's location, direction of flight, altitude, type aircraft and recommended flight plan to intercept the hijack aircraft. The center/control tower shall file the coordinated flight plan. 4
These are just some of the blatant contradictions.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/socio … aden01.htm Bias.
http://prisonplanet.com/alleged_hijacke … bases.html
Bias http://www.propagandamatrix.com/article … idence.htm
Bias
All of your youtube links simply aren't as credible as you think.I just think it's ironic you call these sources biased when wikipedia is not the most credible of sources. You need to look at the links these sites refer to and don't judge the site. This is exactly what you told me about Wikipedia.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/socio … aden01.htm
The pictures don't lie in this one. You can see picture E is not bin Laden whatever site you view this on.
http://prisonplanet.com/alleged_hijacke … bases.html
I'll give another source then:
(By The New York Times), WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 -- Three of the men identified as the hijackers in the attacks on Tuesday have the same names as alumni of American military schools, the authorities said today. The men were identified as Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz al-Omari and Saeed al-Ghamdi.
The Defense Department said Mr. Atta had gone to the International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama; Mr. al-Omari to the Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas; and Mr. al-Ghamdi to the Defense Language Institute at the Presidio in Monterey, Calif.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/16/us/af … s-say.html
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/article … idence.htm
This site quotes the New York Times
WASHINGTON - A tape made hours after the Sept. 11 attacks that recorded statements of air-traffic controllers on Long Island was destroyed and never given to authorities, a federal investigation found yesterday.
The hourlong tape of six controllers who tracked the planes flying toward the World Trade Center was shredded a few months later by a manager at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center in Ronkonkoma.
The above information comes from "The Baltimore Sun".
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2004-0 … ade-center
Which of my youtube videos do you think is not credible?
You never refute anything, ever, all you do in almost every response is post new information you found from bias sites that you think will somehow prove that every single conspiracy theory is true. Thats because you don't understand logic. Your amount of mental gymnastics and logically fallacious argument is unfathamable and takes away any intellectual honesty your esponses are basically asking me how I can believe that and dancing around the argument.
In others words, you are saying, "I don't know how to answer this."
Is the New York Times considered a bias site? Yes or no? You quote from the BBC referred to in one of your links: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/399932.stm
Why is the BBC better than the New York Times?
Logic tells me that cellphones don't work at 30 000, at least not intelligibly. That's an example of my logic. I never made up the Defense Department's claim that lead hijacker, Mohammed Atta, was trained in Alabama.
Answer what?
The source you gave contradicted your argument,
(By The New York Times), WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 -- Three of the men identified as the hijackers in the attacks on Tuesday have the same names as alumni of American military schools, the authorities said today. The men were identified as Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz al-Omari and Saeed al-Ghamdi.
The Defense Department said Mr. Atta had gone to the International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama; Mr. al-Omari to the Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas; and Mr. al-Ghamdi to the Defense Language Institute at the Presidio in Monterey, Calif.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/16/us/af … s-say.html
VERO BEACH, Fla., Sept. 15— The authorities said today that it appeared a case of mistaken identity had led the Federal Bureau of Investigation to search the former home and to interview the friends of a Saudi Arabian pilot whose name is similar to one used by one of the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center.
The search here on Wednesday was widely reported in the news media, including The New York Times, with several accounts reporting that the pilot was a suspected hijacker.
A lawyer with knowledge of the investigation said today that the man, Abdul Rahman Alomari, had returned to Saudi Arabia this month, and that both American and Saudi officials appear to be reasonably convinced that he is not the Abdulaziz al-Omari who was listed by the F.B.I. on Friday as one of the 19 hijackers.
The lawyer, as well as American and Saudi officials, all of whom spoke on the condition that they not be named, said Abdul Rahman Alomari had been interviewed by Saudi and United States authorities in Saudi Arabia in the last two days.
The link you gave eplains that the person suspected to be a hijacker that trained at the same school was an error, and simply had a similar name.You don't even understand the sources you give.
And I never quoted BBC.
That right their, is a perfect example of you not understanding logic. Using logic is having a set of premises all true leads to a factual conclusion. "That's an example of my logic" Logic isn't different per person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
I never disagreed that they trained at airforce bases.I am aware there are conflicting stories. Of course there are. That is why I'm skeptical of the whole story. First it's training manuals and lists of hijackers in the luggage of one of the hijackers, then there is no paper trail. The government says they could not have foreseen such as an attack on the WTC and Pentagon but on the same day, NORAD was having a military drill simulating those exact scenarios. I'm showing you how the whole story is a mass of contradictions. There are contradictions because it's hard to lie. Not all liars are on the same page.
You haven't succeeded in doing that.
It's true, you didn't quote the BBC. You provided me with a link that refers to the BBC.
You called that prison planet source biased which I'm assuming you didn't believe the content in it which was about the hijackers being trained at military bases.
That isn't a conflicting story, they are coming out and saying that they had made a mistake.
You where the one implying basically that you are being more logical, I simply explained to you logic.
Yes prisonplanet is bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio_host) he's not an authority on anything. im not saying he is always wrong, however sourcing him alone won't provide you a strong argument.How many mistakes must be in the 9-11 Commissions Report? You'd think by now they'd get their story straight but they don't. What are you thinking is a mistake is actually blatant lies. I know the truth is hard to swallow.
Read my comments again. Prison Planet cited the New York Times. I wouldn't just take that Prison Planet's word for granted. I like corroborating sources.Their you go dancing around again. So you admit you were wrong about that last argument?
PrisonPlanet didn't cite The New York Times, he supposedly quoted the New York Times.
"I know the truth is hard to swallow." is that why you are still debating with me?You don't get it, do you? I don't trust what the mainstream media says or what FBI directors say, etc. I'm showing you the conflict in stories. However, I did take a look at the 9-11 Commissions report that stated the hijackers were trained in the USA. Is this a lie? Probably not because it doesn't look good for the USA to say that the hijackers were trained in the USA.
I will correct myself: His source was the Daily Beast but both Prison Planet and the Daily Beast corroborate the report from the New York Times that the hijackers were trained in the USA.
I could ask the same thing of you. I suppose I can't believe that someone can be so blind. I think both you and I can agree this correspondence is going nowhere. I suggest we terminate it.
You say you don't trust what the mainstream media says yet you cite sources from The New York Times, you say you don't believe what FBI directors say even though you quoted an FBI director earlier in the debate thinking that it debunked one of my beliefs.
"Going back to the "training manual" business, etc, I came across a quote from FBI director Robert Mueller:"
"The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper either here in the U.S. or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, no storage media of any kind. They used hundreds of different pay phones and cell phones, often with prepaid calling cards that are extremely difficult to trace. And they made sure that all the money sent to them to fund their attacks was wired in small amounts to avoid detection."
you have used the FBI in a few of your arguments.
"What beliefs of yours have been debunked?
1.) A struggle between the passengers.
2.) The cellphone calls
3.) The luggage that had training manuals, etc because FBI director Robert Mueller said there was no paper trail."
Classic case of confirmation bias. As long as whatever you read agrees with what you believe, it's a credible source otherwise it isn't so credible like the multiple links from wikipedia I gave you or even yourown link you gave from The New York Times.
"I suppose I can't believe that someone can be so blind." How ironic, I agree.
" I think both you and I can agree this correspondence is going nowhere. I suggest we terminate it." I suppose since we have gotten to the point to where you call your own sources unreliable their isn't much to say.Do you know what "Devil's Advocate" is?
1.) A person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments.
So when I quote someone, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what they are saying. I'm pointing out the contradictions from the people you trust. If you didn't trust them, you wouldn't believe the official story of 9-11.
I base my opinion on what something is likely to be true. For example, is it advantageous for the FBI to say there was no paper trail? No, because it would make it look bad that they identified hijackers within 16 days. It suggests they had foreknowledge. It sounds as if the truth was milked out of them as the FBI director only made this admission way after the "training manual business" nonsense.
Is it advantageous for them to say that there was a training manual and a list of the hijackers as evidence that Al Qaeda was involved? Of course it was. It gave them the excuse to blame Al Qaeda very quickly while the horror of 9-11 was still fresh in the minds of Americans.
We can take more examples trying to figure out what is true and what is not:
"Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists’ identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, “Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the F.B.I. to chase.”
It doesn't make sense then that Bin Laden would deny responsibility for 9-11 if Al Qaeda wanted to lead all evidence to him.
This kind of thing confused the hell out of investigators.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/1 … 008fa_FACT
The 9-11 Commission's Report stated that Hanjour, the pilot who crashed the plane into the Pentagon, was a terrible pilot. What is the truth though?
But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled
270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing fromOn Flight 77: 'Our Plane Is Being Hijacked' (washingtonpost.com) 8/26/11 3:04 PM
Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm,possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious."
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0912-WashPost.pdf
What is the truth? Either Hanjour was actually an incredibly talented pilot or else the 9-11 Commissions Report is lying. When that report was compiled they knew damn well what skill was needed to make such a maneuver. If Hanjour was a terrible pilot, then we must entertain the idea that a missile hit the Pentagon and not a passenger plane.
Think about this:
Two high profile radiation experts concur Pentagon strike involved use of a missile. Also Geiger counter readings right after the attack shows high levels of radiation 12 miles away from Pentagon crash site.
"A radiation expert and high-ranking Army Major, who once headed the military's depleted uranium project, both contend the Pentagon was hit by missile, not a commercial jetliner, adding high radiation readings after the strike indicate depleted uranium also may have been used.
"I'm not an explosives or crash site expert, but I am highly knowledgeable in causes and effects related to nuclear radiation contamination. What happened at the Pentagon is highly suspicious, leading me to believe a missile with a depleted uranium warhead may have been used," said radiation expert Leuren Moret in a telephone conversation this week from her Berkeley, CA home."
http://rense.com/general67/radfdf.htm
It is a fact that the Pentagon confiscated all footage apparently showing the plane hitting the Pentagon.Lets take this one step at a time. Don't backpeddal, you weren't just pointing out contradictions. Otherwise you wouldn't have said how Robert Mueller's quote had debunked my supposed belief of a paper trail.
As I pointed out how I come to the conclusion on what is probably true or not, I think Mueller is telling the truth on this one. Why? Because the FBI says there is no evidence Bin Laden was responsible. Why would Mueller lie and say there was no paper trail when it would not serve the official 9-11 story? Why would he be in conflict with the US government? That's because the truth inevitably clashes with lies. When people are busted telling lies, they either have to confess the truth or create another lie to back up another lie.
I do not automatically believe someone just because they are from the government or FBI. I always go by the yardstick, "Who benefits from lies?" If someone is suspected of lying and it is not advantageous to them, it's most likely the truth.
Therefore what HE says is in conflict with what you believe and that is the official 9-11 story. Therefore if what he says is true, and you obviously think the US government and FBI would not lie else it would indicate an inside job, then he has debunked what you believe.So you do believe Mueller?
"That's because the truth inevitably clashes with lies. When people are busted telling lies, they either have to confess the truth or create another lie to back up another lie." I agree. However it doesn't seem as if you stand by this statement as much as you think do?Yes, I do believe Mueller. I mean, if there was a paper trail why do they have no proof Al Qaeda is involved? What evidence do you have that Al Qaeda was involved? And we can rule out tape confessions and audio tapes because those have been debunked or unproven.
I didn't lie. I just pointed out that everyone seems to contradict one another.So if you believe Mueller then you werent pointing out the contradiction, you are just back peddaling.
And no we can't rule out tapes and confession videos, nothing has been debunked.What? Mueller didn't contradict himself. He said there was no paper trail. His statement contradicts the official story.
Where is your proof that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11? If the FBI doesn't have it, I'm rather sure you don't.You seem to be contradicting yourself, again.
"I don't trust what the mainstream media says or what FBI directors say, etc."
"Yes, I do believe Mueller."I should have said, "I don't trust people just because they are FBI directors and from the mainstream media, etc..."
Someone has to be telling the truth. We can't have no paper trail and then have mountains of evidence leading to Al qaeda because of training manuals, etc.
So let's get back on topic...what proof do you have that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11?First of all, there weren't 19 hijackers as 6 popped up and proved they were alive. The 911 Commissions Report never amended that. It also claimed that Osama bin Laden confessed to 9-11 even though there is a video of Bin Laden denying it. There is even a certified statement from Bin Laden to the Pakistanis in the possession of the CIA.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/05/01 … g-america/
From your wikipedia page:
"Immediately after the attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation started PENTTBOM, the largest criminal inquiry in the history of the United States. At its height, more than half of the FBI's agents worked on the investigation and followed a half-million leads.[251] The FBI concluded that there was "clear and irrefutable" evidence linking al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks.[252] The FBI was quickly able to identify the hijackers, including leader Mohamed Atta, when his luggage was discovered at Boston's Logan Airport. Due to a mix-up, the luggage failed to make it aboard American Airlines Flight 11 as planned. The luggage contained the hijackers' names, assignments and al-Qaeda connections. "It had all these Arab-language (sic) papers that amounted to the Rosetta stone of the investigation", said one FBI agent.[253]"
If there was such irrefutable evidence then why was Bin Laden never wanted for 9-11 and why did FBI director Mueller say there was no paper trail leading to the hijackers.
Are you aware that Bush was good friends with the Bin Ladens?
The Wikipedia page proves nothing.Their were 19 hijackers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_ … 11_attacks
Bin laden conceded to being responsible for 9/11, a tape was released in 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video
I'm not 100% sure why 9/11 wasn't specifically on there, however it did say he was wanted for other terrorist attacks all throught the world.
I can't find it anywhere saying he said that.
No, I don't think that they were friends and how does wikipedia not prove anything?You keep giving me this wikipedia source. It's rubbish. Why do you believe this to be true when so many other things contradict it? Why are all my sources wrong but yours is right?
For heaven's sake, I showed you statement from Osama bin Laden in the possession of the CIA and the Bin Laden video where he denies being involved. You have just disregarding every source I've given you.
You don't think it is strange that Bin Laden's beard is significantly 100% grey and then in 2007 it doesn't have a speck of grey on it?
As you can see, Osama likes his white sweater and white shirt and white hat.
Read more about why these "confession" videos are fake:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9777136-7.html
You know why Osama bin Laden wasn't wanted for 9-11. They had no proof he was guilty of it! They conceded as much. Why don't you understand this?
And him being wanted for other crimes is completely irrelevant to him being guilty of 9-11 or not.
The Bushes were in business and friends with the Bin Ladens:
"Bush & Bin Laden - George W. Bush Had Ties to Billionaire bin Laden Brood
The unexplained death of Salem, Osama bin Laden's oldest brother, in 1988, brought to an abrupt end a long and intriguing relationship between President Bush and the head of the bin Laden family fortune.
By Roger Miller
The world now associates the bin Laden name with Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect be hind the terror atrocities of Sept. 11. As President George W. Bush leads an intense international manhunt for Osama, few Americans realize that Osama's eldest brother, Salem, was one of Bush's first business partners.
A photograph from 1971 has surfaced and been printed in English papers showing Osama, age 14, and his brother Salem, age 19, enjoying a summer holiday at the Astoria Hotel in Falun, Sweden. Christina Akerblad, the hotel owner, told the Daily Mail, "They were beautiful boys, so elegantly dressed. Everybody loved them."
Osama embraced Islamic fundamentalism and is now the world's most wanted man. "Salem went on to become a business partner of the man who is leading the hunt for his brother," the Daily Mail's Peter Allen said. "In the 1970s, he and George W. Bush were founders of the Arbusto Energy oil company in Mr. Bush's home state of Texas."
President Bush and the bin Laden family have been connected through dubious business deals since 1977, when Salem, the head of the bin Laden family business, one of the biggest construction companies in the world, invested in Bush's start-up oil company, Arbusto Energy, Inc.
James R. Bath, a friend and neighbor, was used to funnel money from Osama bin Laden's brother, Salem bin Laden, to set up George W. Bush in the oil business, according to The Wall Street Journal and other reputable sources.
Through a tangled web of Saudi multi-millionaires, Texas oilmen, and the infamous Bank of Credit and Commerce International, Bush was financially linked with the bin Laden family until Salem met an untimely end in a freak flying accident near San Antonio in 1988."
http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/65Safp.htm
http://rense.com/general14/bushsformer.htm
And you know what else? Bush Snr met with Osama bin Laden's brother on the day of the attacks! Go figure!
"On 11 September, while Al-Qaeda's planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Carlyle Group hosted a conference at a Washington hotel. Among the guests of honour was a valued investor: Shafig bin Laden, brother to Osama."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2 … magazine57
It's interesting the mainstream media reported this. Just to be sure, I checked out another source.
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.js … lyle_group
The Bin Ladens were more business partners than friends I suppose:
January 2000: Former President Bush Meets with Bin Laden Family on Behalf of Carlyle Group
Ex-President Bush Sr. meeting with Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd on behalf of the Carlyle Group in 2000. [Source: Saudi Embassy]
Former President George H. W. Bush meets with the bin Laden family on behalf of the Carlyle Group. He had also met with them in November 1998 (see November 1998), but it is not known if he meets with them again after this. Bush denies this meeting took place until a thank you note is found confirming that it took place. [WALL STREET JOURNAL, 9/27/2001; GUARDIAN, 10/31/2001]
And the Bushes allowed the Bin Laden family to flee the country after 9-11.
"Osama bin Laden was suspect number one on 9/11, yet the U.S. authorities commit yet another inexplicable act: they release all members of the bin Laden family who were residing at the time in the US.
Let’s imagine that a mass murder has been committed in Smalltown, America and the suspect is at large. Where is the first place the investigators will invariably go to search for clues as to either the whereabouts of the killer or his or her motives? Yes, to the immediate families of the suspected killer.
So why did the US authorities let the immediate kin of bin Laden escape on planes out of Dodge?
“Even though American airspace had been shut down,” Sky News reported, “the Bush administration allowed a jet to fly around the US picking up family members from 10 cities, including Los Angeles, Washington DC, Boston and Houston.”
“Two dozen members of Osama bin Laden’s family were urgently evacuated from the United States in the first days following the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington,” CBS reported.
“Most of bin Laden’s relatives were attending high school and college,” the article continued. “Many were terrified, fearing they would be lynched after hearing reports of violence against Muslims and Arab-Americans.”
The skies over America in the days following 9/11 were in lock-down mode yet the entire family of America’s number one enemy is released without due question. Furthermore, not only are these individuals duly released, they are released on commercial jets, the very mode of transport that bin Laden allegedly used to wreak havoc on the northeastern United States.
This is truly amazing, and bears repeating: not a single American citizen could fly after 9/11, yet we give permission to the family of the evil mastermind who allegedly used commercial jets to damage four buildings to escape from the United States on commercial jets! This sort of irrational behavior on the part of the authorities almost makes it look as if the Bush administration knew that Osama bin Laden was not responsible for the attacks so releasing the bin Ladens would not mean much. Or maybe we are missing something here?"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/bin-laden- … 11-attacks
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500609_162-313048.html
You'd think that the US would want to interrogate the Bin Ladens on Osama's whereabouts.
Admit it. The evidence is too great to prove 9-11 was an inside job.Lets stay on topic like you said, the question was wether or not I had proof of Al-Qaeda being responsible of 9/11. Unless you want to debate other topics regarding 9/11? Calling my wikipedia sources rubbush doesn't make them so. Simply because they disagrre with you doesnt make them wrong. And calling them rubbush isn't a counter arguement
Al-Qaeda is responsible.
"On 11 September, while Al-Qaeda's planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Carlyle Group hosted a conference at a Washington hotel. Among the guests of honour was a valued investor: Shafig bin Laden, brother to Osama."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2 … magazine57
"the Bush administration comes under fire after reports reveal it had been warned five weeks before 9/11 about possible al-Qaeda plane hijackings"
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.js … lyle_group
Before you were arguing how Osama Bin Laden wasn't even wanted for 9/11
"You know why Osama bin Laden wasn't wanted for 9-11. They had no proof he was guilty of it! They conceded as much. Why don't you understand this? "
Now youre contradicting yourself for the third time.
"This is truly amazing, and bears repeating: not a single American citizen could fly after 9/11, yet we give permission to the family of the evil mastermind who allegedly used commercial jets to damage four buildings to escape from the United States on commercial jets! This sort of irrational behavior on the part of the authorities almost makes it look as if the Bush administration knew that Osama bin Laden was not responsible for the attacks so releasing the bin Ladens would not mean much. Or maybe we are missing something here?"Just because my sources don't agree with you doesn't make it wrong but it's wrong to you. You don't provide any other source but wikipedia. That's not good enough.
"On 11 September, while Al-Qaeda's planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Carlyle Group hosted a conference at a Washington hotel. Among the guests of honour was a valued investor: Shafig bin Laden, brother to Osama."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2 … magazine57
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.js … lyle_group
Are you just going to ignore the fact that Bush met with Shafig Bin Laden on September 11? That is not strange to you? You must address everything.
Can't you see that there are imposter Bin Ladens in that photo?
"the Bush administration comes under fire after reports reveal it had been warned five weeks before 9/11 about possible al-Qaeda plane hijackings"
There were some FBI that heard and investigated claims that there would be a hijacking, i.e, the official bogus story however the Bush Adminstration forbade them to investigate this. You'd think he'd want the FBI to investigate a known terrorist who would threaten Americans. Unless he had something to hide? Yes, like the fact that the US, Mossad, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia recruited these so-called hijackers
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CAI212A.html
Consider this:
"ISI Director Lieutenant General Mahmood Ahmed, the alleged “money-man” behind the 9-11 hijackers, was already in Washingtonat the time of the 9-11 attacks, having arrived in Washingtonon the 4th. On the morning of September 11, General Ahmad attended a breakfast meeting with three lawmakers, Bob Graham, Porter Goss and John Kyl, the latter being part of the Congressional delegation to Pakistan. Pakistan’s ambassador to theUS, Maleeha Lodhi, was also present along with several members of the Senate and House Intelligence committee, allegedly to talk about Osama bin Laden. This was a follow-up meeting to that one held in Pakistan in late August. There, Senator Bob Graham, Representative Porter Goss and Senator Jon Kyl were on a top level mission in Islamabad. Meetings were held with President Pervez Musharraf as well as General Mahmood Ahmad. It must have been known that the ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) was a supporter of a number of Islamic terrorist organizations."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO308C.html
"According to FBI sources, Mustafa Mohamed Ahmad, a suspected Bin Laden financial operative, transferred money to Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers, in the days running up to the attacks
Furthermore Atta and two of the other hijackers transferred some $15,000 back to an account under the same name just two days before the attacks."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1573090.stm
Of course this article doesn't mention that three Congressman had ties with Ahmed and were meeting him on 9-11 for breakfast.
We also need to clear up what Al Qaeda is. Now when we hear Al Qaeda, we think it is an organized terrorist group. I refer to Al Qaeda as a terrorist group but it is actually people who are are willing to commit terrorism in the name of the US and others.
"Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/0 … evelopment
http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-t … base/24738
Bin Laden had a following of jihadists but it wasn't Al Qaeda. t did not have the power to threaten global security. The BBC aired a documentary proving this and that Al Qaeda doesn't really exist as we know it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … ztfFdpd1Rk
Ah, he wasn't. Al Qaeda was "suspected" but not Bin Laden. Where's the evidence he was involved?
"You know why Osama bin Laden wasn't wanted for 9-11. They had no proof he was guilty of it! They conceded as much. Why don't you understand this? "
There is no proof he did it! A rumour or some leak of an inside job plan does not prove Al Qaeda's guilt.
I'm asking you this question? Why was Bin Laden never wanted for 9-11?
I find it funny that I supposedly contradict myself so much when in fact the official story of 9-11 is one huge contradiction. You don't have a problem with that, I see.
The bin Ladens were allowed whether it was immediate or not the Bin Ladens interviewed because then the evil plan that it was an inside job would leak out. I mean, who's going to meet up with Osama's brother if the US had five weeks warning that Al Qaeda would hijack plans? Bush Snr, of course.
It's interesting that the 911 Commissions Reports denies all this but the "Boston Globe" says otherwise:
"The diplomat said the bin Ladens were advised by their government and the FBI they should return to Saudi Arabia for their own safety. ''The advice given last week was that they should consider leaving, at least until things cool down,'' he said.
At least five members of bin Laden's large family flew out of Logan International Airport Tuesday night on a private jet, which aviation sources described as a Boeing 727 reconfigured so it had only 30 first-class seats.
In addition, at least one of bin Laden's 27 brothers, Kalil, reportedly boarded a jet in Orlando, Fla., which had been chartered by the Saudi government, had stopped in Los Angeles, Orlando, and then Boston Wednesday night before flying to Saudi Arabia.
The bin Ladens, who paid for their own plane, and about two dozen Saudi citizens who took up their government's offer to fly home free, were questioned by the FBI before being allowed to leave the United States."
One of the discrepancies was whether the Bin Ladens exited the US immediately when the flights were grounded or a few days after. Considering the contradictions, we cannot know for sure.
http://web.archive.org/web/200109271249 … S%2B.shtml
Judicial Watch Releases New FBI Documents: Osama bin Laden May Have Chartered Saudi Flight Out of U.S. After 9/11
WASHINGTON, June 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the
public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government
corruption, today released new documents from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation ("FBI") related to the "expeditious departure" of Saudi
nationals, including members of the bin Laden family, from the United
States following the 9/11 attacks. According to one of the formerly
confidential documents, dated 9/21/2001, terrorist Osama bin Laden may have
chartered one of the Saudi flights.
The document states: "ON 9/19/01, A 727 PLANE LEFT LAX, RYAN FLT #441
TO ORLANDO, FL W/ETA (estimated time of arrival) OF 4-5PM. THE PLANE WAS
CHARTERED EITHER BY THE SAUDI ARABIAN ROYAL FAMILY OR OSAMA BIN LADEN ...
THE LA FBI SEARCHED THE PLANE [REDACTED] LUGGAGE, OF WHICH NOTHING UNUSUAL
WAS FOUND."
Then a CNN report confirms this. In this video, the FBI said they let the Bin Ladens go because they had no info to offer. Wow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ujUhNV8NRA
Why is the 9-11 Commissions Report denying all this?
Because it's a worthless piece of junk:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
You don't think there is a something very suspicious about all these contradictions and discrepancies and just blatant lies in the 9-11 Commissions Report?Why?
Have you gone through my sources already?
Iamatheist thinks my credibility is bad because I post articles that have contradictory statements in it. However, this individual doesn't question the credibility of the official story despite significant contradictions and just plain lies.Because I don't dig wildly implausible conspiracy theories.
Implausible? LMAO! So where's your proof Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11
Lets try this again, like you said lets not get off topic and thats exactly what I won't do.
No actually not all of your sources are wrong like the ones I reposted,
"On 11 September, while Al-Qaeda's planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Carlyle Group hosted a conference at a Washington hotel. Among the guests of honour was a valued investor: Shafig bin Laden, brother to Osama."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2 … magazine57
"the Bush administration comes under fire after reports reveal it had been warned five weeks before 9/11 about possible al-Qaeda plane hijackings"
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.js … lyle_group
Your sources accept that Al-Qaeda was responsible. Their is nothing else you should be typing about except wether or not Al-Qaeda was responsible and since your sources as well as mine accept it I have proven my side of the argument.Of course it's on topic. You are arguing that Al Qaeda was responsible when I am pointing out that there was a link between the US, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and the lead "hijacker Mohammed Atta" who is supposedly an Al Qaeda man. You must at least acknowledge that the US was cooperating with Al Qaeda. Well, they did that in Afghanistan back in the '70s.
Why is it that when sources like from the FBI, etc, which you would normally believe, is automatically not telling the truth when they support the fact it was an inside job.
"On 11 September, while Al-Qaeda's planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Carlyle Group hosted a conference at a Washington hotel. Among the guests of honour was a valued investor: Shafig bin Laden, brother to Osama."
Al Qaeda's planes did not slam into the twin towers. They were American airline planes. I'm glad you admit that Bush Snr met with Bin Laden's brother even though Bin Laden is a wanted terrorist.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2 … magazine57
"the Bush administration comes under fire after reports reveal it had been warned five weeks before 9/11 about possible al-Qaeda plane hijackings"
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.js … lyle_group
I've given commentary on that. If he had been warned about hijackings 5 weeks prior to the attacks then why did he say no one could have anticipated such an attack like Condie Rice?
President Bush says, “Never (in) anybody’s thought processes… about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets… never.”
Condie:
“I don’t think anybody could have predicted . . . that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile
So what? Prison Planet says Al Qaeda wasn't responsible so are they are now? What I was trying to prove by...
"On 11 September, while Al-Qaeda's planes slammed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Carlyle Group hosted a conference at a Washington hotel. Among the guests of honour was a valued investor: Shafig bin Laden, brother to Osama."
is that this ( about Shafiq Bin Laden) is contrary to the official story. Why do you think this did not appear in the 9-11 Commissions Report? Why do you think there are so many omissions in the 9-11 report?
Those questions are not rhetorical. Please answer them.
Further questions:
Why are there lies in the official story?
Why was Osama Bin Laden not wanted for 9-11?
Why were those involved in the 9-11 Commissions Report happy with it?
http://www.infowars.com/highly-credible … stion-911/
Why did the US evacuate the Bin Laden family after 9-11?
Why were the Bin Ladens business partners with Bush?
Why did FBI director say there was no paper trail leading to the hijakers?
Why were there NORAD drills simulating an attack on the WTC on the same day of the attacks? To confuse the people at NORAD and the FAA?
You aren't playing fair because you only provide on source whereby I provide many. Your source regurgitates the official version and thus omits certain facts that would lead one to suspect it's an inside job. Therefore your source can't have contradictions.Youre going off topic again, you told me to stick by the question Do you have proof Al-Qaeda was responsible? If you aren't going to stick by what you said, then don't say it.
We are not going to acknowledge anything else or more forward in this discussion unless you answer this question. Are these sources credible or not?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2 … magazine57
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.js … lyle_group
If so, then they accept Al-Qaeda was responsible and we have nothing further to discuss as my argument will have been proven. If not, then you haven't contributed anything to this discussion except constant logically fallacious argument, intellectual dishonesty, and acting like a child posting everything you see on the internet that just seems suspicious.You don't want to see the relevance of my previous comments. US+alleged hijackers= inside job.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2 … magazine57
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.js … lyle_group
Are you telling me that every article is either right or wrong? That they aren't capable of reporting something not true and then something true further along the article? That's not how the media works. So the question is: what can be established as fact? It's a fact that the Bushes were business partners with the Bin Ladens. It is not a fact that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11. So claims that have no merit and the facts can appear in the same article.
I don't think I have ever come across someone so much in denial as you are. Is the US government not capable of lying about 9-11 even though some on the 9-11 Commissions panel think so?
Al Qaeda would never be convicted in a court of law because some article claimed they were responsible without facts backing it up. What facts back it up? You haven't provided a shred of evidence. You only post a Wikipedia link that contradicts itself when it comes to who is responsible for 9-11. They say the proof is irrefutable then the FBI says that there is no paper trail leading to the hijackers and there isn't a scrap of evidence Osama bin Laden is responsible. Now if that Robert Mueller quote had appeared in the same article that states Al Qaeda is responsible, for example, I could say my point is proven because Mueller's quote contradicted the claim there is irrefutable proof of Bin Laden's guilt.
Quite frankly, I'm getting tired of your denial. You are actually wasting my time. If you want to be duped, then fine.I would say they are credible when they are stating facts and not speculation. I bring your attention to the fact part. I think it's obvious it's not stating a fact when they say Al Qaeda planes ploughed into the Twin Towers.
Is Wikipedia a credible source?You can't cherry pick, they are either credible sources or not.
Speculation isn't reliable but facts are. They can appear in the same article. A speculation without backing up facts, or even a statement, doesn't make the entire source unreliable.
Answer my question: Is Wikipedia a reliable source?It wasn't a speculative statement, and if it was that doesn't stop the statement about Shafig Bin Laden being there from being speculative either no proof was given about that. Again I ask are these credible sources? Its a yes or no answer, nothing else needs to be given.
Okay then, tell me...is this speculative?
An investor, Shafig bin Laden (Arabic: شفيق بن لادن) is a half-brother to Osama bin Laden,[1] and was in attendance at the Carlyle Group's Washington, DC conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel on September 11, 2001, which George H. W. Bush also attended.[2][3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafig_bin_Laden
If it is, then why should I believe your wikipedia source which you can't even say is a credible source?
It is an established fact that Bin Laden's brother was at the same conference as Bush Snr on 9-11. Dozens of sources corroborate this.
It is not a fact that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11. If you give me other sources that attempt to prove Al Qaeda is responsible then you'd have more of a case.
If there was proof Al Qaeda was behind 9-11, then Bin Laden would have been wanted for 9-11 and there would be proof of the "hijackers", which there isn't despite your wikipedia source clearly contradicting the FBI.sources you gave support that Al-Qaeda was responsible and I have given you sources, its clear you think that the sources you gave are credible therefore, my side of the argument is proven.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html
http://911myths.com/index.php/Connectin … en_to_9-11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibi … 11_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
If you wish to debate other topics regarding 9/11, I shall try to put up with your ignorance.My work got deleted...I've got to start all over again.
I've already refuted the "confession video" argument in that FOX article. It contradicts itself also. This is what it says:
"Usama bin Laden (search ) made his first televised appearance in more than a year Friday in which he admitted for the first time ordering the Sept. 11 attacks and accused President Bush of "misleading" the American people."
This referred to the 2004 "confession video" just prior to the US presidential election. However, there was allegedly a confession tape by Bin Laden in November 2001:
"The tape purportedly shows Osama bin Laden, in a private home, talking about the 9/11 attacks with a visiting Sheikh. During the course of the conversation, in which the bin Laden figure is seen and heard gloating about the success of the attacks, he states that he not only knew about them several days in advance but had also, in fact, planned them."37
http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-osama- … 1/?print=1
Here is the "confession" tape:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKVpGq7estQ
And one from December 13th, 2001 although this is a lame one because Bin Laden supposedly said he knew 5 days in advance the attacks would happen which obviously means he could not have planned it because the plan was years in the making.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1708091.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1708091.stm
Your 911 myth source:
"Bin Laden hasn't been indicted for 9/11, this is true, and as a result 9/11 isn't included on his FBI poster. But that's not the only omission. As we write the "Caution" section on that page reads like this:
USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
So there's a specific mention only of the embassy bombings, nothing else at all. But does that mean we can assume the FBI believe bin Laden has no connection to, say, the Cole bombing of October 2000? Not at all: bin Laden was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a 2003 Cole-related indictment"
The author of the article says Bin Laden wasn't indicted in the Cole attack but the article says this;
"Also named as co-conspirators in the indictment were several high-ranking members of al Qaeda, including its leader, bin Laden, who is charged with planning the USS Cole attack."
So he was indicted.
"It's also worth noting that the FBI "Most Wanted" page itself says that further indictments may appear later: "Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."
Is it normal never to be indicted as in the case of Bin Laden 11 years on?
"We still have Haas telling us that the FBI believe there's "no hard evidence" connecting bin Laden to 9/11, of course.
The first problem with this statement is that it's not particularly clear. What is "hard evidence" here? Paper trails, the flow of money, witness statements? Haas doesn't tell us, so we can't say what evidence he might accept exists."
Hard evidence means that there is irrefutable proof that Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were responsible. So the FBI cannot say:
"...as the events of September 11 demonstrated with horrible clarity, the United States also confronts serious challenges from international terrorists. The transnational Al-Qaeda terrorist network headed by Usama Bin Laden has clearly emerged as the most urgent threat to U.S. interests. The evidence linking Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable."
"First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
Author response:
The reality is that the attack on Afghanistan was about vastly more than bin Laden. If you look at Bush's radio addresses, for instance, he didn't mention bin Laden on September 15th, immediately before the Afghan attack on October 6th, or after it on the 13th. Instead it was general talk about the terrorists and the Taliban."
I wonder why the author didn't mention the part with Bin Laden negotiating a pipe deal with the Taliban when it soured and threatened to rain a carpet of bombs on Afghanistan months before 9-11.
Wikipedia source:
"Authorities in the United States and Britain also obtained electronic intercepts, including telephone conversations and electronic bank transfers, which indicate that Mohammed Atef, a bin Laden deputy, was a key figure in the planning of the 9/11 attacks"
I wonder why Wikipedia doesn't mention that ISI spy chief Mahmoud financed the lead "hijacker" Mohammed Atta. US counterparts had breakfast with this Pakistan spy chief on the morning of 9-11.
"In late November 2002, a letter attributed to Osama bin Laden and translated by British Islamists surfaced, often called bin Laden's 'letter to America'. It states the motive behind the September 11 attacks as being: "because you attacked us and continue to attack us" and justifies the selection of a civilian target. "
I wonder why Wikipedia doesn't mention the fact that the CIA is in possession of a statement of Bin Laden to the Pakistan people denying 9-11.
"While al-Awlaki was an imam in San Diego, witnesses told the FBI he had a close relationship with two of the 9/11 hijackers (Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid Almihdhar) in 2000, and served as their spiritual advisor."
I wonder why Wikipedia doesn't mention that al-Awlaki had dinner at the Pentagon months after 9-11.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … tacks.html
"There have been suggestions that Saudi Arabia has some responsibility, having helped finance al-Qaeda, and allowing the organization to flourish"
That's why the Saudis were allowed safe passage out of the US days after 9-11.
America and allies claim that Al qaeda is always the enemy but have recruited them to overthrow Gadhafi and Assad.>>>>"I've already refuted the "confession video" argument in that FOX article. It contradicts itself also.<<<<
No you haven't, and no it doesn't.
>>>>This is what it says:
Usama bin Laden (search ) made his first televised appearance in more than a year Friday in which he admitted for the first time ordering the Sept. 11 attacks and accused President Bush of "misleading" the American people."
This referred to the 2004 "confession video" just prior to the US presidential election. However, there was allegedly a confession tape by Bin Laden in November 2001:
"The tape purportedly shows Osama bin Laden, in a private home, talking about the 9/11 attacks with a visiting Sheikh. During the course of the conversation, in which the bin Laden figure is seen and heard gloating about the success of the attacks, he states that he not only knew about them several days in advance but had also, in fact, planned them."37<<<<
Whats your point.
>>>>And one from December 13th, 2001 although this is a lame one because Bin Laden supposedly said he knew 5 days in advance the attacks would happen which obviously means he could not have planned it because the plan was years in the making.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1708091.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1 … t;<<
Why does it mean that?
>>>>Your 911 myth source:
"Bin Laden hasn't been indicted for 9/11, this is true, and as a result 9/11 isn't included on his FBI poster. But that's not the only omission. As we write the "Caution" section on that page reads like this:
USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
So there's a specific mention only of the embassy bombings, nothing else at all. But does that mean we can assume the FBI believe bin Laden has no connection to, say, the Cole bombing of October 2000? Not at all: bin Laden was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a 2003 Cole-related indictment"
The author of the article says Bin Laden wasn't indicted in the Cole attack but the article says this;
"Also named as co-conspirators in the indictment were several high-ranking members of al Qaeda, including its leader, bin Laden, who is charged with planning the USS Cole attack."
So he was indicted.<<<<
Whats your point?
>>>>"It's also worth noting that the FBI "Most Wanted" page itself says that further indictments may appear later: "Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001."
Is it normal never to be indicted as in the case of Bin Laden 11 years on?
"We still have Haas telling us that the FBI believe there's "no hard evidence" connecting bin Laden to 9/11, of course.
The first problem with this statement is that it's not particularly clear. What is "hard evidence" here? Paper trails, the flow of money, witness statements? Haas doesn't tell us, so we can't say what evidence he might accept exists."
>>>>Hard evidence means that there is irrefutable proof that Al Qaeda and Bin Laden were responsible.<<<<
It isn"t what you believe hard evidence to be.
>>>>So the FBI cannot say:
"...as the events of September 11 demonstrated with horrible clarity, the United States also confronts serious challenges from international terrorists. The transnational Al-Qaeda terrorist network headed by Usama Bin Laden has clearly emerged as the most urgent threat to U.S. interests. The evidence linking Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable."<<<<
Why not?
>>>>"First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” <<<<
Maybe because he was also wanted for other terrorist attacks.
The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.
Author response:
The reality is that the attack on Afghanistan was about vastly more than bin Laden. If you look at Bush's radio addresses, for instance, he didn't mention bin Laden on September 15th, immediately before the Afghan attack on October 6th, or after it on the 13th. Instead it was general talk about the terrorists and the Taliban."
I wonder why the author didn't mention the part with Bin Laden negotiating a pipe deal with the Taliban when it soured and threatened to rain a carpet of bombs on Afghanistan months before 9-11.
Wikipedia source:
"Authorities in the United States and Britain also obtained electronic intercepts, including telephone conversations and electronic bank transfers, which indicate that Mohammed Atef, a bin Laden deputy, was a key figure in the planning of the 9/11 attacks"
>>>>I wonder why Wikipedia doesn't mention that ISI spy chief Mahmoud financed the lead "hijacker" Mohammed Atta. US counterparts had breakfast with this Pakistan spy chief on the morning of 9-11.<<<<
Maybe because it isn't true, isn't relevant or, you were on a wikipedia page talking specifically about the events of 9-11. Not all the little "strange" things that supposedly happened on that day are going to be mentioned.
>>>>"In late November 2002, a letter attributed to Osama bin Laden and translated by British Islamists surfaced, often called bin Laden's 'letter to America'. It states the motive behind the September 11 attacks as being: "because you attacked us and continue to attack us" and justifies the selection of a civilian target. "<<<<
Okay.
>>>>I wonder why Wikipedia doesn't mention the fact that the CIA is in possession of a statement of Bin Laden to the Pakistan people denying 9-11.
"While al-Awlaki was an imam in San Diego, witnesses told the FBI he had a close relationship with two of the 9/11 hijackers (Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid Almihdhar) in 2000, and served as their spiritual advisor."
I wonder why Wikipedia doesn't mention that al-Awlaki had dinner at the Pentagon months after 9-11.<<<<
Again, its not going to state every little thing that also happened on that day Im sure they have pages on Wikipedia that talk about it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … tacks.html
>>>>"There have been suggestions that Saudi Arabia has some responsibility, having helped finance al-Qaeda, and allowing the organization to flourish"
That's why the Saudis were allowed safe passage out of the US days after 9-11.<<<<
So Al-Qaeda was responsible?
>>>>America and allies claim that Al qaeda is always the enemy but have recruited them to overthrow Gadhafi and Assad.<<<<
Proof?Just move on, please. Nothing I say will get through to you. Continue to live in your denial world.
And no actually they arent capable of lying about 9-11.
You have to be sarcastic here. No way could you be serious. It's just not possible even for you.
Oh and here is another good site http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol … ws/1227842
The site, correct me if I'm wrong, does not attempt to prove Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11. If I missed it, please direct it to me? If not, please try again.
The topic was specifically about the supposed proof of Al Qaeda being responsible for 9-11. Unless you want to debate other topics regarding 9-11?
It was proven that Al Qaeda is American. Who won big after Sept 11 is the real question? The military industrial complex and the American oil companies. Now can we deduce that the culprits were Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld given that they all had an interest to promote by invading Iraq?
Yes we can. Bin Laden gained nothing from 9-11.
I would love a link to that "proof" Max.
I think maybe he meant the name "Al Qaeda," and not the leader or the group, itself.
Yes, he did. Members of Al Qaeda isn't actually a terrorist group technically but rather a database of terrorists willing to work for the West, were created by Pakistan and the US.
It was proven by an English spy from the MI6 and an American journalist! That's not news! It's not my fault if you're not curious enough!
Do you want me to babysit you too? If you're searching for the truth, you will find it. If you're pretending, you'll ask your interlocutor for a link!
maxoxam41, I agree with you. I look at it as a simple murder mystery. In order to solve a murder, you first look for a motive.
So let’s ask:
“Who benefited from the murder of 3,000 people?”
The Patriot Act followed right after, so we should ask:
“Who benefited from the Patriot Act?”
Didn’t the United States Government, and/or the elite bankers that control it benefit greatly, partly by the increased power that the Patriot Act gives them?
The war in Afghanistan and the perpetual War on Terror also immediately followed. Doesn’t the US Gov benefit from continual war - always having a big enemyor two out there in order to justify its huge defense spending, and ever increasing surveillance powers?
Everyone knows that the world changed in a big way on that day. Who is benefiting from that change?
Do we have a motive?
Do we have a suspect?
Also, I think that anyone that just happened to not show up for work at the twin towers that day is a potential suspect.A little truth scares everybody! Who wants to acknowledge that their government used them for personal greed? Nobody I guess or not the majority! If we admit it what does it say about our government that is supposed to protect us? That the government and the people are independent entities with contradictional interets? In the US versus Ellsberg, the antagonism is explicit.
And now they want us to believe that Syria, Iran are evil without looking on the far east of the middle east, I meant Saudi Arabia or Qatar! If we have to destroy real dictatorships let's aim at Saudi Arabia and Qatar!Yes, the truth can be scary, even a little truth. But action cures fear.
And questions still remain:
Do we have a motive?
Do we have a suspect?
I suggest action, based on the answers.
Interesting comment. Plans to invade Afghanistan were made months before 9-11. It just so happened that 9-11 happened to give them the pretext to invade. They were even negotiating a pipeline deal with the Taliban right up to August 2001.
Larry Silverstein, leaseholder of the WTCs, scored big money because he has insured them against terrorism in July 2001. When he became the leaseholder, $20 million of maintenance had to be done. The towers were full of asbestos and it had to come off. That would have been an impossible job almost. But Larry's problem magically disappeaered on 9-11.
The Project for New Century America outlined in 2000 that a new "Pearl Harbour" was needed for the US to have global dominance:
It was established in the spring of 1997 and was founded by the likes of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsveld. Bill Kristol is the chairman. Other members included, Richard Perle, dubbed “The Prince of Darkness” who is former chair of the Defence Policy Board, Elliot Abrams of the National Security Council, former presidential candidate, George Bauer, Governor Jeb Bush and former director of the CIA, Robert James Woolsey.
"... Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor. ..."
Could the US really extend its power in the Middle East without 9-11?
Another excerpt:
"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. The plan calls for Permanent Military Bases in Iraq to dominate the Middle East including neighboring Iran.
As for advanced warning, only 400 Jews died. This could be why:
"Odigo Systems, an Israeli company with a New York City office received an advanced warning by email that an attack was going to occur in New York City the day of the attack. This is verified by their CEO. They were probably not tipped off by Arabs!
Zim American Israeli Shipping Company, also considered to be a front for the Mossad and the CIA broke their lease in one of the twin towers which cost them $50,000 and moved out about a week before the attack. Perhaps they had an advance warning. According to Ex-Navy intelligence officer Wayne Madsen, the company was controlled by the CIA and the Mossad."
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=622552
"Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.
Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two workers received the messages and immediately after the terror attack informed the company's management, which immediately contacted the Israeli security services, which brought in the FBI.
"I have no idea why the message was sent to these two workers, who don't know the sender. It may just have been someone who was joking and turned out they accidentally got it right. And I don't know if our information was useful in any of the arrests the FBI has made," said Macover. Odigo is a U.S.-based company whose headquarters are in New York, with offices in Herzliya.
As an instant messaging service, Odigo users are not limited to sending messages only to people on their "buddy" list, as is the case with ICQ, the other well-known Israeli instant messaging application.
Odigo usually zealously protects the privacy of its registered users, said Macover, but in this case the company took the initiative to provide the law enforcement services with the originating Internet Presence address of the message, so the FBI could track down the Internet Service Provider, and the actual sender of the original message."
No Clair, Al Qaeda was not responsible for 9/11. They were merely the patsies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmbPh3u7_q0
Iraq and Afghanistan were the targets for the greedy corporations. Oil and lucrative government contracts. For example, Halliburton charged $2.5 million for a $3 thousand fuel haul. $100 for a small bag of laundry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chXjCtkymRQ
9/11 was an inside job.
www.AE911truth.org
Lots of videos and scientific papers that prove controlled demolition. And it takes weeks or months of preparation in 3 buildings of the sizes which were demolished. Heck, CIA was a tenant of WTC7. Bush family security company was in charge of keeping bad guys out (or in).
And the Rockefellers knew of 9/11 at least a year before it happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaOj-rOGZFE
Even Hollywood knew of 9/11. Sneaky and subtle -- the 1999 movie, Matrix, had Neo's passport on screen for less than a second, upside-down and too small to see. But the expiration date on his passport was 9/11/2001.
Coincidence? Was it a coincidence that George H.W. Bush gushed about the New World Order on 9/11/1990 -- exactly 11 years before 9/11? Our new "Pearl Harbor" (what the neocons lusted after in their 2000 plan for a New American Century) was the big send-off for the New World Order. The "expiration" of American liberties -- our passport to freedom.Excellent links 94, lone77star!
That first video especially. It’s interesting that the news reporter said that a terrorists passport was found blocks from the crash site “if you can believe that” In other words, it only happened if you can believe it!
Wow, I didn’t know that about Neo’s passport!
Re. demolition, I am an engineer. On the morning of 9/11, I was watching the first building go down live on the TV monitor at work. I said to the engineers next to me “Wow, it must have taken months for someone to install all those charges in the building.” There was no question in my mind as to how the building came down. But then, like everybody else, I was glued to the TV for weeks afterward, and thru the excellent mind control conditioning, I ended up believing most of the official story! Later, after almost no TV for a month, I came to my senses and realized that my initial assessment, that it was a controlled demolition, was correct. It showed me how powerful of a mind control tool the TV is.
- khmohsinposted 12 years ago
0With the passage of a lot of time this question still exists and have its own importance. I don't think so that Alqaeda is the responsible for such type of attacks. It was just a big drama like the martyr of Usama Bin Laden. If the Alqaeda was of such capability to enter in America and attack such a secure place then why it didn't happened again in America even US attacked on Taliban badly. I condemn on all this favors of Taliban. They can't do so
No way would Al Qaeda have the sophistication to bypass the USA's security. People argue that America's security has beefed up because of 9-11 and so Al Qaeda doesn't have a chance. They keep getting "busted" like the Christmas bomber and underwear bomber even though they were FBI recruits.
The TSA mans the airports of the USA. Those idiots who steal and fondle people and let real weapons through. Yep, Al Qaeda is really afraid of them!
The Lord suffered for us by his own will. He cares for us more than we'll ever know. The Father punished the son (Jesus) for our sinful nature. Then he was raised from the dead and is now glorified. We owe him.
Call upon Jesus name. In fact; challenge him.
PeaceI can't challenge that witch does not exist.
Who designed a bird, or a fish? The entire of nature just screams intelligent design. Then once something is in place such as celestial bodies. How is it maintained? One walk out in nature says "God created". Hubble has not found any other planet like ours out there. How far can Hubble see? Just look at things, and ask how they were made? Military for instance spends millions in engineering dollars studying bugs and birds. Who first engineered wings?
Just consider these things brother.
PeaceThey wern't designed, they were products of evolution.
Actually we have found a planet extremely similar to ours.When was the last time you saw an I pod grow on tree's. The evolution arguments have been refuted many times over. Pro-evolution profs teach natural selection in the morning, and in the afternoon they teach entropy. They always loose. By the way, who told you that you were an atheist?
What? not sure what you mean by that.
What "evolution arguments" have been refuted?
Nobody told me I was an atheist I became athiest on my own.The lefties don't use the argument of evolution anymore. It doesn't work. Instead the have abandoned it for natural selection. If your going to be an atheist, at least keep up with your ring leaders.
What the flying... natural selection is the process through which evolution works, indeed natural selection is an integral part of the theory of evolution.
Haha Josak you were a second faster than me.
K12rswow if you are going to argue with an atheist you should look up the words you are using.Darwin's original definition of NS is very different from the new upgraded definition of NS.
AHAHA Evolution is rock steady and even the Pope has acknowledged it as fact, there is no valid scientific argument against evolution. As for evolution it is in fact an aspect of entropy the variety of life we see around us is far more chaotic than a lifeless barren rock. I also suspect you are confusing entropy in it's linguistic use with the theory of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics which is a pretty massive error.
Sorry pal, that's not going to work with me. Order to dis-order is what we are experiencing everyday. Everything decays and reverts back to it's basic elements. Pope! C'mon.
Evolutionist had to come up with natural selection ever since intelligent design was introduced into the argument. I wrote a short hub http://k12rswow.hubpages.com/hub/Intelligent-Design-er
It just can't be refuted. Why doesn't a foot grow on your face? Imagine four nubs? Everything has it's place, it was thought out, and put there by intelligent design.That doesn't happen because of natural selection actually.
And what isn't going to work with you?Ah so you are referring to the second law of thermodynamics which you are horribly misinterpreting firstly the laws of entropy are laws only when applied to direct physics they do not apply to biological processes. More to the point chaos thrives in evolution, look at the massive variety of bizarre creatures we see around us it's complete chaos, if they can survive then they exist, when mutations occur that are not beneficial they are quickly killed off.
Why doesn't a foot grow in your face? because if it did it would make you less likely to survive. Very simple, even children understand this stuff."""""firstly the laws of entropy are laws only when applied to direct physics they do not apply to biological processes. """"""
I guess you were born on planet mars. Enthropic principles apply to everything. When an animal dies in the woods, it decays. Order to disorder. When a tree falls. Again, it decays. You are really not good at physics, and your pal makes a lousy atheist. At least make an original argument, instead of rehashing very old and tired arguments.
I'm so sorry Claire. This does tend to happen when numbnuts scour the net.Anyone who brings up the discussion of evolution again will be reported to the moderators.
Can we please stay on topic? Create a different forum thread for this discussion on evolution.
Wow! I have read through the posts on this thread and found it quite interesting. I intended to simply read and learn something, with no intention of getting involved in the debate. I guess it has not worked out that way.
I have read so many posts and links proving that 9/11 was a conspiracy, an inside job. All this "proof" comes from questionable sources and obviously edited videos.
I think there were mistakes on 9/11, there were holes in our defenses that have hopefully been corrected. To suggest that it was an inside job and yet all these years later, nobody has talked is not realistic. I loved the part about all the cell phone calls from victims being made from the ground. That alone would require a lot of people keeping a lot of secrets, something that never happIens in this modern internet world.
Now I guess that Obama is in on the game. So tell me, did Obama fake Bin Laden's death to get reelected? Or did he order the murder of an innocent man?Don't you think the "proof" that Al Qaeda was responsible comes from unreliable sources? I see no obvious editing in the argument for an inside job. Can you give me an example?
No, there were no holes in the US defenses. I think you should read just how sophisticated NORAD is. They can monitor pending terrorist attacks from space. Mistakes cannot be made when the Bush administration apparently had months of warning before the attacks. The Pentagon has the most surveillance cameras than any other building in the world yet they didn't capture a plane going into the Pentagon.
When it comes to the cellphone calls, only a few loved ones received calls. One couldn't believe that his wife contacted him from a cell because he said cell phones don't work from planes at the time.
Do you know what happens to people who blab about 9-11?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU
I may just shut up, too, if I was threatened like this.
Obama definitely was in the plot to fake Bin Laden's death to boost his popularity. The story is so ridiculous that I cringe that people believe it. You know the "situation room" photograph that was shown with Hilary Clinton having her hand to her mouth in "shock" along with others supposedly watching the live feed of the assassination? It turned out to be staged. Why?
Bin Laden was not an innocent man when it comes to terrorism. However, it is not right to shoot a man who is not threatening the lives of those who came to capture him. He was entitled to a fair trial. Of course that wouldn't happen because 9-11 would have been exposed if you argue from the point of view that the raid really did happen.I watched four minutes of the lame video - then shut it off. Nothing but conjecture. For anyone thinking of watching it - don't waste your time. It's the stuff of Middle School rumor mills.
So where's your proof that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9-11?
The lack of intelligence you display amazes me, it really does. I have given you proof. you refute nothing but think you do just by saying "oh really, you believe that?" Your sources are either bias, dont site sources themselves, both, or they completely contradict what you are saying. Oh but the part that contradicts what youre saying is wrong but the rest is right? It doesn't work like that. Its either a credible source or not. Do you remember when you said you were being so logical, more logical than me? I gave you a page on logic. Read it. You use logically fallacious argument and youre intellectually dishonest. The debate is over Claire, now you just look pathetic.
Lol. What proof do you have when the FBI says they have no hard evidence?
Yes, your sources aren't biased, right? 911myths Fox News and Wikipedia could never be biased, right? I mean, your sources contradict one another. First there is no hard evidence then there is irrefutable evidence.
The debate is over because there is no way you can refute my last argument. I told you a thing a thing a two about logic. Tell me, have you ever come across an argument where there is speculation and facts in the same article? Of course you have. I also like to use mainstream sources that don't back up the official story.
If you want the perpetrators of 9-11 to laugh at people like you, go for it. I just don't like being duped.>>>>Yes, your sources aren't biased, right? 911myths Fox News and Wikipedia could never be biased, right?<<<<
Yep, you've got it.
>>>> I mean, your sources contradict one another. First there is no hard evidence then there is irrefutable evidence.<<<<
No they don't
>>>>The debate is over because there is no way you can refute my last argument.<<<<
That isn't why the debate is over, I've refuted all of your arguments and now youre like a little kid just sitting there asking why why why. In fact the mojority of the time you don't make any arguments nor do you refute mine.
>>>> I told you a thing a thing a two about logic.<<<<
No you haven't,in order for you to do that you have to know what logic is.
>>>>Tell me, have you ever come across an argument where there is speculation and facts in the same article? Of course you have.<<<<
Not a credible one.
>>>> I also like to use mainstream sources that don't back up the official story.<<<<
Earlier you said you don't like to use mainstream media sources. And thats because you have a classic case of confirmation bias.
>>>>If you want the perpetrators of 9-11 to laugh at people like you, go for it. I just don't like being duped.<<<<
Well you say you don't like being duped, its apparent thats not going very well for you.
- ahorsebackposted 12 years ago0
Wow ! the origional question ,statements here only prove one thing ! Give some people an iota of conspiracy theory thought and they will run like dogs to the food bowl ! As a proud American , I am ashamed that there are those who think 9/II was an inside job . Questioning your government in a free and open society is all fair and good ,...... however ,jumping to these idiotic conclusions are nothing short of having only a belief in the "Boggy Man "mentality .
Cheney and Rummy had to give permission for a shoot down! Dosen't mean that it happened! , if you can't accept that possibility ,then you can't understand the need ! The awesome responsibility of that requirement alone is way above your abilty to accept ,obviously !
You can also bet your bippy that Pres. Obama would do the same ! Does that mean that he has ?No one has jumped to conclusion. It's based on intense research. I mean, why would George Bush be hanging out with Bin Laden's brother on the day of September 11th? Isn't that strange to you?
Have you heard of Operation Northwood? Well, it proposes a false flag operation to blame on Cuba and you will see some disturbing facts:
According to secret and long-hidden documents obtained for Body of Secrets, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. In the name of anti-Communism, they proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba.
These were the actual proposals:
*"Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government."
*"Advantage can be taken of the sensitivity of the Dominican [Republic] Air Force to intrusions within their national air space. 'Cuban' B-26 or C-46 type aircraft could make cane burning raids at night. Soviet Bloc incendiaries could be found. This could be coupled with 'Cuban' messages to the Communist underground in the Dominican Republic and 'Cuban' shipments of arms which would be found, or intercepted, on the beach. Use of MiG type aircraft by U.S. pilots could provide additional provocation."
*"Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft could appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the Government of Cuba."
Among the most elaborate schemes was to "create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight."
Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs worked out a complex deception:
An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CJA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone [a remotely controlled unmanned aircraft]. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida.
From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Elgin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency a "May Day" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MiG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft, which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO [International Civil Aviation Organization radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the U.S. what has happened to the aircraft instead of the U.S. trying to "sell" the incident.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL … woods.html
So now if the US can plan this why not 9-11?
,...... however ,jumping to these idiotic conclusions are nothing short of having only a belief in the "Boggy Man "mentality .
Just make sure you don't have "sheep" mentality.
Rumsfeld had to give permission for fighter jets to intercept hijacked aircraft but he would not. Even when Flight 77 was on its way to the Pentagon. Despite knowing what happened to the Twin Towers, he said he had no idea the Pentagon would be threatened.
Anatoli Kornukov, the commander-in-chief of the
Russian Air Force to say: "Generally it is impossible to carry
out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA
yesterday. (...) As soon as something like that happens here, I
am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up."
http://911review.com/means/standdown.html
Only much later did Cheney approve of interception and this is when Flight 93 was shot down.
So despite the fact that Rumsfeld denied he could have realized the Pentagon would be attacked, Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testified to the contrary:
"When I got to the White House, it was being evacuated. I met briefly with Richard Clark, a National Security Council staff member, who had no new information. Then the Secret Service escorted me down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, otherwise known as the PEOC."
***
I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/20 … irmed.html
He deliberately prevented any defense against the Pentagon fully aware a plane was coming.Bin laden was the black sheep of the family and was an outcast. The Bin Laden family is extensive and very rich; they made their pile in construction.
Judging them by Osama would be as unfair as judging the entire McVeigh family by the sins of Tim or the entire Kaczynski family by what Theodore did.So you don't think Bush would want Bin Laden's brother to reveal the location of Osama because he is wanted for dillions of terrorist attacks? You don't think it's strange that Bush Jnr was negotiating a pipeline deal with the terrorist group the Taliban?
We also have the problem of Bin Laden being a CIA agent Tim Osman.
Consider this also:
"Salem Bin Laden and Khalid bin Mahfouz bail out George W. Bush's Company Harken
1988: Bin Ladens Bail Out George W. Bush: Prior to this year, President George W. Bush is a failed oilman. Three times, friends and investors have bailed him out to keep his business from going bankrupt. However, in 1988, the same year his father becomes president, some Saudis buy a portion of his small company, Harken, which has never performed work outside of Texas. Later in the year, Harken wins a contract in the Persian Gulf and starts doing well financially. These transactions seem so suspicious that the Wall Street Journal in 1991 states it “raises the question of ... an effort to cozy up to a presidential son.” Two major investors in Bush’s company during this time are Salem bin Laden and Khalid bin Mahfouz. [Salon, 11/19/2001; Intelligence Newsletter, 3/2/2000] Salem bin Laden is Osama’s oldest brother; Khalid bin Mahfouz is a Saudi banker with a 20 percent stake in BCCI. The bank will be shut down a few years later and bin Mahfouz will have to pay a $225 million fine (while admitting no wrongdoing) (see October 2001)). [Forbes, 3/18/2002]
Bush Family Attorneys Run Terrorists Escrow Account
Texas: Prosecutors applied the label of "un-indicted co-conspirator" to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, and the North American Islamic Trust in connection with a July trial in Texas for five officials of a defunct charity, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.
US Prosecutors accused American Islamic Groups Named of funding Hamas Terrorists, Holy Land Foundation (HLF), the Council on Arab Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). The Director of CAIR, Nihad Awad, is on trial with other HLF defendants and has been directly connected by FBI testimony as working for Hamas terrorists and Sami Al Arian. Nihad Awad got together with George W. Bush when Bush was governor of Texas.
Bush family attorneys, Akin and Gump, ran the escrow account for "Holy Land Foundation" (HLF). Wealthy Saudi billionaire banker, Khalid Mahfouz, was a HLF board member and financed the Bushes in Arbusto and Harken energy. Even though MSNBC has reported that Khalid Mahfouz Continues AlQaeda & Hamas Funding for Saudis, Mahfouz has aggressively used British lawsuits to sue US book authors Rachel Erhenfeld (Funding Evil) and Robert Collins and J. Millard Burr (Alms for Jihad) who have written about Mahfouz ties to Hamas and Muslim terror funding. Mahfouz protestations of innocence in England’s liberal courts are seriously brought into question by a September 13, 2001 report by France's foreign intelligence agency, revealing that Bin Mahfouz was known to be one of the architects of a banking scheme constructed for the benefit of AlQaeda’s Osama bin Laden. The report also claims that both U.S. and British intelligence services had knowledge of this. See Legal Terror: Bush Backer MAHFOUZ Sues to Destroy Two Books Exposing Muslim Terror Funding."
http://libertyforlife.com/eye-openers/b … onanza.htm
So know Bush has been linked to funding Al Qaeda. Wow. The Bin Ladens were rotten to the core as Bush is.I will not waste time with this as it has been debunked many times. Your own story contradicts itself about Harken. You really need to look outside the talking points of those looking to profit off of 9/11
As far as I know, it has not been debunked that Bin Laden was a CIA agent. It most certainly hasn't been debunked that Bush negotiated a pipe-line deal with the Taliban shortly before 9-11.
I don't get what you mean by Harken being contradicted.
Don't you think Bush profited from 9-11?I don't think Bush profited. If anything, 9-11 destroyed what little chance he had for a successful presidency.
Well, you might want to watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj-p0YF1k-U
Bush earned big bucks after 9-11 through his business the Carlye Group. Why? Because it sells weapons and they supplied weapons to be used in the war in Iraq.
And he benefited from the oil in Iraq.
Well Horse, everyone thought that too. One thing that disturbed me was the residual burning, and the clean center collapse. Look up thermite, and then watch the 911 videos. Gives you a new perspective. Also, the buildings collapsed from the top down; they didn't break apart where the planes hit. The structural integrity at the top was fine. Lastly each floor had an explosion, so that the buildings fell as a syncro demolition. Meaning they didn't go left or right. Yeah, the debate is still out.
Yeah, never saw buildings fall like that due to dying fires emitting thick black smoke.
Nothing you said was accurate, there were no floor by floor explosions, the building did not collapse from the bottom up as is the case in a controlled demolition. The collapse began on the floor at the point of impact nd the building did as it was designed to do, collapse into itself.
There is plenty of amateur video and eye witness accounts to support the series explosions, and re-read my post, I said top down.
I've never seen any indication that there were floor-by-floor explosions. Yes, the natural way for the building to collapse after sustaining that type of damage was from the top down.
Ok sunshine, since your too lazy to look it up yourself, I've provided just one of many links
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfJtsAVoxOASorry, didn't mean to get sarcastic with you. I've been dealing with some people on this site, that don't do genuine research and spout nonsense. Or their great claim to research is Wikipedia.
I am curious, what are the explanations you read about these floor by floor explosions that never occurred. Who makes those claims? Where you there to hear or see it?
How do you know those explosions didn't happen floor by floor? Were you there?
Explosions from the towers were heard every 20 minutes about. Watching these videos, it's pretty obvious bombs were used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT8aYGtyi-M
Below the floors of the impact, you see sparkles as if they are bombs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_3zof_GagA
Why were these bombs never part of the official story?Claire
Thank you for asking the question "was I there" because YES indeed I was there.
I was an LT in FDNY for 15 years and have the health issues today to prove it.
The first video shows an explosion and people are expected to believe that explosion came from inside the WTC and caused the collape. That of course comes from the narrative of those who are making money on this and people are falling for it hook, line and sinker. If you look closer you see that there is a dust cloud behind them, the towers were already down at this point when you hear an explosion. After the towers fell, they covered many cars and emergency vehicles. There were many gas, diesel tanks and tire explosions afterward. Trust me, I know. There were many times during rescue when one popped everyone jumped.
Are you aware of the many characteristics of fire and what transformations it takes inside of a structure? Do you know the reactions of backdrafts or flashovers in a structural environment? Are you aware of the reaction of certain materials? Are you aware of the fact of fluid seeking its level, what it does when it finds and opening to say oh like an elevator shaft? and what happens when the burning fuel pours down those shafts to the bottom, like say the parking garage? And what would burning fuel set on fire in a parking garage? What do you think happens to a vehicle on fire without fire suppression?
Have you ever been to Manhattan? Ever wonder why it is so noisy there? It is because of the way the buildings are so big and bounce sound. You could set off a firecracker, just one, ask 10 people and you will get 10 different answers as to how many went off and from what direction it came from.Well, that's strange because many FDNY firefighters said the bombs came from inside the building. One said, "There's a bomb in the building." Why would a fire fighter say it's a bomb, and the mainstream media, when it was just diesel tanks exploding, etc?
If you watched the video you'd see this. In fact, a janitor claimed that one bomb went off at the base of the towers. This is corroborated in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE2V6ajL4F4
Here smoke is seen at the base of the towers before the towers collapse.
Can you explain the sparkles that were seen coming from the floors before the floors above imploded on them? Why were there horizontal projections?
This is the horizontal projections during a demolition:
These are the horizontal projects from the twin tower collapsing:
It's obvious that the dust is pyroclastic dust.
This is pyroclastic smoke from a volcano:
This is pyroclastic dust from the twin towers
Are you aware that the WTC towers were designed to take multiple plane crashes? Are you aware that the fires were dying? Are you aware that no steel buildings have ever collapsed before 9-11? Jet fuel can never be hot enough to comprise the integrity of a building to the extent it collapses especially falling at free fall speed. What would comprise the integrity would be thermite and seen by this molten steel coming from one of the towers:
We also have to consider this:
"The time t required for an object to fall from a height h (in a vacuum) is given by the formula t = sqrt(2h/g), where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Thus an object falling from the top of one of the towers (taking h = 1306 feet and g = 32.174 ft/sec2) would take 9.01 seconds to hit the ground if we ignore the resistance of the air and a few seconds longer if we take air resistance into account. The Twin Towers each collapsed in less than fifteen seconds, close to free fall (see this video clip, originally from http://thewebfairy.com/911/). Following the start of the collapse the upper floors would have had to shatter the steel joints in all 85 or so floors at the lower levels. If this required only one second per floor then the collapse would have required more than a minute. But the material from the upper floors ploughed through the lower floors at a speed of at least six floors per second. This is possible only if all structural support in the lower 85 or so floors had been completely eliminated prior to the initiation of the collapse. Since the lower floors were undamaged by the plane impacts and the fires, the removal of all structural support in these floors must have been due to some other cause — and the most obvious possibility is explosives. Thus the speed of the collapse (not much more than the time of free fall) is conclusive evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition involving the use of explosives (or some other destructive technology) at all levels."
I just cannot believe that all the steel joints of each floor gave away at the same time unless by demolition.
So you would hear explosions every 20 minutes because of this?Claire
“Well, that's strange because many FDNY firefighters said the bombs came from inside the building.”
One of the reasons I do not give interviews after any calls including 9/11 is because how firefighters have their statements taken out of context. Most if not all firefighters said there were explosions heard inside the building, others added that it was bombs to the story. Some were asked what did the explosions sound like and they said like a bomb going off and next thing you know, the media and truthers are saying the firefighters are claiming there were bombs. I know this to be true because it happened to firefighters I know, who by the way tried to sue to get those statements retracted but lost. Once more I want to ask you do you know the characteristics of a fire inside a structure, flashovers, backdrafts, the reactions within the environment?
The video you showed was debunked almost as fast as it was shown. The camera angle for the Danish news caster video is showing the north tower and is obstructing the view of the south tower. It is as the south tower is collapsing as evident of the citizens running away. I do like the fact they try to create a false narrative of a person walking towards the tower. Ask yourself this, who walks or runs to situations others are running away from, then go back and take a closer look at the video. If you are honest with yourself in what you see, you will see it is a fully geared firefighter doing what he suppose to do.
In the beginning of the video were the gentleman points out the cloud on the left of the tower, notice the cloud is white. There are no white clouds in fires and explosions, the only white cloud is steam cloud as water is put on a fire, turning the black smoke to white steam. What is that little cloud sitting there, I do not know, but it is a cloud to itself, nothing feeding into it, very unusual. I will say this, they claim the video has never been seen again and I will disagree. It is a CNN clip from an interview of Tom Clancy. It would take many hours to research, but I bet the clip could be found on You Tube and I would not be surprised if there is no cloud in the original interview.
Here is an eyewitness account that saw the plane crash into the Pentagon including seeing the aftermath debris. Yet the truthers want you to believe the Pentagon was hit with a missile and there was no plane. The first part is a news reporter on the ground when the towers collapse happened.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vWzIo5yst4Claire,
You make good points about the collapse , but they are from the view or assumption that the building is designed and built like all other high rises, it was not. It is an original design and never doe again.
The main supports holding the structure were on the interior quadrant. This was done for 2 reasons, one, to absorb the direct hit of an airliner, and the owner wanted as much floor space as possible. To do so meant removing interior columns generally used for structural support. Another side effect to this was the exterior beams being non main support beams would be smaller and not be able to carry much exterior weight. Thus one of the reasons for the aluminum exterior. The other was the aluminum was to help displace the impact of a direct airliner hit, as we can see it did.
This design was also unique because it was designed in the event of a major collapse event, that it would collapse into itself by having the floors pancake into themselves, also another success as that is what has occurred.So this design automatically means all the steel joints of the lower floors that weren't on fire collapsed at the same time? That's an asinine idea. You'd think the designers would prefer the building to stand. The steel joints would HAVE to be destroyed at exactly the same time to fall at almost free fall. There couldn't be the slightest of resistance. No amount of shifting balance could cause the entire building to collapse to the ground.
We also have to take into account the equal and opposite law:
Sir Isaac Newton first presented his three laws of motion in the "Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis" in 1686. His third law states that for every action (force) in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, if object A exerts a force on object B, then object B also exerts an equal and opposite force on object A. Notice that the forces are exerted on different objects.
So…
"In accordance with the equal and opposite law, as the top section of the building crushes the bottom section, the bottom section will simultaneously exert an equal and opposite force on the top section.
The same numbers of floors above the point of collapse that crushed the lower floors would only exert a force enough to crush the same number of floors beneath the collapsing points should you argue from the point of view that demolitions weren't used. Therefore if 15 floors collapsed from the top, only 15 more would be crushed from the bottom. But in the case of the Twin Towers, the lower floors were able to handle the several times the weight of the upper block.
"The roof line of the North Tower of the World Trade Center is shown to
have been in constant downward acceleration until it disappeared. A
downward acceleration of the falling upper block implies a downward net
force, which requires that the upward resistive force was less than the
weight of the block. [Newton’s second law of motion says that a net
force acting on a body will cause it to accelerate. The net force and
the resulting acceleration will be in the same direction. In this case,
since the measured acceleration is downward, the net force is also
downward. Since the net force in this case is made up of gravity
(acting downward) and structural resistance (acting upward), the
upward resistance must be weaker than the gravitational force.
However the gravitational force on the upper block is simply its
weight, so we conclude that the resistive force is less than the weight of the upper block.] Therefore the downward force exerted by the falling
block must also have been less than its weight. [Newton’s third law of
motion says that forces come in pairs. Two bodies will always exert
equal but opposite forces on each other. Therefore the downward
force of the upper block on the lower section of the building is equal
to the upward resistive force, which we have shown is less than the
weight of the upper block.] Since the lower section of the building was
designed to support several times the weight of the upper block, the
reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to crush the
lower section of the building. Therefore the falling block could not have
acted as a "pile driver." The downward acceleration of the upper block
can be understood as a consequence of, not the cause of, the
disintegration of the lower section of the building"
http://911speakout.org/Chandler_Downwar … NoMath.pdf"So this design automatically means all the steel joints of the lower floors that weren't on fire collapsed at the same time? That's an asinine idea."
Your notation of that idea is true, I hope you realize that your statement is YOUR idea. I never said lower floor beams that were not on fire would all collapse at the same time, that is your theory and yes it is asinine.
A pancake collapse does not have lower floor beams all collapsing at the same time, it is a collapse from the top down where as the top floors collapse into their own footprint causing the floor below to give way, then causing the next one on the way down to give way and so forth until the building is down and into its own footprint.
I will no longer be responding since you will live and die with the truther theory believing what you want and altering the facts of what really happened. Take care of yourselfIn order for the lower floors to be crushed WHEN the falling floor above reached the lower floor still intact, all the steel joints must have failed at the same time when they met. Why else do you think they do this in demolitions? So that buildings don't topple over and the entire thing comes down.
How do you think demolitions work? You completely and utterly ignored Isaac Newton's equal and opposition law which makes it impossible for the entire building to come down especially when the upper floors were substantially lighter than the lower ones.
Cop out! In other words, your argument is incredibly weak. Apply your sentence to yourself. You would rather die than believe the government was behind 9-11 and will completely ignore facts. I will continue to address the remaining comments.
Most don't give interviews because they are terrified as hell. People tend to be punished for speaking out. If firefighters claim there are bombs in the building and sound like bombs then it is logical for the media and truthers to claim they claimed there were bombs. How can you deny this? I don't know of any steel buildings imploding because of flash-overs and back drafting.
What a second...firefighters wear white T-shirts and jeans on the job? No protective gear? A firefighter would walk towards a collapsing building because he would know that he wouldn't be able to get near the building without being killed. Firefighters were ordered to evacuate the north tower when the south tower collapsed. He wasn't running, either. He was moving casually.
Steam cloud?? That's ridiculous! That white smoke is a characteristic of thermite!
Do you really believe steam clouds could be that thick and reach 60 floors up? Are you also suggesting this CNN footage is doctored? Come on.
First of all, we have to take into account who the so-called pilot was:
The 9-11 Commission's Report stated that Hanjour, the pilot who crashed the plane into the Pentagon, was a terrible pilot. What is the truth though?
"But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled
270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing fromOn Flight 77: 'Our Plane Is Being Hijacked' (washingtonpost.com) 8/26/11 3:04 PM"
Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm,possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious."
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0912-WashPost.pdf
What is the truth? Either Hanjour was actually an incredibly talented pilot or else the 9-11 Commissions Report is lying. When that report was compiled they knew damn well what skill was needed to make such a maneuver. If Hanjour was a terrible pilot, then we must entertain the idea that a missile hit the Pentagon and not a passenger plane.
In fact, Hanjour would have had to do the impossible and it's impossible because it doesn't align with the facts:
"So from a mile out, the man who could not properly land a Cessna at a small airport in Maryland weeks earlier, zeroes in on the conveniently chosen western façade of the Pentagon, flies 20 feet off the ground in a Boeing 757 at 400 mph, clips a number of lamp poles on his way in, apparently providing no adverse interference to his flight path, then runs into a tree and a generator trailer, before depositing the enormous aircraft perfectly in between the first and second floor of the United States' military headquarters. Leaving no visible scratch on the Pentagon lawn, no large sections of airplane, no cars from the adjacent I-395 disturbed by the enormous jet-wake, and no publicly available video evidence of this incredible feat - despite the existence of at least 83 cameras on buildings and lamp posts encircling the Pentagon.
"I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lbs airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH. The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile. (Remember that when a plane is landing conventionally, it is traveling somewhere around 150 mph, producing SIGNIFICANTLY less wake than a plane traveling at 400 mph.)
"Furthermore, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon's ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be about fifteen feet above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot. At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan - until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings."
In response to Sagadevan's essay, a pilot contacted the writer to report the following. And while it doesn't reference Flight 77 specifically, surely the comments apply to all flights that morning. Including AA 77:
"Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the 'hijacker's' final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a 'hit'. How these rookies who couldn't fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension."
Why was there no video footage of the plane going into the Pentagon? It has the most cameras in the world but no plane was captured on film?
And just because Mike Walter from USA Today say he saw a plane doesn't mean it was. He said it was like a cruise missile with wings.
Maybe like this?
That's a tomahawk missile.
At 04:21m I see no sign of plane wreckage, etc. Two radiation experts say that high level radiation levels were detected 12 miles from the Pentagon.
"Two high profile radiation experts concur Pentagon strike involved use of a missile. Also Geiger counter readings right after the attack shows high levels of radiation 12 miles away from Pentagon crash site.
A radiation expert and high-ranking Army Major, who once headed the military's depleted uranium project, both contend the Pentagon was hit by missile, not a commercial jetliner, adding high radiation readings after the strike indicate depleted uranium also may have been used.
"I'm not an explosives or crash site expert, but I am highly knowledgeable in causes and effects related to nuclear radiation contamination. What happened at the Pentagon is highly suspicious, leading me to believe a missile with a depleted uranium warhead may have been used," said radiation expert Leuren Moret in a telephone conversation this week from her Berkeley, CA home."
http://rense.com/general67/radfdf.htm
Claire,
Having drilled in the WTC complexes and an owner of a construction company, I am well aware of the design of WTC. It was not designed like any other building in the world. To answer your question
No, the fires were not ”dying down”, they were still burning strong.
“Are you aware that no steel buildings have ever collapsed before 9-11?” Not true, on a small scale, many commercial buildings have collapsed from a fire. If your question is no other high rise stell building has never collapsed, well that is not true either. Here is a clip of the Windsor Tower fire in Madrid Spain. Notice at the 22 second mark the “sparks” of metal just like the one you refer to from the WTC. Does this mean this building was bombed too, does that mean they used thermite here as well? You can see the same sparks and the collapse in the second clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th2bnG_7UyY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MjsVna … re=related
“Jet fuel can never be hot enough to comprise the integrity of a building to the extent it collapses especially falling at free fall speed”.
The common misconception is that people think that steel has to melt before it can collapse, far from true. Truth is a building collapses due to the twisting of the steel, long before it melts. Due to the twisting of the steel, architects design commercial buildings to collapse into themselves or their footprint. Steel will weaken and begin to twist at 600 degrees. Jet fuel can burn in an open pit at 700 degrees, add in enclosing it inside a structure and it can reach 2,000 to 3,000 degrees inside, more than enough to twist the steel.You forget many crucial factors in this case. The top 6 floors fell and there was NO pancake collapse. Why did those falling floors not make the floors beneath them collapse to the ground as is surmised happened to the twin towers. The entire Windsor Tower was on fire and even then did the Tower not collapse to the ground. There was a skeleton left behind and the narrator of the story said the building had to be DEMOLISHED. Did the Twin Towers have to be demolished? No, there was nothing left of them. As for the sparkles, which is just bits of fire on the debris falling in my opinion, come from the burning floors. The sparkles from the Twin Towers, on the other hand, came from the floors that weren't on fire and hadn't even imploded yet.
“Jet fuel can never be hot enough to comprise the integrity of a building to the extent it collapses especially falling at free fall speed”.
The initial explosion when the planes hit consumed most of the jet fuel. To address your point earlier, for this reason, the fire was dying after about half an hour.
"On the morning of September 11th, 2001, New York City firefighters seemed to have the World Trade Center fires under control. Take, for instance, this excerpt from one of their radio transmissions after they had reached the uppermost floors at the point of impact: “Battalion seven … Ladder fifteen, we’ve got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines.” Two of the men’s voices on these tapes – Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer and Fire Marshal Ronald P. Bucca, had reached the South Tower’s 78th floor. From all accounts, those who had heard these New York Fire Department tapes said that the firefighters judged the blazes to be manageable"
You can hear this recording here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mU3APV3UxOg
Here is the picture of the south tower with big grey smoke. That is indicative of a dying fire. My goodness, it was dying before the other plane hit the north tower!
And I'm supposed to believe that fires that could hardly be seen weakened steel to such an extent that it collapses and in such a short time! The north tower collapsed in 01:45 m and the south tower collapsed in one hour.
The problem is that the WTC7 had a relatively small fire and was not hit by a plane and thus could not have been inflicted with a fire laden with jet fuel.
Please explain the horizontal projections on the floors undamaged and why molten steel was seen pouring down the towers.“You forget many crucial factors in this case. The top 6 floors fell and there was NO pancake collapse. Why did those falling floors not make the floors beneath them collapse to the ground as is surmised happened to the twin towers.”
I am not forgetting any critical factors, you are choosing to ignore them because it does fit your theory. First, it turns out there have been collapses prior to 9/11, I showed you just one yet do you not find it odd people still refuse to believe that? As I have told you earlier, the design of the WTC was unique and there was no other building ever designed like it. Windsor Building is an old time traditional steel building where the main supports are all over the structure where as in WTC the main supports are only in the center core. When the top six floors of Windor collapsed, they did so be falling to the side and not into its footprint. In addition, the structure had been shedding itself long before the collapse so when it started to come down there was already a weight relief. When the towers came down, they were whole and came straight down. If you look closely, when one of the towers started to collapse, the top was starting to topple over before the design did as it was suppose to do, collapse into its footprint.“The initial explosion when the planes hit consumed most of the jet fuel. To address your point earlier, for this reason, the fire was dying after about half an hour.”
Jet fuel does not vaporize in an instant. To know this you need to understand the characteristics of jet fuel, its combustion point, what it takes to initially ignite it, rate of burn, and B.L.E.V.E.
Here is a link to a small controlled burn of jet fuel form a pipeline. Notice how clean it burns, notice the cold white vapor clouds that jet fuel emits. Wonder why none of the truthers reports talks about those grey/white vapor clouds? Could that white cloud you mentioned earlier be a vapor cloud from Jet fuel?
If the fuel tanks ruptured and went on fire, the only fuel burning is what escaped, what is in the tanks keep feeding the fire as they empty out. If they ruptured and completely emptied on impact they liguid still would not all instantly burn. Say it fill the entire floor and did not leak down to other floors. Say it is 1 inch thick, only the top layer would be burning, say the top 1/16 on an inch. It would many hours for all of that one inch to burn down. That fire was not dying down in the first half hour.
This is where my conversation with you will end. It is obvious from this statement you made that you will say anything to promote the truthers story and ignore whatever facts are pointed out to you. Please, at least understand the basics of this day. You stated:
“Here is the picture of the south tower with big grey smoke. That is indicative of a dying fire. My goodness, it was dying before the other plane hit the north tower!”
Really, are you kidding me, you do not even know which tower was hit first. Give me a break. Here is a link to a timeline, I suggest you read it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_f … 11_attacksAccording to the WORLD TRADE CENTER BUILDING PERFORMANCE STUDY by FEMA, about 3000 gallons of the 10 000 gallons that the plane had was consumed in the initial fire ball.
"The precise size of the fireballs and their exact shapes are not well defined; therefore, there is some uncertainty associated with estimates of the amount of fuel consumed by these effects. Calculations indicate that between 1,000 and 3,000 gallons of jet fuel were likely consumed in this manner. Barring additional information, itis reasonable to assume that an approximately similar amount of jet fuel was consumed by fireballs as the aircraft struck WTC 1.
Video of the WTC 2 impact, a still of which is shown in Figure 4, shows that after the entire aircraft entered the building, a fireball burst from
each of the three building faces not impacted.
The FEMA report states that each fireball
grew to a size of greater than 200’ - the fireballs were slightly larger than one side of the
building. (2002, pp. 2-21 - 2-23) They
reached their maximum size in approximately
two seconds, indicating that the fuel/air
mixture did not explode. If the mixture had
exploded, the fireballs would have developed
in fractions of a second. The ignition of the
fuel/air mixture without an explosion did not
create a shock wave and thus did not cause
any significant structural damage. (Burgess,
2002, p. 396) Based on the size and shape of
the fireballs, approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel was consumed in this manner at each tower
(FEMA, 2002, p. 2-21)."
So it was not most of the jet fuel that was consumed, just 3000 gallons. My apologies.
Furthermore:
"Shortly after September 11, the media attributed the collapse of the towers to the burning jet fuel,
which burns much hotter than normal combustibles. However, analysis of the fires has shown
that the jet fuel burned off in less than five minutes and that it was a small part of the available
combustibles on the impact floors. However, the fuel did set fire to almost every object on those
floors. (Burgess, 2002, p. 396) As a result, the temperature of the fires (after the first few minutes) was dictated by the conditions in the towers and not by the jet fuel. "
So now the fire that was burning after 5 minutes was not due to jet fuel. I think a jet fuelled laden fire would not comprise the integrity of the towers to such an extent that it collapses.
The temperature of the fires reached 900 only. In that case, it does not explain the molten steel found in the rubble.
http://eng-web.engineering.cornell.edu/ … nC_PR1.pdf
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/ … 2.htm#fema
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/fem … 03_ch2.pdf
I do not believe there would be jet fuel at the base of the towers.
Well, big black smoke indicates a dying fire. Just before the collapse of the towers there were just isolated pockets of fire.
I know the north tower got hit first; I just made a mistake. I was thinking of the south tower collapsing first.
No, no steel buildings have ever collapsed to the ground. I wonder why the designers of the WTC didn't design the towers to withstand fire rather than design it to implode in its footpath. I have never heard that the designers purposely designed it that way.
You did not address why the undamaged floors shot debris out horizontally. You did not explain why there were squibs, or sparkles, that came from the undamaged floors nor did you explain the molten steel.From the report "why did the World Trade Center Collapse" It even mentions the collapse speed which contradicts the truther theory, but they just ignore it.
THE COLLAPSE
"Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.
The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down."
"No, no steel buildings have ever collapsed to the ground." Again, sorry to disappoint, but that is just not true, even most truthers have backed off that statement..
All of the columns of the floor that collapsed had to have buckled at exactly the same time for it to fall symmetrically.
.
This is completely irrelevant because normal fire could not have made the steel buckle. As I mentioned, all the jet fuel was consumed within 15 minutes. For heaven's sake, I don't know how the WTC was designed for airplanes to go into it just to have a short burning fire bring it down?
10 seconds is free-fall speed:
Free-falling from WTC heights
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height.
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)
or
2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared)
Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity
Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7
Time = 9.2
So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height.
Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph."
As you may know, air resistance is something that slows the momentum of the fall of an object. The resistance at each level of the towers when imploding should have slowed down the fall.
Further quote:
"Earth's gravity causes objects to fall. They fall according to precise, well-known equations. The equations assume no (air) resistance. Any resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would have without that resistance.
It is that last sentence which bears repeating.
There is a maximum possible rate at which objects fall, and if any of gravity's potential energy is consumed doing anything other than accelerate the object downward -- even just having to push air out of the way -- there will be less energy available to accelerate the object downward, and so that object's downward acceleration will be diminished.
And if an object's downward acceleration is diminished, it will be going slower along the way, and thus it will take longer to fall a given distance."
There was absolutely no resistance at each floor which is impossible unless it was demolished.
Many people may lie but science never lies.
http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml
Oh, yes, you are right. WTC7 collapsed to the ground even though no plane went into it. But I'd be interested in seeing other buildings imploding to the ground from fire.
AV, do you believe there was thermite used to weaken the building?
K,
No I do not and her is why. To successfully use thermte you first have to go to all the structural columns and build a receptacle and attach it to the steel. Then, you need to fill each receptacle. Now you have to add the fuse and run a line to a remote place where you can set off all those devises you planted. Do you think in a building of about 50,000 people no one would notice someone running wires? Or the remote place would not be found before you are ready to complete the job?
I wrote an article here on hubpages you are free to go read. I cannot give you the link as it is a violation of their TOS. In the article I spoke with an expert who owns a demolition company. He said it would take 8-12 months to properly set up a detonation job to take that building down, not to mention they industry does not use explosives on buildings that high.Did you know that the WTC was closed for about 36 hours over where all the security cameras were switched off and bomb sniffer dogs were removed? During that weekend there was construction with all sorts of wiring involved. The dumb excuse for this was that Internet cables were being "upgraded".
Did you know months before 9-11, the elevators were being "modernized"? How was the the director of the security company for the WTC? Marvin Bush, Bushies' brother. When the security company installed their security in 1999, wiring for explosives could have been placed.
The WTC was evacuated a couple of times weeks leading up to the terror attacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHawFS0oJlU
Technology exists today that denotations are made via remote control. See the interview with the demolition expert. Now why would some demolition experts say it was demolished and not others? It doesn't matter HOW they did it but what the evidence is that demolitions were used. I can't believe that demolition expert you are referring to can't recognize a demolition.This proves nothing, much like all of your "arguments".
Why are you still here? I thought you didn't want to correspond with me anymore.
“Here is the picture of the south tower with big grey smoke. That is indicative of a dying fire. My goodness, it was dying before the other plane hit the north tower!”
Really, are you kidding me, you do not even know which tower was hit first. Give me a break. Here is a link to a timeline, I suggest you read it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_f … 11_attacks
I also think you should take your own advise for yourself that ypu posed to someone else earlier here on this thread, "Just move on, please. Nothing I say will get through to you. Continue to live in your denial world."
Your writings here are prime examples as to why we do not give interviews. I personally have been hounded solidly for 6 years after 9/11. The only reason I do not get hounded now is because when at one time when I moved I changed everything along with my address. I no longer use my name on anything on the web so I cannot be traced. It is an un-written code firefighters follow, no interviews. Sometimes the brass would make us do one for publicity sake. But with instant reporting today, questions get asked and people just answered, any of those answers were taken out of context. That was when FDNY clamped down and stopped all interviews. But you want to spin that fact into a fear factor. Do you think people who are willing to die at any moment on their job have a fear of what they say? Please.
I am not going to respond to your entire last response as it is just more far reaching misinformation. But I will point out a few things as to why I am not going to respond anymore.
"Technology exists today that denotations are made via remote control. See the interview with the demolition expert. Now why would some demolition experts say it was demolished and not others? It doesn't matter HOW they did it but what the evidence is that demolitions were used. I can't believe that demolition expert you are referring to can't recognize a demolition."
Advanced Explosives Demolition ask for Mr. Kelley. I used them twice in lower Manhattan to remove buildings and erect new ones in there place for Trinity Church Real Estate Investments INC. I got to watch professionals up close do theirj ob. Now I will say they did not use thermite on these projects. These projects were extremely smaller than taking down the WTC, but the basics are the same. BTW, Mr. Kelley is recognized as one of the best Demolition experts in the country.
I also want to address you statement "It doesn't matter HOW they did it but what the evidence is that demolitions were used" Claire, when you present your theory and it gets debunked you cannot take the argument "it does not matter, but I know that is what happened". Your theory was based on thermite which I showed you was not possible. And since we know thermite was not used, out the window goes your "white cloud" theory. Another correct, thermite cloud is grey, it looks white in the burn picture because when thermite burns it creates a whiteout effect form the intense brightness of the burn. Once the flame goes out you will see the real color of the cloud as evident when you look to the top of the picture.
Thermite would require some magnesium strips as an intermediate booster to achieve the proper ignition temperature which makes thermite not a remote detonation candidate.
Mike Walter was not the only on the ground witness that saw the plane hit the Pentagon. I cannot believe how far you are reaching trying to compare a 747 to a tomahawk cruise missile. They are not even close. What next, because it has wings it was a cardinal, or a finch, or even a blue jay?
So is it your position then that the building was "armed and wired in the 36 hour period when the buildings were closed? Let's take a look at that from a math perspective. See when I bid jobs I understand all the intricacies of the job from material to labor and price accordingly. So lets' check this out.
We know that in an office building situation the main support beams are enclosed withing the sheetrock walls so they are not eyesores. So in order to do the demolition properly, especially if you want to stick with the thermite theory, it must be attached directly to the steel beam. So job one, cut an opening in the sheetrock to expose the beam. There are 244 main support beams on every floor and we must blow each floor in sequence to bring the building safely down. So if you take everything into consideration, time to walk between holes to cut, bathroom breaks, coffee breaks, and the rest, let's say it takes 15 minutes per hole cut. There are a total 26,840 when you add all the floors, at 15 minutes is 6,710 hours to complete the task. Or to put it another way, 280 days, and that is just to cut the hole, no bomb placed, no wires run, no central hookup. I think we can see it could not be done in a 36 hour time frame. Also 26,840 wires bundled together going to a detention panel bundled together would be about 5 feet around, not easy to hide that.
This is just common sense stuff truthers refuse to acknowledge. Your wrong statement the firefighters having the fires under control, not knowing which tower was hit first, not understanding the effects of flashovers an backdrafts and more. You just ignore the fact I was there, I was there for the next 3 weeks having never left the site. I worked, napped on the street, went back to work.
So take car Claire, nothing anyone will ever show you will you believe, noteven someone with first hand knowledge.I do feel somewhat sorry for you. It cannot be easy to think the government stole the lives of those many heroic firefighters. It's much easier to think evil Muslims did it. I feel sad for the firefighters who are too scared to speak out. Don't tell me this nonsense that firefighters would not be scared by threats. What if they were threatening their children?
No, it's information you can't refute, unfortunately.
Thermite is not used in all demolitions . Even the best demolition experts can be paid off. In other words, he was paid off to forget what a demolition looks like.
You haven't debunked the fact it was demolished. You haven't even explained the molten steel. Go ask Mr Kelly about the molten steel. How did you show me using thermite wasn't possible? Just refer that to me again? How do you know there was no flame where that smoke was coming from? And of course white smoke was coming from the towers where it was burning. There's the molten steel that you refuse to address! It's just funny how you say I'm not allowed to not know but you don't know what the white smoke is and you don't know what caused the horizontal projections and molten steel. Different standards for you, hey?
And we see the white smoke at Ground Zero:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lxHkFGQPc90/S … educed.jpg
There's the molten steel and white smoke at Ground zero!
I was thinking about this and have come across this theory:
"These inexplicable fires are a reminder that the WTC buildings were not simply
demolished, but were demolished in a deceptive way. That is, the buildings were brought
down so as to make it look like the impact of the planes and the resulting fires might have
caused their unprecedented, symmetrical destruction. Therefore, shaped charges and
other typical explosive configurations were likely used, but there was more to it than that.
Those committing the crimes needed to create fire where it would not have existed
otherwise, and draw attention toward the part of the buildings where the planes impacted
(or in the case of WTC 7, away from the building altogether). This was most probably accomplished through the use of nano-thermites, which are hightech energetic materials made by mixing ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum and UFG metal oxides; usually iron oxide, molybdenum oxide or copper oxide, although other compounds can be used (Prakash 2005, Rai 2005). The mixing is accomplished by
adding these reactants to a liquid solution where they form what are called “sols”, and then adding a gelling agent that captures these tiny reactive combinations in their intimately mixed state (LLNL 2000). The resulting “sol-gel” is then dried to form a porous reactive material that can be ignited in a number of ways. The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels allows for the far higher rate of energy release than is seen in “macro” thermite mixtures, making nano-thermites “high explosives” as well as pyrotechnic materials (Tillitson et al 1999). Sol-gel nanothermites, are often called energetic nanocomposites, metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) or superthermite (COEM 2004, Son et al 2007), and silica is often used to create the porous, structural framework
(Clapsaddle et al 2004, Zhao et al 2004).
Nano-thermites have also been made with RDX (Pivkina et al 2004), and with thermoplastic elastomers (Diaz et al 2003). But it is important to remember that, despite the name, nano-thermites pack a much bigger punch than typical thermite materials. It turns out that explosive, sol-gel nanothermites were developed by US government scientists, at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) (Tillitson et al 1998, Gash et al 2000, Gash et al 2002). These LLNL scientists reported that --
“The sol-gel process is very amenable to dip-, spin-, and spray-coating technologies to coat surfaces. We have utilized this property to dip-coat various substrates to make sol-gel Fe,O,/ Al / Viton coatings. The energetic coating dries to give a nice adherent film. Preliminary experiments indicate that films of the hybrid material are self-propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus”
(Gash et al 2002).
The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent failure suggests that spray-on nano-thermite materials may have been applied to the steel components of the WTC buildings,underneath the upgraded fireproofing (Ryan 2008). This could have been done in such a way that very few people knew what was happening. The Port Authority’s engineering consultant Buro Happold, helping with evaluation of the fireproofing upgrades, suggested the use of “alternative materials” (NIST 2005). Such alternative materials could have been spray-on nano-thermites substituted for intumescent paint or Interchar-like fireproofing primers (NASA 2006). It seems quite possible that this kind of substitution could have been made with few people noticing."
Isn't that interesting that non-thermite materials may have been applied to the steel components of the WTC? That would have melted the steel. The bombs may not even have thermite.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2 … Nano-1.pdf
Walter said it was a like a cruise missile with wings. Tomahawks are cruise missiles. I mean, you haven't addressed how impossible it is that a plane can enter the Pentagon like that. So please explain how such an impossible move was caused by a terrible pilot?
I never said it was done in 36 hours. Read my comment and sources again.
Did you know months before 9-11, the elevators were being "modernized"? How was the the director of the security company for the WTC? Marvin Bush, Bushies' brother. When the security company installed their security in 1999, wiring for explosives could have been placed.
The WTC was evacuated a couple of times weeks leading up to the terror attacks.
Watch!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHawFS0oJlU
Oh, so that firefighter that spoke of the isolated fires that could be knocked out what delusional? How does any fire get under control when flash-overs occur all the time. If you worked on the site, would you not have seen the molten steel and the white smoke? Did you know there were hot spots months after 9-11? Did you know that recovery workers had the soles of their shoes melted off?
"Out on the rubble it's still, I believe, 1,100 degrees. The guys boots just melt within a few hours."
One of the more unusual artefacts to emerge from the rubble is this rock-like object which has come to be known as "the meteorite". "This is a fused element of molten steel and concrete all fused by the heat into one single element."
This is what a gun looked like retrieved from the rubble:
Have you seen this before?
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.php
The problem with you is that you cherry pick. You ignore a lot of my arguments that aren't convenient to you.As for the plane that hit the Pentagon - that one I can confirm. I was not there - did not see anything, but a lifelong friend, a professional witness for the FAA, was called to the wreckage. He took numerous photos and showed me copies. He pointed out different parts of the destroyed plane. I could not have recognized those parts - they were so badly demolished, without his help. But yes, a plane definitely hit the Pentagon.
Yes, the FAA aren't capable of lying....not!
Show me those photographs! The FAA also showed me where the pink unicorn was buried at the Pentagon crash site. It means nothing until I provide the evidence.
I see no plane debris here? Did he take photos inside of the Pentagon?
Can you explain the plane wasn't caught on camera going into the Pentagon?"All of the columns of the floor that collapsed had to have buckled at exactly the same time for it to fall symmetrically."
Please, it is getting embarrassing for you at this point. Controlled Demolition, ALL columns do not buckle at the same time. Interior first floors are discharged first, proceeding to second third and so forth. At a predetermined point, depends on the building and landing points, the outer beams get discharged.
Have you not really looked closely at a demo. the middle of the building falls first while the exterior stands for a few floors. Notice that is not what happened at WTC. the entire structure fell all at once in one piece from the point of impact up.
So lets follow Claires plan. They blew the upper floor first, which means the pilot had to be such a genius pilot he knew to hit the 78th floor. So at 400 plus MPH, the pilot counted from the ground up 78 floors so he could be sure to crash into the appropriate floor. Then they detonate the 78th floor first which goes against all rules of demolition because controlling the drop would not be possible.
"
This is completely irrelevant because normal fire could not have made the steel buckle. As I mentioned, all the jet fuel was consumed within 15 minutes. For heaven's sake, I don't know how the WTC was designed for airplanes to go into it just to have a short burning fire bring it down?"
Finally glad to see you admit you do not understand the design of the building. That is at the core of why you fall for most of the truther stories. It has been proven scientifically that the jet fuel did not burn off in 15 minutes.
As for your continued claim steel does not give way to heat, Bless your Heart.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNAI meant that the columns supporting the floors had to have failed at the same time. Is it not true that the core consisted of 47 steel columns that were attached to each floor? All of that would have had to fail in order for it to fall at free fall. Correct?
Reports say that the weak single-bolt connections in the towers contributed to the collapse. Weak bold connections? Is that a good idea where designing a building that is meant to deal with the strong winds and multiple jets going into it?
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it, that was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building could probably sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door - this intense grid - and the plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center
The FEMA and NIST
Those building were very solid and secure. It's just an embarrassment to think they were designed to implode after a fire that didn't even burn for 2 hours,
I cannot for one moment think the designers would comprise the integrity of the twin towers just for floor space. It was meant to withstand severe earthquakes.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL … heory.html
About a second before the north tower collapsed, the antennae dropped 12 meters. This is irrefutable evidence that the floors giving way did not cause the collapse. For the antennae to have dropped, the hat truss structure strengthening the core must have suffered severe damage. It could not have been this damaged as the fire damage was 10 floors below the top three floors spanned by the massive angle I-beams. It was intact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXhpC1p1lYo
Another strange thing to note is that the upper part of the south tower rotated and tilted for 2 seconds so that its roof overhung its base by at least 80 feet at one point. The law of conservation of momentum would have made it topple over and not "go back into place" and continue to fall. It just seems the designers of the WTC were able to defy the law of physics.
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mac … n_features
With WTC7, it "kinked" in the middle to that the outer parts of the building were raised higher than the middle. You see that line going across the top of the building before the collapse? What is it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus
And here you see a puff of white smoke start to emerge from the top of WTC7 just before it collapses. What was that? There was no fire on the top of the building.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972ETepp … re=related
Not if you consider the planes were flown by remote control. Then the controllers would know exactly where to fly it in. Who says the 78th floor got detonated first?
At the point of impact, there was obviously thermite there. You can see by the molten steel pouring out of the South Tower just prior to its collapse. In other words, the steel just melted which jet fuel fire cannot do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6f9Jpfz1Vo
Finally glad to see you admit you do not understand the design of the building. That is at the core of why you fall for most of the truther stories. It has been proven scientifically that the jet fuel did not burn off in 15 minutes.
I thought it got twisted from the heat, etc, but didn't melt? Isn't that what made it weak? Funny, the FEMA report says that the jet fuel was consumed within 15 minutes. So they are lying then?
Actually the 9-11 Commissions report lies quite a bit which is strange because they could just regurgitate what you say.
I notice the building is still standing. Wow. If only the twin towers were designed like that!
Here are a few points to consider:
Pieces of the towers were shot out at least 70 meters when the collapse happened. Why the horizontal projection?
Quite frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of you just ignoring most of my points! Do you not know what molten steel is or what a demolition looks like? How did WTC7 fall? It is utterly embarrassing for you to admit your arguments have failed by just disregarding the arguments you can't answer. Go back and answer EVERY argument I have posted.Claire,
I really do not care how frustrated you are as you get debunked with facts. You can spin all you want. I find it interesting you ask the smae questions dspite being given the answers.
For example "Do you not know what molten steel is or what a demolition looks like?" when you not only were told I was involved in 2 demos but I even gave you the name of the company and the gentleman's name in case you want to look it up and call them.
As for WTC7, I was in front of WTC7 as it came down all around me. I just got out of the building for less than a minute before it came down. As for what was on top, it you look closely you will see a black line and a black object on the left. Watch closely as the left object collapsed first. That was a water tower that feeds the HVAC chiller equipment. Behind the other black line you see is the mechanical room and other HVAC rooftop equipment. Oyur notion as with others that there was no to little fire in WTC7 is of course in accurate to say the least. Again as I said earlier, you do not know or understand the characteristics of a structure fire. See, fire emits not just heat and smoke but little pieces of carbon. Inside it is very hot, outside, even on a 100 degree day is cold compared to a fire. These attach themselves to the windows and blacken them out. You can look at the outside of a building in pre flash or backdraft and swear the building is not on fire, then BOOM. Look it up on You Tube there are plenty of examples. Here is one I looked up quickly. Yes I know it is a house but I do not have time to look. See how calm the house is with just a little smoke then Boom, you can see the smoke emit all across the front but when it clears you still cannot see that the home on the inside is fully involved, hence the command to evacuate you hear being given.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTQWNCeCBvQ
Here is a flashover that is not totally enclosed, doors and windows are open. What I want you to hear is the explosion sound it makes. You can hear it even with the person speaking loudly. It is much louder when in a confined area
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FJT2QU- … re=related
As for the beams, I will copy and past here for you what I wrote earlier fro clarification and in case you missed it. :
"There are 244 main support beams on every floor and we must blow each floor in sequence to bring the building safely down. So if you take everything into consideration, time to walk between holes to cut, bathroom breaks, coffee breaks, and the rest, let's say it takes 15 minutes per hole cut. There are a total 26,840 when you add all the floors, at 15 minutes is 6,710 hours to complete the task. Or to put it another way, 280 days, and that is just to cut the hole, no bomb placed, no wires run, no central hookup. "
Also let's clear up the design issue you are having a hard time understand. Here is what the open floor plan looked like"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit … amp;page=1
"The tube-frame design, earlier introduced by Fazlur Khan, was a new approach that allowed more open floor plans than the traditional design that distributed columns throughout the interior to support building loads. The World Trade Center towers used high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure, supporting virtually all lateral loads such as wind loads, and sharing the gravity load with the core columns. The perimeter structure containing 59 columns per side was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces each consisting of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates.[31] The spandrel plates were welded to the columns to create the modular pieces off-site at the fabrication shop.[32] Adjacent modules were bolted together with the splices occurring at mid-span of the columns and spandrels. The spandrel plates were located at each floor, transmitting shear stress between columns, allowing them to work together in resisting lateral loads. The joints between modules were staggered vertically so the column splices between adjacent modules were not at the same floor.["
Here is an article I think you will enjoy and it has a picture of the column design.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm
I also just came across this video that explains the difference between a typical steel building and the unique WTC design. Maybe this will help you understand the design better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY7BCXew0UIAgain you ignore most of my points! What is wrong with you??
Claire,
I really do not care how frustrated you are as you get debunked with facts. You can spin all you want. I find it interesting you ask the smae questions dspite being given the answers.
What facts? Like the designers of the WTC being so stupid that they can't even design a building that withstands fire for under 2 hours and takes out columns for space? But they bend the rules of physics. Gotta commend that.
"For example "Do you not know what molten steel is or what a demolition looks like?" when you not only were told I was involved in 2 demos but I even gave you the name of the company and the gentleman's name in case you want to look it up and call them."
And if I gave you names for those experts who say it was definitely a demolition? What then? Do you know what molten steel is?
"As for WTC7, I was in front of WTC7 as it came down all around me. I just got out of the building for less than a minute before it came down."[/i]
Did Larry Silverstein tell you to go out because he said, "We are going to "pull it"? I think you know what "pull it" mean in demolition terms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jPzAakHPpk
I get frustrated because a debate requires both participants to address all points and you don't.
" As for what was on top, it you look closely you will see a black line and a black object on the left. Watch closely as the left object collapsed first. That was a water tower that feeds the HVAC chiller equipment. Behind the other black line you see is the mechanical room and other HVAC rooftop equipment."
You are telling me a fire without jet fuel caused the mechanical room, etc, to fall? It's just strange that fails just before the building collapses. It sort of reminds me of the antennae of the North tower....
"Your notion as with others that there was no to little fire in WTC7 is of course in accurate to say the least. Again as I said earlier, you do not know or understand the characteristics of a structure fire. See, fire emits not just heat and smoke but little pieces of carbon. Inside it is very hot, outside, even on a 100 degree day is cold compared to a fire. These attach themselves to the windows and blacken them out. You can look at the outside of a building in pre flash or backdraft and swear the building is not on fire, then BOOM. Look it up on You Tube there are plenty of examples. Here is one I looked up quickly. Yes I know it is a house but I do not have time to look. See how calm the house is with just a little smoke then Boom, you can see the smoke emit all across the front but when it clears you still cannot see that the home on the inside is fully involved, hence the command to evacuate you hear being given.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTQWNCeCBvQ"
"Here is a flashover that is not totally enclosed, doors and windows are open. What I want you to hear is the explosion sound it makes. You can hear it even with the person speaking loudly. It is much louder when in a confined area
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FJT2QU- … ated"
I thought it was the heat jet fuel comprising the steel of the Twin Towers that brought them down? Are you telling me that a building with just a normal fire just falls in its footprint?
Isn't the above picture a small fire compared to...
Let me guess....it's the design on the WTC7 that brought it down, right? Why didn't WTC 4, 5 and 6 come down when it had worse fires? You previously posted a video that showed a partial collapse of a building on fire. Why wasn't there only a partial collapse? And the WTC7 fell at free fall speed. Wow. Again defying the law of physics. Also, the floors affected by the fires did not collapse. It fell from the bottom so the explosion must have been in the basement. This was a conventional demolition.
Larry also profited handsomely for the destruction of the WTCs. Some people just have all the luck...
Weirdly enough, the other parts of the WTC he was not a lease holder was remained standing! Wow!
I'll prove to you it wasn't a normal fire that brought the WTC7 down. Even FEMA says it doesn't know why WTC7 fell:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
http://www.wtc7.net/femareport.html
From the New York Times:
"The building had suffered mightily from the fire that raged in it, and it had been wounded by the flying beams falling off the towers. But experts said no building like it, a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire, and engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/engineers_a … 7_wtc.html
Anyway, from FEMA's "Building Performance Assessment Report":
"FEMA described its analysis of only two steel samples, one from Building 7 and the other from Tower 1 or 2. The analysis of the WTC 7 sample showed “evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including rapid oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting….”
In the above picture you can see the steel was eroded by sulphur.
Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc … apndxC.htm
Thermite compounded with sulphur is thermate.
http://rense.com/general86/therm.htm
As for the beams, I will copy and past here for you what I wrote earlier fro clarification and in case you missed it. :
"There are 244 main support beams on every floor and we must blow each floor in sequence to bring the building safely down. So if you take everything into consideration, time to walk between holes to cut, bathroom breaks, coffee breaks, and the rest, let's say it takes 15 minutes per hole cut. There are a total 26,840 when you add all the floors, at 15 minutes is 6,710 hours to complete the task. Or to put it another way, 280 days, and that is just to cut the hole, no bomb placed, no wires run, no central hookup. "
You are assuming that the demolition was using commercial explosions be used in the conventional way. There are other means like detonated via a computer and radio links as I mentioned. Here is a scenario:
"title: Were explosives detonated by computer via radio links?
authors: Eric Hufschmid
Packages of explosives could be installed on nearly every floor, in the areas used by maintenance personnel.
...
Each package would have a battery powered radio link that connected it to the main computer. This master computer would be able to detonate specific packages of explosives at specific times simply by sending signals to the packages."
An example of a product to achieve this is the HiEx TeleBlaster .
The Hiex Teleblaster II is an intelligent and discrete 2-way VHF or UHF telemetrey blast initiation system intended for commercial blasting operations.
The radio system's signal is digitally encoded(addressed). The latest microprocessor and message encoding/validation technology has been combined to provide a safe, reliable, accurate and compact remote blast initioation device.
http://hiex.bc.ca/products.html
Of course there is also the coating of nano-thermite on the steel. You could do that in front of anyone and they would not be suspicious. Could explosives have this nano-thermite coating, too? It remains stable with this coating.
http://911review.com/means/demolition/index.html
"After determining that the airplane hit the 77th floor of the South Tower, the master computer would be set to detonate the explosives on the 77th floor, and then 250 milliseconds later the explosives on the 76th floor, then then 180 milliseconds later the explosives on the 75th floor, etc."
Why not?
"Also let's clear up the design issue you are having a hard time understand. Here is what the open floor plan looked like"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit … amp;page=1
What is the floor plan supposed to tell me?
"The tube-frame design, earlier introduced by Fazlur Khan, was a new approach that allowed more open floor plans than the traditional design that distributed columns throughout the interior to support building loads. The World Trade Center towers used high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure, supporting virtually all lateral loads such as wind loads, and sharing the gravity load with the core columns. The perimeter structure containing 59 columns per side was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces each consisting of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates.[31] The spandrel plates were welded to the columns to create the modular pieces off-site at the fabrication shop.[32] Adjacent modules were bolted together with the splices occurring at mid-span of the columns and spandrels. The spandrel plates were located at each floor, transmitting shear stress between columns, allowing them to work together in resisting lateral loads. The joints between modules were staggered vertically so the column splices between adjacent modules were not at the same floor.
Here is an article I think you will enjoy and it has a picture of the column design.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm
What a BS article.
It says that at 800C, it was enough to melt steel floor supports. Steel doesn't melt at that temperature. The aviation fuel was consumed in 15 minutes according to FEMA
"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise.
What a liar.
"The buildings' construction manager, Hyman Brown, agreed that nothing could have saved them from the inferno.
"But steel melts, and 24,000 gallons (91,000 litres) of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."
What a moron. Steel does not melt at 800 degrees.
Melting point of steel:
Steel, Carbon 1425 - 1540 C
Steel, Stainless - 1510 C
There was only 10 000 gallons of aviation fuel. I wonder how much they paid this guy to say such lies?
Absolutely shocking.
"I also just came across this video that explains the difference between a typical steel building and the unique WTC design. Maybe this will help you understand the design better. "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY7BCXew0UI"
At 05:51, a structural engineer says a plane wouldn't knock down a building. The WTC was designed to have a Boeing 707 crash into the towers and it was fully loaded with fuel. The 767 that flew into the twin towers only had 10 gallons in its fuel tanks.
I find this video to more support my argument than yours.
Maybe you should learn about physics. It doesn't matter what design a building has it stills abides by the laws of physics. The WTCs were supposed to be superior design and and they fall from fire? They were state of the art achievements! The were designed to accommodate large spaces:
"The original WTC design, the work of architect Minoru Yamasaki, was one of the first architectural plans to call for open space within a steel-frame building. This meant doing away with the forest of columns so typical of the steel high-rise buildings of former years. Chief engineer Skilling achieved the objective with a double support system: a dense array of 236 columns around the perimeter, and a network of 47 massive piers at the core. The creation of large expanses of unobstructed floor space within the WTC was a novel idea in the 1960s, but is commonplace today.[32] "
So removing columns for space was never a threat to the integrity to a building.Gotta love it when you grab for straws, spin the story and change what you origially claim into something else each time you are shown to have inaccurate information. Like your first statement claiming I ignore your information then in the very first paragraph you debunk yourself with the comment on the designers of the WTC.
"I really do not care how frustrated you are as you get debunked with facts. You can spin all you want. I find it interesting you ask the same questions despite being given the answers.
What facts? Like the designers of the WTC being so stupid that they can't even design a building that withstands fire for under 2 hours and takes out columns for space? But they bend the rules of physics. Gotta commend that. "
Then like this statement:
AV" "when you not only were told I was involved in 2 demos but I even gave you the name of the company and the gentleman's name in case you want to look it up and call them."
Claire:And if I gave you names for those experts who say it was definitely a demolition? What then?"
You missed the point as to why I gave the names. I have been involved in 2 building Demos and that was the company I hired. Unlike those who spout off and have no experience. By the way, because I could not believe you went there, explosive demolition does not use the term PULL IT, they use FIRE IN THE HOLE. Pull it is actually a fire department term. It is used when the order is given to evacuate a structure immediately, allowed by all vehicles on scene blasting their air horns so the fire fighters inside without radios hear it and evacuate. Larry was in touch with Battalion Chiefs, he is smart enough to know to say pull itto a chief when weighing his options. For the record, I had no contact with Larry, I was following orders getting intel and doing secondary searches at several times to make sure there was no one inside WTC 7. That is why I know there was way more fire inside than you saw on the outside.
I understand you cannot grasp why the mechanical equipment would come through the roof before the entire structure collapses. A water tower fo a chiller would carry about 20,000 gallons of water at 8 lbs per gallon. I guess you can do the math as to the weight and what happens when the steel below it is getting weaker from the heat.
"I thought it was the heat jet fuel comprising the steel of the Twin Towers that brought them down? Are you telling me that a building with just a normal fire just falls in its footprint? "
I have shown you 2 videos of high rises that collapsed without jet fuel. I can show more if I really wanted to waste my time because you just ignore them. Do you not have stores by you, malls, steel structures? I know your courthouse burned and collapsed recently but honestly I do not know if it was a steel structure or not. All I can say to you is go to a firehouse in a city, a busy one and gear up. Go inside and see just how hot it gets inside, Ride a crew till you get a good steel building on fire, then come back and tell me your experience. My house answered over 3,000 alarms a year.
"Or to put it another way, 280 days, and that is just to cut the hole, no bomb placed, no wires run, no central hookup"
I will not waste time on the radio control theory because every reputable demo man said how unreliable the would be. Last, it does not matter how it was detonated had that been what happened. The devise has to be placed on the steel beam to work. If conventional, it could be easily attached,if thermte, a box would need to be constructed and welded to the beam to make it work. The 280 day scenario I posted was to just cut the hole in the sheetrock to expose the beams, you still need to attach devices, run wiring eve for remote detonation. If you want to do the radio detonation you mention, you need 26,840 devices.I thin you can see the problem there.
Last, that was not a BS article, you just simply do not want to agree with the facts, they do not fit your theory and hence the problem you have. Your still stuck on the jet fuel burred off in 15 minutes, sorry it does not burn that fast. It is difficult to get jet fuel to burn. You can take matches, lighters hell even a road flair and toss it into jet fuel and it will not go on fire. But when it does it has a slow burn rate. DO you ever wonder why tanker fires take so long to burn off? You do realize there was jet fuel in the basement that did not burn, and on the sidewalk around the WTC buildings?
I know I said this before but I really will not be responding anymore. I have to much better things to do, so I will be blocking this thread and I wish you well down in Cape town.Gotta love it when you grab for straws, spin the story and change what you origially claim into something else each time you are shown to have inaccurate information. Like your first statement claiming I ignore your information then in the very first paragraph you debunk yourself with the comment on the designers of the WTC.
You gave me a rubbish article by the BBC that was full of lies.
Claire:What facts? Like the designers of the WTC being so stupid that they can't even design a building that withstands fire for under 2 hours and takes out columns for space? But they bend the rules of physics. Gotta commend that. "
Then like this statement:
AV" "when you not only were told I was involved in 2 demos but I even gave you the name of the company and the gentleman's name in case you want to look it up and call them."
You didn't pick up my sarcasm. I was certainly do not believe that the designers are stupid but you saying it was designed to full into its footprint for safety. That's stupid to design that but not design a building to withstand a fire by jet fuel, the jet fuel being consumed in 15 minutes. Since the designers aren't stupid then the explanation that the jet fuel fire brought down the building is about nonsense.
Claire:And if I gave you names for those experts who say it was definitely a demolition? What then?"
You missed the point as to why I gave the names. I have been involved in 2 building Demos and that was the company I hired. Unlike those who spout off and have no experience. By the way, because I could not believe you went there, explosive demolition does not use the term PULL IT, they use FIRE IN THE HOLE. Pull it is actually a fire department term. It is used when the order is given to evacuate a structure immediately, allowed by all vehicles on scene blasting their air horns so the fire fighters inside without radios hear it and evacuate. Larry was in touch with Battalion Chiefs, he is smart enough to know to say pull itto a chief when weighing his options. For the record, I had no contact with Larry, I was following orders getting intel and doing secondary searches at several times to make sure there was no one inside WTC 7. That is why I know there was way more fire inside than you saw on the outside.
So you think because you hired a company then they must be right about 9-11, right? It's weird that Silverstein refused to explain what he meant by "pull it" for about 2 years makes me very suspicious. Silverstein lamely said when he decided to explain himself is that he meant "pull the firefighters out". I didn't know firefighters were "its". Have you heard of the company, "Controlled Demolition Inc"?
"Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI), founded by Jack Loizeaux in 1947, is a firm headquartered in Phoenix, Maryland that specializes in the use of explosives to create a controlled demolition of a structure, with the structure collapsing on itself into a pile of debris contained within the site of the building. Controlled Demolition claims to have imploded "more buildings, chimneys, towers, bridges, and other structures" than all of its other competitors combined."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled … tion,_Inc.
Someone made a phone-call to this company and asked them what "pull it" means. Hear the answer at 01:04m.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZsQxy8XhnM
WTC6 was also demolished and you can hear someone say at 00:12m in the below video say, "We are getting ready to pull building 6."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9aYNisI3DA
So you didn't see the dead bodies when searching for people in the WTC7? Murdered emergency official Barry Jennings certainly did:
"Upon arriving into the OEM EOC, we noticed that everybody was gone," said Jennings. "I saw coffee that was on the desk, the smoke was still coming off the coffee, I saw half-eaten sandwiches," he stated, adding that he and Hess were told to leave the building right away.
Jennings and Hess found a stairwell and descended the stairs.
"When we reached the 6th floor the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way, I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and walk back up to the 8th floor," said Jennings.
"The explosion was beneath me….so when the explosion happened it blew us back….both buildings (the twin towers) were still standing," he added.
"I was trapped in there for several hours, I was trapped in there when both buildings came down – all this time I’m hearing all kinds of explosions, all this time I’m hearing explosions, said Jennings, adding that when firefighters took them down to the lobby it was in "total ruins".
"For me to see what I saw was unbelievable," said Jennings.
The firefighters kept saying to Jennings "do not look down" because, according to Jennings, "we were stepping over people and you can tell when you’re stepping over people."
A police officer then told Jennings, "you will have to run because we have reports of more explosions."
"I’m just confused about one thing….why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place – I’m very confused about that – I know what I heard I heard explosions," said Jennings, adding that the explanation that the explosions were as a result of fuel oil tanks in the building did not add up.
"I’m an old boiler guy, if it was a fuel oil tank it would have been one side of the building," he stated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl … RaKHq2dfCI
I understand you cannot grasp why the mechanical equipment would come through the roof before the entire structure collapses. A water tower fo a chiller would carry about 20,000 gallons of water at 8 lbs per gallon. I guess you can do the math as to the weight and what happens when the steel below it is getting weaker from the heat.
Oh, so what you are saying is that the mechanical equipment happened to fall at the same time as the rest of the building? What a coincidence! Like the coincidence of the north tower antennae dropping just before its collapse! For heaven's sake!
"I thought it was the heat jet fuel comprising the steel of the Twin Towers that brought them down? Are you telling me that a building with just a normal fire just falls in its footprint? "
I have shown you 2 videos of high rises that collapsed without jet fuel. I can show more if I really wanted to waste my time because you just ignore them. Do you not have stores by you, malls, steel structures? I know your courthouse burned and collapsed recently but honestly I do not know if it was a steel structure or not. All I can say to you is go to a firehouse in a city, a busy one and gear up. Go inside and see just how hot it gets inside, Ride a crew till you get a good steel building on fire, then come back and tell me your experience. My house answered over 3,000 alarms a year.
Huh? I never saw those building implode to the ground! Did my courthouse fall to the ground and implode in its footprint?
So do all the buildings that collapse due to fire fall from the bottom where there is no fire? Do they also fall at free fall speed?
I will not waste time on the radio control theory because every reputable demo man said how unreliable the would be. Last, it does not matter how it was detonated had that been what happened. The devise has to be placed on the steel beam to work. If conventional, it could be easily attached,if thermte, a box would need to be constructed and welded to the beam to make it work. The 280 day scenario I posted was to just cut the hole in the sheetrock to expose the beams, you still need to attach devices, run wiring eve for remote detonation. If you want to do the radio detonation you mention, you need 26,840 devices.I thin you can see the problem there.
He must explain why that is unreliable. Who says the government couldn't have sophisticated demolitions ahead of the average conventional demolition company? If thermite coated the steel and bombs then a box would not need to be constructed. Tom Sullivan is an explosive loader at a demolition company. He used to work for Controlled Demolitions Inc. This guy says it is nonsense that a few columns damaged could cause a syncronized collapse is just nonsense. He also said there are wireless remote detonators but contractors don't use them because they are too expensive. One is called the HiEx Teleblaster 2.
Site for image:
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-artic … loyee.html
You can see the whole interview here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3v4QUQpYjc
Last, that was not a BS article, you just simply do not want to agree with the facts, they do not fit your theory and hence the problem you have. Your still stuck on the jet fuel burred off in 15 minutes, sorry it does not burn that fast. It is difficult to get jet fuel to burn. You can take matches, lighters hell even a road flair and toss it into jet fuel and it will not go on fire. But when it does it has a slow burn rate. DO you ever wonder why tanker fires take so long to burn off? You do realize there was jet fuel in the basement that did not burn, and on the sidewalk around the WTC buildings?
Facts? According to the FEMA report, it was not 24 000 gallons of fuel but 10 000! It was a domestic flight. Steel does NOT melt at 800C! Surely as a firefighter you would know this! Did you know there were bombs in the basement, too? FEMA must be talking nonsense when it says the fuel all was consumed in 15 minutes.
I know I said this before but I really will not be responding anymore. I have to much better things to do, so I will be blocking this thread and I wish you well down in Cape town.
I notice you claimed I ignored quite a few of your points. That's rich coming from you. Here are all the points you ignored:
1.) Firefighters claimed there were explosives in the building.
2.) Molten steel was clearly present in both the towers and WTC7
3.) The horizontal projects indicates a demolition as debris doesn't shoot out about 70 metres when a building collapses.
4.) You ignore the sparkles on the floor not impacted by the falling tower.
5.)You ignore the law of physics.
6.) You ignore the fact how impossible it is for a plane to hit the Pentagon in the manner it did.
Shame, you do not have the courage to carry on. You'd prefer to believe a lie than the truth. You will not honour the dead by exposing the truth.
You know damn well what the truth is. You just don't want to admit it.Claire,
Shame on you for being so obtuse. At every sentence you get debunked and cannot admit it. There is no shame in admitting you fell for the phony story, or perhaps you just cannot accept the facts since they do not fall i line with your agenda.
See statements like this discredit you
" I was certainly do not believe that the designers are stupid but you saying it was designed to full into its footprint for safety. That's stupid to design that but not design a building to withstand a fire by jet fuel, the jet fuel being consumed in 15 minutes."
Whether or not you think the design was "stupid" is irrelevant, how it was designed is a fact. I understand why you cannot comprehend why a building this tall would be designed this way. I am sure where you live there are no tall buildings in such proxcimaty like in New York . A building that does not collapse into its footprint in NY would be devastating. Like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKeENdyIluI
See here again you try to spin. You said :
"So you think because you hired a company then they must be right about 9-11, right?"
For $1,000 show me where I ever said the company I hired said anything about 9/11. I will help you, NEVER. But you want to spin the my statement away because having been involved in 2 demos I know how they work and what it takes to properly complete the task. And that goes against your agenda. As for the statement pull it, call any demo company and get the facts, not the talking points you were sold from truthers. Or are you afraid of what they will tell you?
http://911review.org/WTC/WTC7_pullit_Industry-term.html
Notice here in this video at the 1:10 mark what is said just before Demo. I promise, it is not "Pull It", but the actual industry term.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4eMgVv9jQI
As for WTC 6, yes the building was pulled as is how the industry term goes. Do you know why? Because they used cables to Pull the building down. Your own video not only showed it, it said so. Please.
You are so hung up on steel melting, I have never talked about steel melting. STEEL DOES NOT HAVE TO MELT FOR A BUILDING TO COLLAPSE. Did you understand it better now that I used all caps? ANd yes as a firefighter I do know that.Why do you not go the the local city fire department and ask them in person what happens to heated steel beams. They will know if there are steel building where you are. I see you did not answer about the collapse from fire of your local courthouse.
Last bit of info, before you continue to use the A&E report, realize the gentleman who wrote it does not represent them, he quit and has made tens of millions off of this in videos and speaking fees. Anyone making money off 9/11 is about as trustworthy as Charles Manson.
Finally, do not ever again question my honor. 15 years and I have 9 medals of honor, 5 medals of valor. I saw things at ground zero that would keep you awake for the rest of your life. My health has been destroyed due to that day, I almost died December 2010, I was on life support for 6 weeks. Do not tell me honor. You have no clue about the word and what it means. I lived it first hand and you try to dictate to me from your part of the world thousands of miles away what I saw and heard. Get over yourself, you are so not worth my time.
Take care, later as in much.Claire,
Shame on you for being so obtuse. At every sentence you get debunked and cannot admit it. There is no shame in admitting you fell for the phony story, or perhaps you just cannot accept the facts since they do not fall i line with your agenda.
What phony story??? What is my agenda? To believe that the US government was complicit in 9-11? Why would I want to believe that? What do I have to gain by villanizing the US government?
See statements like this discredit you
Claire:[i] " I was certainly do not believe that the designers are stupid but you saying it was designed to full into its footprint for safety. That's stupid to design that but not design a building to withstand a fire by jet fuel, the jet fuel being consumed in 15 minutes."
Whether or not you think the design was "stupid" is irrelevant, how it was designed is a fact. I understand why you cannot comprehend why a building this tall would be designed this way. I am sure where you live there are no tall buildings in such proxcimaty like in New York . A building that does not collapse into its footprint in NY would be devastating. Like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKeENdyIluI
How does my sentence above discredit me? I'll tell you this much: no building is designed to defy the law of physics no matter how special the building may be.
Well, you see that building in your video wasn't demolished. That is why it fell over! According to the law of physics, that would have happened to the towers, too, had it not been a demolition. Go back and read my part about physics because you clearly don't understand it.
I would also like to know where you got the idea the WTCs were designed to full in its footprints. Can you give me a source?
See here again you try to spin. You said :
Claire "So you think because you hired a company then they must be right about 9-11, right?"
For $1,000 show me where I ever said the company I hired said anything about 9/11. I will help you, NEVER. But you want to spin the my statement away because having been involved in 2 demos I know how they work and what it takes to properly complete the task. And that goes against your agenda. As for the statement pull it, call any demo company and get the facts, not the talking points you were sold from truthers. Or are you afraid of what they will tell you?
http://911review.org/WTC/WTC7_pullit_Industry-term.html
I'm just starting to wonder how your demolitions differ from other ones. I don't know how you do your demos, but the regular ones make horizontal projections come out of them, fall in the footprint and many times fall from the bottom. And it kinks in the middle. So I don't understand why you can't make the connection between a demolition and what happened to the WTCs.
That's a pretty cool demolition video you've got there. Those red "crackers" may explain why there would sparkles on the floors of the twin towers not yet destroyed by the implosion.
I've tried to contact three demolition companies and nobody is answering their phones. I'll get back to you on this one.
Notice here in this video at the 1:10 mark what is said just before Demo. I promise, it is not "Pull It", but the actual industry term.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4eMgVv9jQI
"Pull it" is a very old term for a demolition. I don't expect it to be used now.
As for WTC 6, yes the building was pulled as is how the industry term goes. Do you know why? Because they used cables to Pull the building down. Your own video not only showed it, it said so. Please.
Is it not true that "pull it" is a term for controlled demolition? Is not the use of explosives referred to as a controlled demolition?
This is what "pull down" means in a demolition sense:
pull down - To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
pull down 1. To pull down or break up so that reconstruction is impossible: demolish, destroy, dismantle, dynamite, knock down, level, pulverize, raze, tear down, wreck
However, it is true that "pull it" was used not in the explosive sense in this video. I concede that.
It's interesting that WTC6 suffered such extreme damage but was still standing.
Let's consider that Larry Silverstein meant "pull it" in this context. Did you see anyone set up cables around the building to bring it down? So now that it's been established that "pull it" can mean actually pulling the building down with cables, can we agree Silverstein lied when he said "pull it" means pulling the firefighters out of the building?
Why do some explosive experts say it was demolished and others not?
You are so hung up on steel melting, I have never talked about steel melting. STEEL DOES NOT HAVE TO MELT FOR A BUILDING TO COLLAPSE. Did you understand it better now that I used all caps? ANd yes as a firefighter I do know that.Why do you not go the the local city fire department and ask them in person what happens to heated steel beams. They will know if there are steel building where you are. I see you did not answer about the collapse from fire of your local courthouse.
That is not my point! Molten steel was found at the Towers and running down the towers before the collapse. How does molten steel form? That's when the steel has melted because of thermite. Why was there molten steel? As for the courthouse, do you have proof that it fell in its own footprint and completely fell to the ground?
Last bit of info, before you continue to use the A&E report, realize the gentleman who wrote it does not represent them, he quit and has made tens of millions off of this in videos and speaking fees. Anyone making money off 9/11 is about as trustworthy as Charles Manson.
So why can't he make money? Would he work for Controlled Demolitions Inc if he didn't know what he was talking about? Bush must be lying about 9-11 because he made stacks of money from it.
Finally, do not ever again question my honor. 15 years and I have 9 medals of honor, 5 medals of valor. I saw things at ground zero that would keep you awake for the rest of your life. My health has been destroyed due to that day, I almost died December 2010, I was on life support for 6 weeks. Do not tell me honor. You have no clue about the word and what it means. I lived it first hand and you try to dictate to me from your part of the world thousands of miles away what I saw and heard. Get over yourself, you are so not worth my time.
Take care, later as in much.
I hate evil in this world. I will do everything in my power to expose it. Now I'm sure you are a good firefighter and have deserved your medals but that does not mean you are immune to denial. I think you have been so traumatized that you don't want to believe what I am saying is true. Molten steel was found at Ground Zero and it was burning for months after 9-11. The soles of people's shoes melted off.
If your argument was so strong you would not be cherry picking what to answer.
I know as truth that if people ignore evil they help evil people get away with it and that is why evil is so strong on earth. The real perpetrators of 9-11 will never be punished because most won't believe the US government was complicit in it.
Jimmy Saville got away with his evil because no one exposed the truth about him. They turned a blind eye. Look at the suffering it caused.pull it" means pulling the firefighters out of the building?
This will be the only thing I will respond to from the laughable spin you put out. Amazing, you just keep changing your story.
Go back and re read some of my posts. I told you we would do periodic search's in WTC 7 as as well as other buildings. Then the order came to pull so we abandoned all operations. It had nothing to do with Demo, it has to do with facing the facts without water and enough manpower, the building was a loss.
I will be blocking this thread so if you want keep going and have fun.pull it" means pulling the firefighters out of the building?
This will be the only thing I will respond to from the laughable spin you put out. Amazing, you just keep changing your story.
Yes, it is laughable. However, I didn't claim to say that. It was Larry Silverstein that said that!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OE3Adu4 … re=related
03:47m
He is such a liar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWPmUAWL … re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84doiQHJ … re=related
Go back and re read some of my posts. I told you we would do periodic search's in WTC 7 as as well as other buildings. Then the order came to pull so we abandoned all operations. It had nothing to do with Demo, it has to do with facing the facts without water and enough manpower, the building was a loss.
Wasn't WTC6 pretty much a mess? Why did that not collapse but WTC7 from the bottom of all places.
A fire fighter in the below video says the building was about to explode.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OE3Adu4 … re=related
I'm just concerned about why the fire-fighters contradict each other so much.
I will be blocking this thread so if you want keep going and have fun.
It's a good idea to terminate this thread now. I can't get through to you. As they say, "None is say blind that those who won't see."
I'm genuinely sorry you had to go through such a hard time because of 9-11. The firefighters are always appreciated.
Claire,
Not sure why my last post to you went to IAMANATHEIST , but it was meant for you.
One last thing, I forgot to mention this. If you go back and look at the video as I suggested last time, you would see the person walking to the dust is a FULLY geared firefighter. Also, it is against code for FDNY personal to wear white tee shirts or Jeans on duty,. We are required to wear dark blue uniform pants, "b" uniform shirts, approved promotional FDNY tee shirts(shirts that promote the FDNY or engine, or truck assignments.
Once more another inaccurate detail.I'm sorry, I didn't see it. I also think it's weird that the "firefighter" was just looking on swaying about. You can see it is a man with a white T-shirt and jeans. He looked like he had a back-pack. That is not an oxygen tank. Did the guy have a helmet on?
I bet you it was a photographer wanting to get rare shots. When the towers came down, the dust came across at an amazing speed. He should have been caked in dust.
Please, this denial stuff is really sad and frustrating for me.Hi Claire Evans - all respect to you for fighting all those sane people, it would appear anyone that disagrees with the norm is insane so everything that you say will fall on deaf ears as most in the Western world have been brain washed to such an extent - that even if a news channel reported that they own father or mother had been arrested for terrorist activity they'd believe it without a question.
Keep up the good work maybe some day someone will wake up and smell the stench of what they are being fed.Zubair,
Interesting comment from someone who was not there. Claire is entitled to her opinion, but she does not like it when the facts get shown. It appears you may not like them either. Ask yourself this, if the truthers were correct, why do they not just push their theory for free? Why make millions off it?As if witnesses don't lie or are in denial about things!
But you aren't showing me facts that support your argument. To support your argument, you need to refute ALL of my arguments. Not just some. Don't just overlook the molten steel because it's inconvenient to you. I put every effort into addressing every single point of yours which you cannot reciprocate!
And that is supposed to debunk the "truthers"? Wow, I suppose if lecturers didn't charge for their lectures on a scientific hypothesis, for example, they can't be telling the truth!
Thanks
I know it falls on deaf ears. People have this knack to deny the truth even when it bites them in the butt. This is how evil thrives. It just needs people to ignore it for it to succeed.
Whenever someone supports the official story and starts calling "truthers" insane, it is a dead give-away that their argument is very weak.
I write these comments for the sake of those who may be reading and have some back-bone to consider the possibilities. I also enjoy debating. That's why I'm here.
- ahorsebackposted 12 years ago0
Okay conspiracy nuts , The mother ship has arrived ! You must follow the orders of the leaders , line up according to height and weight and then proceed after reaching 35,000 feet , move to the nearest exit take this back pack {I promise theres a parachute inside" and jump !...........:-}
Claire blamed Mossad. There are things I can say about that but to me it shows there is something deeper than just 9/11 in her life that drove her to that conclusion. It is very important that Israel be blamed. You can connect the dots.
Related Discussions
- 93
U.S. Plans to Murder American Citizens
by Rod Martin Jr 12 years ago
There have been numerous plans in American history for the government to murder American citizens for political gain.I seriously doubt that the Operation Northwoods document is the only tangible, direct evidence of such evil. That document lay hidden and classified for 35 years before it was...
- 48
Do you believe in cospirazione theories such as US government made 911 bombing e
by Silver Ringvee 11 years ago
Do you believe in cospirazione theories such as US government made 911 bombing etc. ?I would really like to know what others think about these things.
- 99
Chinese Balloon Enters US Airspace
by Sharlee 20 months ago
After Chinese balloon enters US airspace, Biden secretary of state postpones trip to ChinaBlinken postpones trip to China after Republican lawmakers excoriated the Biden administration for appearing weak in response to suspected Chinese spy balloon.Not much to say, because our government has no...
- 126
Shutting down the Governent? Doesn't the GOP ever learn?
by Credence2 11 years ago
I quote from a news source“Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney jumped into the debate over the GOP's future Tuesday night, warning congressional Republicans against forcing a government shutdown in their quest to stop President Barack Obama's signature health care law.”I guess those...
- 5
Was George Bush responsible for the 9/11?
by rzibit 14 years ago
Was George Bush responsible for the 9/11?http://hubpages.com/hub/The-truth-about … ade-Center
- 31
Psst........., YOU'RE asking the wrong question!
by Julie Grimes 13 years ago
With forum posts about the good and bad, mostly bad of Obama, Obama voters are constantly harassed by the question, "Are you sorry you voted for Obama." Honestly, no I am not. Look at our choices during the last presidential campaign. As I've stated before, giving what...