Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

911 inside job - for what?


redhen

Recommended Posts

Actually, even Columbia University refutes your claim.

Demonstrating yet again, you failure to understand what is being presented.

Columbia University doesn't refute the possibility of explosives, they give it no opinion one way or another. They are quoted as saying....

...Columbia authors confirmed in a later email, their seismic data “are far too weak in signal-to-noise ratio and far too speculative in terms of signal source to be used as a means of contradicting the impact times …” (Commission, p.462)

All the Columbia University are doing is alluding to the 9/11 Commission, that using the seismic data has to much signal to noise ratio and too weak to use to contradict the IMPACT TIMES. :w00t:

Nothing here about DEMOLITIONS....lol

Then the author continues on this website says.....

But the key mistake however, is the idea that any building is demolished by a progressive wave of explosions either working its way up or down a building.

You see, you are so stupid that you can't differentiate between what the author says about the explosives and what the University of Columbia says, which nothing is mentioned about explosives.

This is why you can't be taken seriously and you should be ashamed...lol

But pantomime internet debunkers have no shame whatsoever! :w00t:

Investigators would not have had to look for explosive evidence because they would have had difficulty avoiding explosive evidence within the rubble of the WTC buildings, whether wireless, nor not.
Oh dear....So many problems with your silly argument which you think has substance....lol

Firstly, you believe there was no explosives, so even if they had planted a single 10lb bomb, the building would still have collapsed according to your logic. You say it requires NONE, so therefore why would have difficulty avoiding evidence of explosives in the rubble when you say none are needed. :blink: lol

You can't say, none were needed for your collapse theory and then say lots and lots of explosives would have been needed for a demolition collapse theory because it contradicts the very values you require for your theory to work.

Then you ignore the fact that they still haven't found over 1000 bodies within the rubble, so therefore if they can't find something they are looking for, how are they going to find something which they are not looking for??

Why did NIST not Consider a “Controlled Demolition

Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

http://www.webcitation.org/5pvOUTcar

We know why the NIST didn't consider it, appealing to authority is not making your case any stronger, it just shows that you will allude to authority when you can't formulate your own opinions or those opinions are being refuted.

This is why you spam the forum....lol :w00t:

Edited by Stundie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not possible at all. I didn't see any bomb explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed and I didn't hear bomb explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

Of course you didn't see any explosions at GZ...lol

That is because you wasn't there! :blink:

You were busy sitting behind a keyboard telling anyone who will listen to your nonsense, that those who were at GZ were wrong, when you wasn't there or have any evidence which contradicts what they say...lol

Not much of a sound as the building collapsing either.

Are you saying that the building collapsed quietly?? :blink:

No sound of bomb explosions as WTC7 collapsed.

Not much of a sound of the building collapsing either, but there were clearly explosions before it went. To be honest, there is not much of a sound as the building collapsing either.

[media=]

No sound of bomb explosions as WTC2 collapsed in that video, and clearly, no bomb explosions seen in the video either. So once again, if you cannot provide physical evidence of bombs, then simply, you have no case.

Again, not much of a sound of the building collapsing either, although you can hear lots of screaming.

Unless you saying that the buildings collapsed quietly?? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because I want to prove that since there is no evidence of bomb explosions, either on video, audio nor even recorded by seismic monitors of Columbia University and those used by the Protec Co. Add to the fact that no evidence of blasting caps, detonation cords or any hardware attributed to bombs, was ever found within the rubble of the WTC buildings.

But you haven't proven that.

All you have done is said that everyone is wrong and mistaken, which is not evidence...lol

You made the claim of bombs, but can offer no evidence to backup your claim. If you going to make a claim, we expect physical evidence. You've posted comments of those who have said they heard explosions and I have provided comments of those at ground zero who have said they heard explosions, but the sound of explosions they heard were not attributed to bombs.
I made no claims of bombs. What I have claimed is the POSSIBILITY of bombs.

I know you are a little slow and can't understand the difference, but I'm not your teacher...lol

You have posted some people who said the explosions they heard were something else, but just as people said they were explosions, you believe they were mistaken, yet those who said they were something else, you believe and were not mistaken.

Again, you do not have the mental capacity to understand that your double standards in the application of your criticism is both deluded and hypocritical.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Explosions

"When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go.The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go, there was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down."

He also says he thinks the rivets caused the building to fall and not bombs. Interestingly, the NIST said most of the failures were at the bolts and connections.

http://www.debunking.../explosions.htm

Well he could be mistaken?? No of course not! Just like those who said they were explosives, they are wrong, he is correct, right? lol

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem

Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding in the north tower.

Short and sweet, that was it. A few short words about bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters who never even bothered to talk to him in the first place.

Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well he is being skeptical, he saying it sounded like bombs, but he is not claiming there were bombs, he doesn't know what the explosions were, but that doesn't mean they were not bombs, it's just saying that it could be something else he heard, but clearly doesn't know what they were.

Again, a complete failure to understand that this chap doesn't really support your case.

Jay Swithers

An ambulance pulled up which was very clean, S0 I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.

So does this person now discount everyone elses account and reports of explosions?? lol

If so, why do you hold this person to a much higher authority in what you believe??

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dominick Derubbio

t was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.

So this guys is guessing that the explosions were floors pancaking.

WOW Such strong evidence, a person guessing something is no doubt in your world, definitive proof. :blink:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FDNY Batallion Chief Brian Dixon

I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.

So something blew out a floor, but again he said it looked like an explosion, but it wasn't an explosion and then doesn't explain what blew out the windows/floor.

Of course, this man could not be mistaken could he?? lol In an internet debunking warrior, his word trumps that of any other eyewitnesses regardless of the time they heard the explosions or whether they were in a different locations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower

...there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

http://www.911myths....uote_abuse.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

How did he find out that it was the floors? Was he or someone else there to witness the floors collapsing at the impact zone causing these 10 explosions or is he just assuming because no one was actually there?

And again, in the eyes of an internet debunking warrior, he could not be mistaken, his word is the supreme authority and everyone else is bonkers/mistake/wrong!! lol

Sorry but this is not an argument which disproves the possibility of explosives.

So once again, just because someone heard the sound of explosions, is not evidence that bombs were involved.

And just because someone heard...
  • Rivets popping.
  • Floors Collapsing.
  • An explosion that blew out the floors which wasn't an explosions.

Is not evidence that the explosions are Rivets popping/Floors Collapsing/An explosion which wasn't an explosion either.

A concept too simple for you to understand. lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Demonstrating yet again, you failure to understand what is being presented.

The fact that you have been unable to refute any of the facts, what more is there to say? Since you have provided no evidence, you have no case.

...Columbia authors confirmed in a later email, their seismic data “are far too weak in signal-to-noise ratio and far too speculative in terms of signal source to be used as a means of contradicting the impact times …” (Commission, p.462)

The seismic data recorded the collapse of the WTC buildings, but no recordings from bomb explosions, which is simple to understand because there were no bomb explosions seen on video nor heard on audio, which explains why no one found evidence of bombs in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

No evidence, no case. :no:

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you haven't proven that.

Oh yes I have!! :yes:

All you have done is said that everyone is wrong and mistaken, which is not evidence..

I made no claims of bombs. What I have claimed is the POSSIBILITY of bombs.

Looking at the picture, we have these facts.

* No evidence of bomb explosions

* No evidence of bomb explosions on audio

* No evidence of bombs within the rubble of the WTC buildings

* No evidence of bomb explosives on seismic monitors

Verdict! No bombs :no:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course you didn't see any explosions at GZ...

Neither did anyone else.

That is because you wasn't there! :blink:

I wasn't present at the last launch of the space shuttle either, but I am not going to deny the launch occurred. Simply, your argument doesn't hold water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't imply that people are being paid to post their opinion. Honestly, I wish someone would pay me for my opinion...but that's just not likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't imply that people are being paid to post their opinion. Honestly, I wish someone would pay me for my opinion...but that's just not likely.

Cha-Ching ! Lilly gets Fourty Two Trillion Magrathea Bucks from me ! She`s right on that point !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of those labels they give themselves make me wonder, such as 'Pilots for 911 Truth.' I am still waiting for the folks at that website to make much needed corrections but it seems they refuse to do so.

Until it makes much needed corrections on their website, the name should be changed to 'Pilots for Spewing 911 Disinformation.'

Mate, good to know we have some pilots we can rely on! Like, your good self looking after all our butts in Nam. You already went to war for the people, I do not think you are going to mislead them after all that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn Psyche, you need to thank me too for saving your butt in Vietnam! Heck, I never even knew I saved your butt there until you just posted it.

I thought the Australian troops saved your butt? I knew a few of them.

I never knew the Australian People were even threatened by those little yellow people in the northern hemisphere. Man alive, even 40 years later, one can learn so much on the internet.

I guess they were organizing a flotilla of sampans to sail to Oz and invade the place, eh?

You're welcome, BTW. :gun:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that you have been unable to refute any of the facts, what more is there to say? Since you have provided no evidence, you have no case.
I can't refute anything because out of all those quotes you have post, not a single one supports your case and all the reasons you reject others eyewitnesses accounts, can be applied here.
The seismic data recorded the collapse of the WTC buildings, but no recordings from bomb explosions, which is simple to understand because there were no bomb explosions seen on video nor heard on audio, which explains why no one found evidence of bombs in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

No evidence, no case. :no:

Brent Blanchard as NEVER released his seismic data, the only person who has seen it is Blanchard. :blink: Yet here you are, deluding yourself and going on like you have seen it and that it somehow proves your case, when you have never seen it to make that judgement.

And again, were the bombing of the WTC back in 93 recorded on seismic equipment?? <<-----The answer you keep ignoring is NO!! :w00t:

Your point is moot and not to mention that telling us that Blanchard has the data which he has never released equals, double moot. lol

Explaining this concept to someone as simple as you is like trying to explain trigonometry to a duck. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yes I have!! :yes:

You keep deluding yourself you have, but you do not understand what constitutes as evidence. lol

Any eyewitnesses that you post are evidence and 100% proof.

Any eyewitnesses I post are NOT evidence or are mistaken, wrong, stupid, fools and any other reason to discount them....lol

See what I mean? lol

Looking at the picture, we have these facts.

* No evidence of bomb explosions

Evidence of explosions from eyewitnesses, audio and visual recordings = the possibility of BOMB explosions.
* No evidence of bomb explosions on audio
Evidence of explosions from eyewitnesses, audio and visual recordings = the possibility of BOMB explosions.
* No evidence of bombs within the rubble of the WTC buildings
Bombs were not look or tested for = the possibility of BOMB explosions.
* No evidence of bomb explosives on seismic monitors
No evidence of bomb explosives on seismic monitors back in 93 = the possibility of BOMB explosions.
name='skyeagle409' timestamp='1365783149' post='4733385'][/b]Verdict! No bombs :no:

No, the verdict is you lack the intelligence to disseminate information based on your blind belief and pure faith...lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither did anyone else.

That is where you are evidently and clearly wrong, plenty of people at GZ said they saw/heard/felt explosions.

Lying about it doesn't mean it is true.

I wasn't present at the last launch of the space shuttle either, but I am not going to deny the launch occurred. Simply, your argument doesn't hold water.
So lets get this retarded logic straight..

You wasn't at the launch of the space shuttle, people were who there witnessed it, so you are not going to deny the launch occurred.

You wasn't at GZ at collapse of WTC, people who where there witnessed explosions, but you are going to deny explosions occurred :blink:

Only in the world of Skyeagle does 1 + 1 = Eleventeen......lol

Edited by Stundie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn Psyche, you need to thank me too for saving your butt in Vietnam! Heck, I never even knew I saved your butt there until you just posted it.

I thought the Australian troops saved your butt? I knew a few of them.

I never knew the Australian People were even threatened by those little yellow people in the northern hemisphere. Man alive, even 40 years later, one can learn so much on the internet.

I guess they were organizing a flotilla of sampans to sail to Oz and invade the place, eh?

I was stationed along side the Australian Air Force in Vietnam. They are great people to social with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't refute anything because out of all those quotes ...

Already been done! Your failure to provide evidence underlines my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep deluding yourself you have, but you do not understand what constitutes as evidence.

Any eyewitnesses that you post are evidence and 100% proof.

Well, I have provided testimony of those who were at ground zero who admitted that the sounds they heard were not the result of explosives. The fact no bomb explosives were heard nor bomb evidence recovered at ground zero underlines that point as well.

That is where you are evidently and clearly wrong, plenty of people at GZ said they saw/heard/felt explosions.

Evidence of explosions from eyewitnesses,...

Testimony of those who heard such sounds but later attributed those sounds other than to explosives. Since it seems that you have forgotten, do a review here.

Explosions

"When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go.The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go, there was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down."

He also says he thinks the rivets caused the building to fall and not bombs. Interestingly, the NIST said most of the failures were at the bolts and connections.

http://www.debunking.../explosions.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem

Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding in the north tower.

Short and sweet, that was it. A few short words about bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters who never even bothered to talk to him in the first place.

Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jay Swithers

An ambulance pulled up which was very clean, S0 I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dominick Derubbio

t was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FDNY Batallion Chief Brian Dixon

I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower

...there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

http://www.911myths....uote_abuse.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So once again, just because someone heard the sound of explosions, is not evidence that bombs were involved.

And just because someone heard...

  • Rivets popping.
  • Floors Collapsing.
  • An explosion that blew out the floors which wasn't an explosions.

Nothing there indicating the use of explosives. There is no video of bomb explosions and no audio of bomb explosions and no evidence of bombs within the rubble of the WTC buildings and no seismic data of bomb explosions.

Verdict!! No bombs.

...audio and visual recordings = the possibility of BOMB explosions.

Do you mean this video recording of bomb explosions?

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the verdict is you lack the intelligence to disseminate information based on your blind belief and pure faith...lol

Considering you've failed to provide a shred of evidence of explosives underlines the point that no explosives were used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn Psyche, you need to thank me too for saving your butt in Vietnam! Heck, I never even knew I saved your butt there until you just posted it.

I thought the Australian troops saved your butt? I knew a few of them.

I never knew the Australian People were even threatened by those little yellow people in the northern hemisphere. Man alive, even 40 years later, one can learn so much on the internet.

I guess they were organizing a flotilla of sampans to sail to Oz and invade the place, eh?

You're welcome, BTW. :gun:

We had about 8,000 troops in Vietnam, did you serve there, may I ask what capacity? In the wake of the Viet Minh victory over France in 1954, concern at communism’s growing influence in Asia was widespread and Australia got involved. You did not know that? Have you heard of The Battle of Long Khanh? How do you think Australia's standing was after that?

That's all you have to say about our ANZACS?

Sky went water skiing with Aussie troops. We were allies and remain so. He seems to know us a little better?

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering you've failed to provide a shred of evidence of explosives underlines the point that no explosives were used.

I don´t know why you want to get down into the mud with the 9/11 troothers and actually debate all their idiotic imaginary "proofs" for this and that. They believe in their fiction like religionists believe in their holy books.

I thought the topic of this thread was trying to get one of them to answer the simple question: Why?

Why would anybody concoct a massive and elaborate conspiracy, simply to add another jihadist terrorist attack to thousands of jihadist terrorist attacks that are carried out all the time?

The whole premise of the 9/11 troother idea is sheer lunacy.

Edited by Zaphod222
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've shared lots of opinions throughout the years and have been on this site since 2003. Anyway...

Not where you quoted me though, did you?

One of the sites had architects and engineers travel across Canada and was presenting their information to anyone willing to listen. I believe it was ae911truth.org. They visited the University of Winnipeg, here in Manitoba, last year. I stumbled across them finding a different show taking place in the University. I was unable to go review their presentation, as I had another event to go to that was happening at the same time in the University. They presented their information and donations were accepted to help them continue their journey across Canada.

Yet all of this so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers and by the 9/11 Commission Report.

In my opinion if these architects and engineers are willing to travel, waste time, one would have to think to themselves that there is more to their presentation and "tall-tales". Why educated people would waste time spewing tall-tales is beyond me. If it is all a bunch of crap then they officially need to get a life. I wouldn't do that unless I believe and have fully reviewed facts with reference to current knowledge in my field of expertise to make a counter-claim. Again, it is unfortunate that I wasn't able to attend their presentation to review their information.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
(AE911Truth) is a fast-growing non-profit organization of more than
1,400
architectural and engineering professionals who have re-examined the destruction of the
three
World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11

1,400 is a large number of professionals believing in tall-tales. Or is that one too many professionals with loose screws in their heads... It would then make you wonder who to believe.

According to peer review, they are tall tales. That is the point of peer review, to keep such an investigation honest. The plural of hearsay is not data.

One thing that strikes me is that witnesses at the site heard explosions prior to the plane hitting the tower... As far as sound travels witnesses should have heard the sound after the plane had hit and not before hand, which begs to question what did they hear to begin with.

http://georgewashing...win-towers.html

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3uFvOiTNz4

With all the confusion I am surprised people had their wits about them at all.

How many of these people were actual witnesses in the vicinity at the time, not some blocks away? How many of these people have recanted? How many inferred their conclusion? What are the names of these people? What of the witnesses that contradict and outnumber these claims?

Also why would other buildings collapse when they were in no way near the collapsing radius of the towers who were actually hit by the planes.

http://www.serendipi...t/wtc_other.htm

If WTC was controlled demolition, why did they wait 7 hours to fell it? That does not add up, it went down due to a single point critical failure. LINK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I’m going to try to avoid the unevidenced rhetoric/delusions throughout your post – Al Jazeera reporters have “personal involvement” with bin Laden?? – and make this into something informative and hopefully interesting.

Facts are 23 reporters dead. Facts are these reporters are in the middle of a war zone, facts are these people have to live alongside these terrorists, and I doubt anyone would deny these terrorists are sub human creatures with no morals that would indeed control local press. You may not find that terribly informative, nor interesting, but it seems pretty blatant to me that all of the above adds up to a controlled situation. Ignoring such just tells me you prefer to keep your head in the sand.

So let’s assume you are correct that a network who releases bin Laden messages has personal involvement with bin Laden, and let’s talk about the February 2003 audiotape. Who was first to release existence of that tape and details of the transcript to the world? It wasn’t Al Jazeera. It was the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in the U.S. Senate!

This means, according to your logic, that top tier of the Bush administration had “personal involvement” with bin Laden. Though I’m sure you will change your own rules and adopt the delusion to make the fact fit your worldview any which way. Al Jazeera were initially unaware of the audiotape and dismissed the claim as rumour, but later that day came into possession of the message which they broadcast in full.

Personally I think this shows only that U.S. intel were uncomfortably close to ‘Al Qaeda’ and bin Laden to get hold of that transcript so fast and beat Al Jazeera to the punch.

All this so what? Washington can show evidence of an alliance between al-Qaida and Baghdad? What about other sections of the recording that say "all socialist regimes are run by unbelievers, including that of Iraq."? Sounds very Jihad does it not?

I could say the same to you, and it would be all the more true. You see, whist I would like to have seen bin Laden on trial and face punishment for crimes he is found guilty of, in addition to thorough investigation and understanding of the hijackers and their support network, along with a full enquiry into actions of the Bush administration and intelligence agencies... you defend involvement of those latter players to the hilt. I don’t defend anyone – I’ll throw the whole lot in a pot and apportion guilt where it’s due – you are the one who is selective and heavily biased about where we point the finger.

Indeed, I think your convoluted path leads to enough time for people to evade Justice. We have people admitting responsibility, we have the organisation responsible, we even have people rejoicing this slaughter. For most people, that is pretty satisfactory. Outright confession that is.

It’s not a cheap shot to point out that intelligent readers will hold more credence in sources such as the FBIS, BBC and Al Jazeera than in Annanova, the world’s first ‘cyberbabe’ newscaster, as you do.

All I did was show an obvious progression. You said source was irrelevant, well not in this case is it? You are promoting notable bias to support your version of events when the evolution of the sentence is quite plain and simple to see. So you arfe lying about not having bias toward source, here you clearly do, and use it to attempt to overshadow relevant information.

That is a problem – understanding of crimes requires that we get in the mind of the killer(s). And you don’t even seek to understand those you accuse, much less those latter players I mentioned involved. It’s a wilful ignorance on your part – never a good thing.

Small minds Q. That assist with expediting the conclusion. You over-think this. We have dead people, we have proud murderers rejoicing the slaughter that follow an ancient barbaric religion that condones and promotes honor killing.

I can find some agreement with you here. Now all you have to realise is that agents of the CIA are not stupid or crazy, and find that section of the command where individuals did benefit. Once you realise that it makes a whole lot of sense and you won’t have to wonder anymore.

No, I fail how you come to that conclusion considering the number of plainly idiotic programs run through that place. It is not just the unethical and morally reprehensible violence this group has carried out, it's also the men who stare at Goats, millions poured into crazy crap like remote viewing. It's a bigger picture than some terrorist blunder.

You constructed that question from me talking about a CIA/‘Al Qaeda’ double-agent? Oh dear, I’ll have to spell it out. I’m saying that the CIA support ‘Al Qaeda’. No, more than that, I’m saying that in instances the CIA are ‘Al Qaeda’.

Yes, you will have to spell it out, or just be up front to begin with. That would suffice nicely.

Because Ali Mohhamed was a double agent? It worked both ways, Pete Blaber indicates he met Ali Mohamed who gave him information on how to infiltrate Afghanistan.

Please note nuance of the apostrophes around a name, meant to indicate that I’m not being sincere when I reference ahem... ‘bin Laden’. When I say, “it’s a good job that ‘bin Laden’ came riding to the rescue”, I’m actually saying it’s bull****, the tape appears coerced/edited/fabricated to suit U.S. needs.

  • That is why the 2003 audiotape was revealed to the world by Colin Powell in the U.S. Senate, with ‘bin Laden’ conveniently declaring his allegiance with Iraq one month before the U.S. invasion.
  • That is why the 2004 ‘first confession’ was released shortly before Bush’s re-election, the ‘October Surprise’ which boosted his ratings, with the CIA director stating, “bin Laden certainly did a nice favour today for the President” and CIA consensus that the tape was “designed strategically to help President Bush win re-election”.
  • That is why the 2006 audiotape absolved the U.S. of failure to prosecute Moussaoui on 9/11 related charges (despite his obvious involvement in the plot, which I agree) whilst having no benefit to bin Laden.

There is more, much more, but do you see the pattern? It all plays right into U.S. hands.

The reason being... ? Ah, you will never figure it out. The reason being, that releases are not coming from bin Laden. The tapes are coerced/edited/fabricated by those holding bin Laden in confinement – elements of the CIA/ISI in Pakistan.

Ohh, these are clearly edited, but the Annova article is not, I see.

What a crock of BS.

The February 11 2003 audiotape calling on Iraqis to carry out suicide attacks against US forces. In the October 29 2004 videotape of Bin Laden admitting responsibility for the September 11 attacks, he also said: "Despite entering the fourth year after September 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you, and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened," which is not very Pro America, nor reason for America to benefit, and the 2006 tape just claims Moussaoui was not involved with the plot, it says nothing however of the operation. To consider the 2004 and 2006 tapes are contrived to supprt the US in blaming Bin Laden is pure speculation, and Bin Laden died without his name on the FBI poster. So even if you were right, it seems it was all for nothing.

I went to college with many trainee architects - not always the brightest of fellows when it comes to problem solving and logic it must be said. Even with those fully qualified architects, it was often about aesthetics (external appearance) and very little practicality (sense). I’d be more impressed if you were an engineer... even more, an unbiased person with no qualification at all...

It so happens I am an engineer, and electrical engineer. It has given me a very good grounding in major construction projects over the last 25 years. My worj is industrial/commercial major electrical installions, everything from high rises to correctional centres to theme parks to waste treatment plants.

I am sure you would be happy if I had no qualifications, it would be so much easier to convince me then wouldn't it.

I suppose that is why Architects have to attend workshops on any major construction, so they have the feedback from other specialist trades.

The features are ideal fit for a prison, that is blatant. You could make the counter-argument that a prison design forms a good ‘strong house’ but that does not remove that the building design and features fit a prison.

The example you have provided of the Swiss ambassador building...

swiss-ambassador-residence.jpg

27.88.1327761277.greenroofIIWPROJECTHjpg.jpg

swiss-arial.jpg

Is a terrible fit to bin Laden’s prison...

Bin-Laden-compound-4col.gif

Please try again.

Go jump, why should I try again? Because the basic principal in design that I pointed blatantly out to you is being ignored by you? Get over yourself! Both have ten foot walls, both have empty grounds beside them, both have one entry/exit, what is does illustrate is Bin Laden was in a bloody house, not a prison. The entry gate I showed you is a prison. What Bin Laden lived in would be more than common in say South Africa. It, like Pakistan, has serious law issues.

Your picture of a strong house where Bin Laden hid out is not in any way shape or form, a prison. I have built 3 correctional centres. That is not a prison.

Hey, why do you think the ISI were so aggrieved with the man who helped the CIA find bin Laden? He should have been a hero, but instead the ISI tortured him and put him away for 33 years. Clearly the answer is that he disrupted their operation. There are even reports that the building was designed by an architect who worked for the ISI and that the compound was initially used by the ISI (I won’t bother you with link to those particular reports - coming from a Gulf news source I know you’d dismiss it out of hand). I’ll stick with this one for now: -

http://www.nytimes.c...-says.html?_r=0

Yeah, he angered Pakistani officials, who had not been informed ahead of time and viewed it as a violation of the country’s sovereignty. Japan is pretty touchy about sovereignty too. They were p***ed that the US did as they pleased, do you really find this a surprise? Would you expect any better from Pakistan?

Designed by an architect? Good gravy. Of course it was designed by an architect, it was not designed by a fisherman was it now? That too does not make a house a prison.

There’s another particular story you can lookup online which highlights the prison nature of the compound. When a child’s ball would be lost in the courtyard over the compound wall, the guards would never hand it back, but rather pay the child 2-3 times the money the ball was worth. Why? Did the guards like balls that much? Or is that a standard procedure to ensure no message can leave confines of the compound walls?

You know, I know... but can you accept it? I think not – a decade of bin Laden propaganda runs deep and I’m quite sure you have no will to overcome it. Fortunately others prefer to be enlightened.

Can I accept what? That the guards who were keeping the location a secret did not allow people in? The neighbours also say they never saw people in there as well, are all the neighbours on the US payroll as well? I think Bin Laden privacy was probably worth 2-3 times that of a child's ball.

You are in the deep end, and I doubt you could get out if you wanted to.

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was stationed along side the Australian Air Force in Vietnam. They are great people to social with.

I agree. We had Aussie troops stationed nearby, and they were very friendly. Indeed, I took my R&R in Sydney.

I was responding to Psyche's delusion that you and I were protecting him and Australia from those dangerous little yellow people. I wanted him to thank me too, for protecting his butt, as he put it.

Alas, Psyche is silent on the matter today. :no:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go jump, why should I try again? Because the basic principal in design that I pointed blatantly out to you is being ignored by you? Get over yourself! Both have ten foot walls, both have empty grounds beside them, both have one entry/exit, what is does illustrate is Bin Laden was in a bloody house, not a prison. The entry gate I showed you is a prison. What Bin Laden lived in would be more than common in say South Africa. It, like Pakistan, has serious law issues.

Your picture of a strong house where Bin Laden hid out is not in any way shape or form, a prison. I have built 3 correctional centres. That is not a prison.

Bin Laden's final house looks a lot like the houses in the more affluent areas of Doha, Qatar that I've seen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. We had Aussie troops stationed nearby, and they were very friendly. Indeed, I took my R&R in Sydney.

Well nice to know you have a good opinion of our ANZACS. They deserve it.

I was responding to Psyche's delusion that you and I were protecting him and Australia from those dangerous little yellow people. I wanted him to thank me too, for protecting his butt, as he put it.

I am afraid the delusion be yours alone. I pointed out to you that we were there to stem the spread of communism in Europe and Asia. That is why Australia got involved - as an ally to protect our way of life. I appreciate what the people did in Nam, and understand it was a difficult situation to be in politically and physically. Do you know who Sergeant William Hacking is? I do not suppose you fought alongside any people with the last name Drabsch?

If you were there fighting alongside allies, then I do offer you a salute, and I will indeed say thank you very much for putting your life on the line to protect all of us, and our way of life. We got hit in WWII without warning, not all that often, but it shows that in conflict we are a target. You probably should have shown up sooner, I will trey to remember this, and offer you more respect than I would the average CT'er if you find that satisfactory. I do not think I have ever been outwardly rude to yourself, but have had strong objections to the notions you have put forth. If I have, then may I take this opportunity to apologise, as I do respect all Vetrans for putting their lives on the line. Battle of Long Tan, Chopper drop offs at Nui Dat, I have read and heard the recollections, and I am not afraid to say that I humbled by them. If that was you, then you are indeed twice the man I thought you were.

If you worked with military, how did you turn out a truther? That is pretty hard to understand.

Alas, Psyche is silent on the matter today. :no:

I am in Australia remember? Different time zones.

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bin Laden's final house looks a lot like the houses in the more affluent areas of Doha, Qatar that I've seen.

Exactly. trying to say that is a prison is plain nonsense.

This

Pakistan_Prison.295.jpg462_PAKISTAN-PRISON-BREAK-O.jpg

Is a prison in Pakistan. Quite a difference.

house2_2.jpgbin_laden_compound_01.jpg

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.