Investigate 9/11 Super Bowl Interview

[skyeagle409]

https://wikispooks.c...ite_at_WTC.html

You missed this as well.

Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

My link

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

https://sites.google...wtc7resembledac

Controlled Demolition Inc

D.H. Griffin Companies

Mazzocchi Wrecking

Gateway Demolition

Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal

[DecoNoir]

I guess that means you won't answer the question? You prefer not to discuss the percentage difference between the 2 different aircraft.

I'm not surprised.

Well the difference in size isn't going to really move the conversation (by the way, I gave you the mass of both aircraft, you could do the math). However, determining the kinetic energy of both situations will give a much better perspective of the forces at work in terms of what the tower was designed to take, as opposed to what actually happened.

Seems it flew completely over your head. Do you need a reminder of what kinetic energy is?

[Phaeton80]

"And they did not show up on seismic monitors! Because, only bomb explosions would!"

For explosives to be effective in demolishing a building, explosives must be firmly attached to structural columns. Upon detonation, the explosion will send a signal through the steel structure and into the ground where the signal will be detected.

You have a migical talent to respond with open door content that seems to oppose the statement they were in response to, but in fact do not (at all). Leaving you thinking you have 'set things straight', 'taught us a lesson', and more of that self gratifying nonsense. Both statements are correct, but have no bearing WHAT SO EVER on my statement.

Is it your argument explosions, the source of which is not 'firmly attached to structural columns', would not show up on seismic monitors? Because this is the only interpretation your content would make any sense.

So it were gas explosions before, during and after the event, that didnt show up on seismic monitors because the gas wasnt firmly attached to structural columns. Makes sense! And I guess the gas explosions ignited a fireball that went all the way under the lobby of the WTC at approx thesame time of impact, cruising down unconnected clogged elevator shafts (express) 80+ floors to sub-basements.. Magic planes, magic gas / fireballs, magic buildings, add a nice pinch of magestical [uS airdefense] incompetence.. Ahh, alltogether lovely.

Kevin Ryan in the documentary '9/11 Birth of Treason':

"I was previously a division manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriter Laboratories [uL]. ... I have a degree in Chemistry from Indiana University. I have a certification for Quality Engineering, which is very closely related to standards in the National Institute for Standards and Technologies. I was Laboratory Manager at UL for years, so I know about testing samples for national standards. ... I first sent a formal question to our Chief Executive Officer at Underwriter Laboratories in late 2003. And laid out these concerns to him. I said, "You told us that we had tested the steel and certified the steel. This steel has been destroyed now. There are alternative explanations as to what has happened." He responded a month later. He did confirm that UL had tested the steel used in the World Trade Center buildings. I have quite a number of statements in writing. Clearly this Chief Executive Officer, who was a Harvard-trained lawyer, by the way, not an engineer, had fully accepted the official story and been given information himself about testing done 40 years ago by our company to certify the steel of the World Trade Center. ...

He asked me to be patient and wait for the official report of the NIST, because UL was working closely together with them to try and figure out what happened and eventually there would be an explanation. I did wait for another year. The report came out and it contained a great deal of contradictory information. They had done physical tests, both at UL and NIST, which showed that the steel could not have softened and that the floors could not have collapsed. And yet the report was coming out suggesting that these things actually did happen. ... The final story has been summarized kind of in seven steps. And if you walk through those and clearly summarize them and look at known facts about the buildings, look at the report itself to see if it is self-consistent, just look at the story to see if it is realistic, and in all three cases you can see that it is not. It is actually false in everyone of those seven steps. And this is just the collapse initiation sequence. They don't actually describe the actual dynamics of the buildings falling. They just say, "global collapse ensued". In that way they can ignore a whole lot of evidence that points to an alternative hypothesis, like explosions, from witnesses hearing explosions, or demolition squibs coming off of the buildings. The speed of the collapse is a very important piece of evidence. They can ignore all of that by just saying "global collapse ensued". Period. The biggest problems with that story are the fire proofing being lost ...

Tests that were done by NIST, very weak, numble tests, prove that actually the fire proofing could not have been lost in the buildings. There was no energy for it - no mechanism for it to occur. And probably the biggest problem is the idea that the external columns would bow inward, which is primary to the official story. There's actually no physical testing to support that. There's no intuitive reasoning behind it. The only support is from a highly manipulated computer model, in which the temperatures were exaggerated, the fire times were exaggerated, all the fire proofing was stripped off. And the floors were disconnected. ... The floors are disconnected. There's no force to pull the columns in. How did it happen? We are talking about a phantom force now in a highly manipulated computer model. And that's what we are basing our future on. ... There were also still comments being made about jet fuel melting steel, by experts supporting the official story. So I wrote to the NIST and I asked them to please clarify the ideas that were being stated in the media and in the report. And I was fired for writing the letter. I was fired for nothing else, but writing this letter. I hadn't violated any policies and I had been promoted just earlier that year to a top-management position in my division."

Even if it were gas explosions, and thats some assumption, why was the evidence removed / destroyed - shipped off to China - with unprecedented vigor & speed? Incompetence, just like on mostly all other facets that day. What was that word again, 'gullible'?

January 2002, Fire Engineering Magazine, Bill Manning in Editor's Opinion, '$elling Out the Investigation':

"Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not.

But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center. For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car. Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall. Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.

Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it? No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything. ...

However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory. ... Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY probationary firefighter. And so do we. Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. ... The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately."

https://wikispooks.c...ite_at_WTC.html

Edited May 10, 2014 by Phaeton80

[Babe Ruth]

Well the difference in size isn't going to really move the conversation (by the way, I gave you the mass of both aircraft, you could do the math). However, determining the kinetic energy of both situations will give a much better perspective of the forces at work in terms of what the tower was designed to take, as opposed to what actually happened.

Seems it flew completely over your head. Do you need a reminder of what kinetic energy is?

Nope.

And I'd bet $ that the gross weights of the 2 different aircraft were fairly close, maybe 20% difference.

Of course all that's irrelevant, given that nukes were used to take the place down.

[skyeagle409]

You have a migical talent to respond with open door content that seems to oppose the statement they were in response to, but in fact do not (at all). Leaving you thinking you have 'set things straight', 'taught us a lesson', and more of that self gratifying nonsense. Both statements are correct,

Of course my statements are correct. I have even posted references to demolition companies and information on demolition techniques and explosives. As the WTC buildings collapsed, I did not hear nor see evidence of bomb explosions and I have heard many explosions in Vietnam as well to know that there were no demolition explosions evident as the WTC buildings collapsed.

As an aircraft structural technician and inspector, I can relate to the collapse of the WTC buildings and I am aware of the significance of external buckling of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 in the presence of impact damage and fires raging within those buildings. During aircraft inspections, buckling is an indication of internal structural failure.

As an aircraft structural technician, annealing aircraft metals in order to soften the metals and form them into complex shapes not possible in their normal state was another way that i knew that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

]Is it your argument explosions, the source of which is not 'firmly attached to structural columns', would not show up on seismic monitors? [/b] Because this is the only interpretation your content would make any sense.

Let's take a look at the seismic data.

As you can see, there were no demolition explosions recorded on the seismic chart.

So it were gas explosions before, during and after the event, that didnt show up on seismic monitors because the gas wasnt firmly attached to structural columns. Makes sense! And I guess the gas explosions ignited a fireball that went all the way under the lobby of the WTC at approx thesame time of impact, cruising down unconnected clogged elevator shafts (express) 80+ floors to sub-basements..

That was fuel from the aircraft.

Elevators were disaster within disaster

Elevator shafts worked like chimneys, funneling unbearable smoke to floors above the crashes. The shafts also channeled burning jet fuel throughout both towers. Fire moved not only up and down but also side to side, from shaft to shaft, unleashing explosions in elevator lobbies and in restrooms next to the shafts.

http://usatoday30.us...ator-usat_x.htm

...Magic planes,...

Only a certain number of B-767-200 and B-757-200 series aircraft built and none were modified to fly under remote control nor switched during the 9/11 attack and they are accounted for.

...magic gas / fireballs,...

Such explosions are nothing new in New York City. Check it out.

Manhole Explosions Set Cars On Fire In SoHo

December 29, 2012 4:22 PM

Several cars were ablaze on Prince Street in SoHo Saturday afternoon, after a series of explosions in manholes below.

A car was left charred after a series of manhole explosions in SoHo.

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

Predicting the Next Deadly Manhole Explosion

Every so often in New York City, a disk of cast iron weighing up to 300 pounds will burst out of the street and fly as high as several stories before clattering back to the blacktop. Flames, smoke or both may issue from the breach, as if somebody had pulled hell’s own pop-top

Manhole explosions aren’t just spectacular; they’re dangerous. As one firefighter observed after a manhole exploded near Times Square in May: “It’s not Disneyland, people. Get the hell out of the way.”

http://www.wired.com...ole-explosions/

Harsh winter triggers New York City manhole explosions

Record snowfall is turning the city's mean streets even meaner, with 65 manholes exploding or catching fire since New Years, a utility spokesman said on Friday.

http://www.reuters.c...E71374I20110204

...magic buildings,

Nothing magical about the WTC buildings because the laws of physics had governed the way the WTC buildings collapsed.

...add a nice pinch of magestical [uS airdefense] incompetence.

Let's take a look.

9-11 Fighter Pilot: We Wouldn't Have Shot Down Hijackers

The pilot of one of two U.S. military jets that were scrambled on 9-11 moments after kamikaze hijacker Mohamed Atta slammed American Airlines Flight 11 into Tower One of the World Trade Center said Wednesday that he wouldn't have been able to stop the attack even if he intercepted the plane.

"If we had intercepted American 11, we probably would have watched it crash," the pilot, identified only by his military codename "Nasty," told the Cape Cod Times. "We didn't have the authority to (shoot it down)."

As part of the 102nd Fighter Wing flying out of Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod, "Nasty" and his partner, codenamed "Duff," were scrambled at 8:46 a.m. as news of Flight 11's hijacking reached the base.

"We didn't suspect they would use kamikaze tactics that morning," the pilot told the Times. "We weren't ready for that type of an attack, to quickly shoot down one of our own airplanes."

At the time, military pilots had no such standing orders. Absent a presidential directive they had no authority to blow a commercial airliner out of the sky.

http://www.freerepub...ws/737242/posts

113th Wing, Andrews AFB

"We've never been an air defense unit. We practice scrambles, we know how to do intercepts and other things, but there's a lot of protocol in the air defense business. We obviously didn't have that expertise...

Chief of Safety for the 113th Wing, Andrews AFB.

In interviews with us, NEADS personnel expressed considerable confusion over the nature and effect of the order

The NEADS commander told us he did not pass along the order because he was unaware of its ramifications. Both the mission commander and the senior weapons director indicated they did not pass the order to the fighters circling Washington and New York because they were unsure how the pilots would, or should, proceed with this guidance.

...the Langley pilots did not know the threat they were facing, did not know where United 93 was located, and did not have shoot-down authorization before United 93 crashed.

http://www.unexplain...=229808&st=3045

Communication transcript conserning United 93

FAA (DC): Go ahead.

NEADS: United nine three, have you got information on that yet?

FAA: Yeah, he's down.

NEADS: He's down?

FAA: Yes.

NEADS: When did he land? Cause we have got confirmation...

FAA: He did not land.

NEADS: Oh, he's down? Down?

FAA: Yes. Somewhere up northeast of Camp David.

NEADS: Northeast of Camp David.

FAA: That's the last report. They don't know exactly where.

. Ahh, alltogether lovely.

You would be surprised at what knowledge can do for you.

Edited May 10, 2014 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Even if it were gas explosions, and thats some assumption, why was the evidence removed / destroyed - shipped off to China.

Shipping steel off to China is not evidence of a cover-up. BTW, selected pieces of steel were selected for examination.

Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uls-qPlnYj4

[skyeagle409]

Of course all that's irrelevant, given that nukes were used to take the place down.

Considering that you have used a mini-nuke story that was a hoax shows why you are not credible. BTW, where is that non-existent B-727 you have claimed was located at Shanksville?

Edited May 10, 2014 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

The only support is from a highly manipulated computer model, in which the temperatures were exaggerated, the fire times were exaggerated, all the fire proofing was stripped off. And the floors were disconnected. ... The floors are disconnected. There's no force to pull the columns in. How did it happen? We are talking about a phantom force now in a highly manipulated computer model. And that's what we are basing our future on. ..

Ignorance prevails from you link. Now, let's take a look at the rest of the story.

What Happened as Fires Raged with the WTC Towers Video

. There were also still comments being made about jet fuel melting steel, by experts supporting the official story.

Jet fuel cannot melt steel. The fires did not have to be high enough to melt steel, just high enough to weaken the steel beams. Let's take a look at what jet fuel can do to steel.

How Jet Fuel Can Weaken Steel

Edited May 10, 2014 by skyeagle409

[DecoNoir]

Nope.

And I'd bet $ that the gross weights of the 2 different aircraft were fairly close, maybe 20% difference.

Of course all that's irrelevant, given that nukes were used to take the place down.

Well glad to see you still got your head up your ass. Weight doesn't matter that much (by the way, I love that your still guessing the weight difference despite giving you the numbers) the object traveling faster will release more kinetic energy will cause more damage. Kinetic energy is the energy of movement, and is what makes things like bullets cause massive damage to a target as opposed to neat little holes.

Can't even grasp high school physics, so its no wonder you can't even grasp the basics of nuclear physics.

[Phaeton80]

"You would be surprised at what knowledge can do for you."

"Ignorance prevails from you link."

I imagine this is sort of like the face you make when stating these things. Some very nice, dare I say classic additions to your signature smugness btw.

Oh I almost forgot, thanks for evading my question by way of supplying an irrelevant response ("there were no demolition explosions recorded on the seismic chart")! Another one of your lovely signature attributes.

Edited May 10, 2014 by Phaeton80

[skyeagle409]

I imagine this is sort of like the face you make when stating these things. Some very nice, dare I say classic additions to your signature smugness btw. Oh I almost forgot, thanks for evading my question by way of supplying an irrelevant response ("there were no demolition explosions recorded on the seismic chart")! Another one of your lovely signature attributes.

Since it seems that you have missed much of what I have posted before, here they are again.

There were no demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed, neither on video, audio, nor detected by seismic monitors in the area and no explosive hardware was ever found at ground zero. In other words, zero evidence of explosives at ground zero. Additionally, it takes many months to prepare a steel frame building for demolition and the pre-weakening operation prior to the emplacement of explosives is a very noisy and dirty job and there was no way that such preparation could have gone on for almost a year in the WTC buildings without notice.

Emplacement of explosives without structural pre-weakening will have these results, not to mention the 1993 WTC1 bombing, which left a portion of the building standing within the bomb crater.

Now, let's take a look at the effects of fire on steel.

Temperature and Strength of Metals

Some common types of steel lose 10% of their strength at 450 C (840 F), and 40% at 550 C (1022 F). At temperatures above 800 C ( 1475 F), it has lost 90% of its strength. Other types of steel are made to stand higher temperatures before losing 10% of their strength, but they are much more expensive (and are weaker at room temperature).

And there are types which actually get stronger, up to 450 F (but then get a lot weaker at higher temperatures

http://www.engineeri...gth-d_1353.html

Question is; who was responsible for implying that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings with zero evidence? Let's do an audio and visual comparison between actual demolition operations and as the WTC buildings collapse

Video and Audio Comparisons

Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, not the U.S. government, was responsible for planning and carrying out the 9/11 attack.

Abdul Hakim Murad confessed

Abdul Hakim Murad confessed detailed Phase III in his interrogation by the Manila police after his capture.

Phase three would have involved Murad either renting, buying, or hijacking a small airplane, preferably a Cessna. The airplane would be filled with explosives. He would then crash it into the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in theLangley area in Fairfax County, Virginia. Murad had been trained as a pilot in North Carolina, and was slated to be a suicide pilot.

There were alternate plans to hijack a 12th commercial airliner and use that instead of the small aircraft, probably due to the Manila cell's growing frustration with explosives. Testing explosives in a house or apartment is dangerous, and it can easily give away a terrorist plot. Khalid Sheik Mohammed probably made the alternate plan.

A report from the Philippines to the United States on January 20, 1995 stated, "What the subject has in his mind is that he will board any American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger. Then he will hijack said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA headquarters."

Another plot that was considered would have involved the hijacking of more airplanes. The World Trade Center (New York City, New York), The Pentagon (Arlington, Virginia), the United States Capitol (Washington, D.C.), the White House(Washington, D.C.), the Sears Tower (Chicago, Illinois), and the U.S Bank Tower (Los Angeles, California), would have been the likely targets. Abdul Hakim Murad said that this part of the plot was dropped since the Manila cell could not recruit enough people to implement other hijackings in his confession with Filipino investigators, prior to the foiling of Operation Bojinka.

This plot eventually would be the base plot for the September 11, 2001 attacks which involved hijacking commercial airliners as opposed to small aircraft loaded with explosives and crashing them into their intended targets. However, only the World Trade Center (which was destroyed) and The Pentagon (which suffered partial damage) were hit.

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Bojinka_plot

You will also notice that terrorist had planned to fly an aircraft into CIA headquarters. It is very clear that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attack and let's not forget international warnings from a number of countries that al-Qaeda, not the U.S. government, would use aircraft as weapons in their attack upon America.

Question is, with those facts in hand why are you trying to paint the U.S. government as responsible for carrying out the 9/11 attack with zero evidence?

.

Edited May 10, 2014 by skyeagle409

[Phaeton80]

Some more random, remotely related content. Wonderful!

[skyeagle409]

Some more random, remotely related content. Wonderful!

Considering there is no evidence supporting the 911 government conspiracy claim, It makes no sense for you to deny what is factual. For an example:

1. No evidence of demolition hardware found at ground zero

2. No explosions seen as the WTC buildings collapsed

3. No explosions heard as the WTC buildings collapsed

4 . No explosions detected by seismic monitors as the WTC buildings collapsed

5.. No evidence that structural steel from the WTC buildings were pre-weakened,

6.. Structural buckling observed on WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 was proof that fire had weakened their steel structures.

Now, let's get to the heart of the matter.

7. Warnings from a number of countries around the world were received by the United States that terrorist would attack America with aircraft

8. . Osama bin Laden, head of al-Qaeda, has admitted that he was responsible for the 9/11 attack

9. Al-Qaeda has admitted that it was responsible for the 9/11 attack.

10. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, uncle of the 1993 WTC1 bomber, Ramzi Yousef, has admitted to masterminding the 9/11 attack upon the United States

To sum it up, the evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, not the U.S. government, were responsible for the 9/11 attack.

[skyeagle409]

Can't even grasp high school physics, so its no wonder you can't even grasp the basics of nuclear physics.

Babe Ruth had thought that helicopters are fixed-winged aircraft and it seems to me that he has never heard of rotary-wing aircraft and he claimed that he was a helicopter pilot???

[flyingswan]

In terms of percentage, how much bigger and faster than a 707 is a 767?

You obviously don't read other people's posts and/or have no research skills of your own.

After being struck, why did the towers continue to stand?

They were designed to survive an aircraft impact. Although the methods of the time didn't allow the calculation of the details of an impact, it was still possible to estimate how much impact energy the structure would need to absorb and how much strength the structure would lose as a result.

However, the relevant design documents seem to be lost and the memories of the designers differ as to how energetic an impact was considered. There is no evidence that the effects of a subsequent fire were taken into consideration.

Why is Robertson on record comparing the exoskeleton being pierced by an airliner to mosquito netting being pierced by a pencil?

The obvious comparison is that both leave a hole that is a close match to the size of the impacting object.

[Babe Ruth]

Swanny

Yes, as Robertson mentions, they were designed to withstand the strike of a 707, the flagship of the 60's and 70's.

And they did indeed withstand the strike of at least one 767 of unknown gross weight at the time of impact.

My point is that the max gross weights of the 2 different types are fairly close. The towers performed as designed.

[skyeagle409]

Each of those ten points are right on the money. You might want to try to do some research for a change. In fact, I challenge you on each of those ten points to prove me wrong. Let's take an example of what you will be up against.

WARNINGS THAT THE DANGER WOULD COME FROM THE AIR

BRITAIN, WARNING #1: Al-Qaeda is planning to use aircraft in "unconventional ways", "possibly as flying bombs"

the British intelligence agency, gives a secret report to liaison staff at the US embassy in London. The reports states that al-Qaeda has plans to use "commercial aircraft" in "unconventional ways", "possibly as flying bombs." [sunday Times, 6/9/02]

BRITAIN, WARNING #3: An Al-Qaeda attack will involve multiple hijackings

Early August 2001 ©: Britain gives the US another warning about an al-Qaeda attack. The previous British warning (see July 16, 2001) was vague as to method, but this warning specifies multiple airplane hijackings. This warning is included in Bush's briefing on August 6. [sunday Herald, 5/19/02]

CAYMAN ISLANDS, WARNING #2: Three al-Qaeda agents are part of a plot "organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines"

August 29, 2001: Three men from either Pakistan or Afghanistan living in the Cayman Islands are briefly arrested in June 2001 for discussing hijacking attacks in New York City (see June 4, 2001). On this day, a Cayman Islands radio station receives an unsigned letter claiming these same three men are agents of bin Laden. The anonymous author warns that they "are organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines." The letter is forwarded to a Cayman government official but no action is taken until after 9/11 and it isn't known when the US is informed. Many criminals and/or businesses use the Cayman Islands as a safe, no tax, no questions asked haven to keep their money. The author of the letter meets with the FBI shortly after 9/11, and claims his information was a "premonition of sorts." The three men are later arrested. Its unclear what has happened to them since their arrest. [Miami Herald, 9/20/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, MSNBC, 9/23/01] FTW

EGYPT, WARNING #1: An undercover agent learns 20 al-Qaeda agents are in the US, four have received flight training

Late July 2001 (D): CBS later has a brief mention in a long story on another topic: "Just days after Atta return to the US from Spain, Egyptian intelligence in Cairo says it received a report from one of its operatives in Afghanistan that 20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the US and four of them had received flight training on Cessnas. To the Egyptians, pilots of small planes didn't sound terribly alarming, but they [pass] on the message to the CIA anyway, fully expecting Washington to request information. The request never [comes]." [CBS, 10/9/02] This appears to be one of several accurate Egyptian warnings based on informants (see June 13, 2001 and August 30, 2001). Could Egypt have known the names of some or all of the hijackers? Given FBI agent Ken Williams' memo about flight schools a short time before (see July 10, 2001), shouldn't the US have investigated this closely instead of completely ignoring it?

GERMANY: Terrorists will use airplanes as weapons to attack "American and Israeli symbols"

June 2001: German intelligence warns the CIA, Britain's MI6, and Israel's Mossad that Middle Eastern terrorists are planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack "American and Israeli symbols, which stand out." A later article quotes unnamed German intelligence sources who state the information was coming from Echelon surveillance technology, and that British intelligence had access to the same warnings. However, there were other informational sources, including specific information and hints given to, but not reported by, Western and Near Eastern news media six months before 9/11. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01, Fox News, 5/17/02] FTW

ITALY: Muslims warn of an attack on the US and Britain using hijacked airplanes as weapons

September 7, 2001: Father Jean-Marie Benjamin is told at a wedding in Todi, Italy of a plot to attack the US and Britain using hijacked airplanes as weapons. He isn't told time or place specifics. He immediately passes what he knows to a judge and several politicians. He states: "Although I am friendly with many Muslims, I wondered why they were telling me, specifically. I felt it my duty to inform the Italian government." Benjamin has been called "one of the West's most knowledgeable experts on the Muslim world." Two days after 9/11, he meets with the Italian Foreign Minister on this topic. He says he learned the attack on Britain failed at the last minute. [Zenit, 9/16/01] He has not revealed who told him this information, but could it have been a member of the al-Qaeda cell in Milan (see August 12, 2000 and January 24, 2001), which appears to have helped with the 9/11 attacks?

JORDAN: A major attack using aircraft is planned inside the US

Late summer 2001: Jordanian intelligence (the GID) makes a communications intercept deemed so important that King Abdullah's men relay it to Washington, probably through the CIA station in Amman. To make doubly sure the message gets through it is passed through an Arab intermediary to a German intelligence agent. The message states that a major attack, code named The Big Wedding, is planned inside the US and that aircraft will be used. "When it became clear that the information was embarrassing to Bush Administration officials and congressmen who at first denied that there had been any such warnings before September 11, senior Jordanian officials backed away from their earlier confirmations." Christian Science Monitor calls the story "confidently authenticated" even though Jordan has backed away from it. [international Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02] FTW

RUSSIA: Russian intelligence clearly warns the US several times that 25 or so terrorists, including suicide pilots, will attack the US, targeting "important buildings like the Pentagon"

August 2001 (D): Russian President Putin warns the US that suicide pilots are training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02] The head of Russian intelligence also later states, "We had clearly warned them" on several occasions, but they "did not pay the necessary attention." [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/01] A Russian newspaper on September 12, 2001 claims that "Russian Intelligence agents know the organizers and executors of these terrorist attacks. More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation to these actions a couple of weeks before they happened." Interestingly, the article claims that at least two of the terrorists were Muslim radicals from Uzbekistan. [izvestia, 9/12/01, (the story currently on the Izvestia web site has been edited to delete a key paragraph, the link is to a translation of the original article from From the Wilderness)] FTW

OTHER WARNINGS

AFGHANISTAN: Al-Qaeda is planning an imminent "huge attack" inside the US that will kill thousands

ARGENTINA: A major terrorist attack is planned against either the US, Argentina, or France

Late July 2001 ©: Argentina's Jewish community receives warnings of a major terrorist attack against either the United States, Argentina or France from "a foreign intelligence source." The warning was then relayed to the Argentine security authorities. It was agreed to keep the warning secret in order to avoid panic while reinforcing security at Jewish sites in the country. Says a Jewish leader, "It was a concrete warning that an attack of major proportion would take place, and it came from a reliable intelligence source. And I understand the Americans were told about it." Argentina has a large Jewish community that has been bombed in the past, and has been an area of al-Qaeda activity. [Forward, 5/31/02]

BRITAIN, WARNING #2: Al-Qaeda is the "final stages" of a very serious attack on a Western country

July 16, 2001: British spy agencies send a report to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other top officials warning that al-Qaeda is in "the final stages" of preparing a terrorist attack in the West. The prediction is "based on intelligence gleaned not just from MI6 and GCHQ but also from US agencies, including the CIA and the National Security Agency," which cooperate with the British. "The contents of the July 16 warning would have been passed to the Americans, Whitehall sources confirmed." The report states there is "an acute awareness" that the attack is "a very serious threat." [London Times, 6/14/02] This information could be from or in addition to a warning based on surveillance of al-Qaeda prisoner Khalid al-Fawwaz (see August 21, 2001). [Fox News, 5/17/02]

CAYMAN ISLANDS, WARNING #1:

June 4, 2001: At some point in 2000, three men claiming to be Afghans but using Pakistani passports enter the Cayman Islands, possibly illegally. [Miami Herald, 9/20/01] In late 2000, Cayman and British investigators begin a yearlong probe of these men which lasts until 9/11. [Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01] They are overheard discussing hijacking attacks in New York City. On this day, they are taken into custody, questioned and released some time later. This information is forwarded to US intelligence. [Fox News, 5/17/02] In late August, a letter to a Cayman radio station will allege these same men are agents of bin Laden "organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines" (see August 29, 2001).

EGYPT, WARNING #2: Al-Qaeda is in the advanced stages of a "significant operation" probably within the US

August 30-September 4, 2001: According to Egyptian President Hasni Mubarak, Egyptian intelligence warns American officials that bin Laden's network is in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the US. [AP, 12/7/01, New York Times, 6/4/02] He says he learned this information from an agent working inside al-Qaeda. US officials deny receiving any such warning from Egypt. [ABC News, 6/4/02]

FRANCE: An echo of Israel's warning of a major assault on the US

Late August 2001 (D): French intelligence gives a general terrorist warning to the US; apparently its contents echo an Israeli warning from earlier in the month (see Mid-August 2001). [Fox News, 5/17/02]

INDIA: Missed opportunity with White House attack warning

India gives the US general intelligence on possible terror attacks; details are not known. US government officials later confirm that Indian intelligence had information "that two Islamist radicals with ties to Osama bin Laden were discussing an attack on the White House," but apparently this particular information is not given to the US until two days after 9/11. [Fox News, 5/17/02]

ISRAEL, WARNING #1: 50 to 200 al-Qaeda terrorists are inside the US and planning an imminent "major assault on the US" aimed at a "large scale target"

August 8-15, 2001: At some point between these dates, Israel warns the US that an al-Qaeda attack is imminent. [Fox News, 5/17/02] Two high ranking agents from the Mossad come to Washington and warn the FBI and CIA that from 50 to 200 terrorists have slipped into the US and are planning "a major assault on the United States." They say indications point to a "large scale target", and that Americans would be "very vulnerable." They add there could be Iraqi connections to the al-Qaeda attack. [Telegraph, 9/16/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/01] The Los Angeles Times later retracts the story after a CIA spokesman says, "There was no such warning. Allegations that there was are complete and utter nonsense." [Los Angeles Times, 9/21/01] In light of later revelations of a Mossad spy ring trailing numerous Muslim terrorists in the US, it is easy to see that Mossad would have known this info. Could this be later disinformation by the Mossad to spin the spy ring story and blame Iraq for 9/11, or it is another smoking gun showing extensive US foreknowledge?

ISRAEL, WARNING #2: Israel gives the US a list of 19 terrorists inside the US planning an imminent attack, the list names at least four of the hijackers, including Mohamed Atta

August 23, 2001: According to German newspapers, the Mossad gives the CIA a list of terrorists living in the US and say that they appear to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future. It is unknown if these are the 19 9/11 hijackers or if the number is a coincidence. However, four names on the list are known and are names of the 9/11 hijackers: Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Marwan Alshehhi, and Mohamed Atta. [Die Zeit, 10/1/02, Der Spiegel, 10/1/02, BBC, 10/2/02, Haaretz, 10/3/02] The Mossad appears to have learned about this through its "art student" spy ring (see for instance, March 5, 2002). Yet apparently this warning and list are not treated as particularly urgent by the CIA and also not passed on to the FBI. It's not clear if this warning influenced the adding of Alhazmi and Almihdhar to a terrorism watch list on this same day, and if so, why only those two. [Der Spiegel, 10/1/02] Israel has denied that there were any Mossad agents in the US. [Haaretz, 10/3/02] The US has denied knowing about Atta before 9/11, despite other media reports to the contrary (see January-May 2000).

MOROCCO: Al-Qaeda is planning large scale operations in New York City in the fall of 2001, possibly targeting the World Trade Center

August 2001 The French magazine Maximale and the Moroccan newspaper al-Ittihad al-Ichtiraki later simultaneously report that a Moroccan agent named Hassan Dabou had penetrated al-Qaeda to the point of getting close to bin Laden by this time. Dabou claims he learns that bin Laden is "very disappointed" that the 1993 bombing had not toppled the WTC, and plans "large scale operations in New York in the summer or fall of 2001." Dabou is called to the US to report this information directly, and in so doing blows his cover, losing his ability to gather more intelligence. The International Herald Tribune later calls the story "not proved beyond a doubt" but intriguing, and asks the CIA to confirm or deny, which it has not done. [Agence France Presse, 11/22/01, International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, London Times, 6/12/02] FTW

Bin Laden Admits 9/11 Responsibility, Warns of More Attacks

A tape aired by Al-Jazeera television Friday showed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden admitting for the first time that he orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and saying the United States could face more.

http://www.pbs.org/n...n_10-29-04.html

Bin Laden warns of attacks on the U.S.

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates Breaking more than a year's silence, Osama bin Laden warned Americans in an audiotape released on Thursday that Al Qaeda was planning more attacks on the United States, but he offered a "long truce" on undefined terms.

Question is, are you up to that challenge?

Edited May 11, 2014 by Tiggs
Removed flamebaiting image

[Stellar]

Nope.

And I'd bet $ that the gross weights of the 2 different aircraft were fairly close, maybe 20% difference.

Of course all that's irrelevant, given that nukes were used to take the place down.

What speed were the towers designed to take the impact at?

I could drop a moderate sized marble on your head and you wouldn't die... but if I shoot you in the head with a 5.56 mm bullet (much lighter than a marble) from an assault rifle, you're probably going to die. Do you understand why?

[Babe Ruth]

I don't know Stellar--that's pretty advanced physics you offer there.

I don't know what speed the towers were designed for, and I don't know at what weights they ran the calculations. Further, neither you nor I know the weight of the supposed UA 175, nor the speed. It wasn't UA 175, so the weight is only approximate and probably way light.

Whatever the calculations, the tower withstood the strike, as designed.

[Phaeton80]

Each of those ten points are right on the money. You might want to try to do some research for a change. In fact, I challenge you on each of those ten points to prove me wrong. Let's take an example of what you will be up against.

Question is, are you up to that challenge?

So whats the score now.. Extreme incompetence before, during and after the event. Weve covered all three, I do think.

No but really though; 'Ignorance prevails from you link.'

Ignoring my argument / direct question completely, posting vaguely related content as a response in an attempt to obfuscate, getting called on your general stance by way of funny poster, to subsequently complete the diversion tactic by demanding rebuttal of said unrelated - machine gunned blanks - content.

Wonderful!

[Babe Ruth]

Wonderful, but oh so typical.

[Phaeton80]

The 'force' is strong in that one.

[Stellar]

I don't know Stellar--that's pretty advanced physics you offer there.

I don't know what speed the towers were designed for, and I don't know at what weights they ran the calculations. Further, neither you nor I know the weight of the supposed UA 175, nor the speed. It wasn't UA 175, so the weight is only approximate and probably way light.

Whatever the calculations, the tower withstood the strike, as designed.

Nah, they're not advanced calculations. They've been provided for you here in this very thread. And what do you mean we don't know the weight of UA 175? We certainly do know at least how much it weighed.

[skyeagle409]

So whats the score now.. Extreme incompetence before, during and after the event. Weve covered all three, I do think.

Are you side-tracking my challenge? Question was, are you up to the challenge?

[skyeagle409]

I don't know what speed the towers were designed for, and I don't know at what weights they ran the calculations. Further, neither you nor I know the weight of the supposed UA 175, nor the speed. It wasn't UA 175,...

Clarify what you meant when you said; " It wasn't UA 175." BTW, where is that B-727 at Shanksville you've spoke of? Do I have to keep reminding you of what you have said?

Edited May 11, 2014 by skyeagle409