1999 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

lliqerty, on 28 June 2012 - 08:35 PM, said:

Ehud Barak calling for a global, war, effort - led by the US - against all countries of terror, including Iran and Palestinians.
Have us fight his war.

As the old saying goes: "You reap what you sow." Al Qaeda, declared war on the United States and they got their wish and now, they are paying a heavy price.

[turbonium]

skyeagle409, on 23 June 2012 - 05:34 AM, said:

Depends on a number of things. In the case of the WTC buildings, they suffered from impact damage and fires, and that was all it took.

You know this is nonsense, but you dare not admit it.

Random damage - not once, not twice, but three times!!!  And on the very same day!! Sure...

Come on, now.

[booNyzarC]

turbonium, on 29 June 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:

You know this is nonsense, but you dare not admit it.

Random damage - not once, not twice, but three times!!!  And on the very same day!! Sure...

Come on, now.

How can you possibly claim that the impacts on WTC 1 and 2 were random?  I can see an argument for the WTC 7 damage to be classified as "random" in some measure, but 1 and 2?

Come on now.

[skyeagle409]

turbonium, on 29 June 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:

You know this is nonsense, but you dare not admit it.

Random damage - not once, not twice, but three times!!!  And on the very same day!! Sure...

Come on, now.

Random?? WTC 1 and WTC 2 were struck by airliners and WTC 7 was struck by debris.

[lliqerty]

skyeagle409, on 28 June 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

As the old saying goes: "You reap what you sow." Al Qaeda, declared war on the United States and they got their wish and now, they are paying a heavy price.

Did they really? Whot told you? The US government? Because the government/its agents are REALLY trustworthy!

They only provided the explosives for the 1993 WTC bomb. The conversation with the FBI agents was recorded. Did they ever go to trial for that? No, government agents are our Gods, we cannot judge them!

Edited by lliqerty, 29 June 2012 - 06:12 AM.

[skyeagle409]

lliqerty, on 29 June 2012 - 06:10 AM, said:

Did they really? Whot told you? The US government? Because the government/its agents are REALLY trustworthy!

Did we go to war when terrorist detonated explosives beneath the WTC in 1993? Did we go to war when they attacked our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? Did we go to war when they blew up Pan Am 103? However, when they attacked us on 9/11/2001, that was enough and as a result, al Qaeda has lost a good portion of its leadership, but, it  is not stopping there because the operations against al Qaeda will continue to many years to come.

Quote

They only provided the explosives for the 1993 WTC bomb.

The United States had nothing to do with supplying explosives to the terrorist in regards to the 1993 WTC bombing.

Quote

The conversation with the FBI agents was recorded. Did they ever go to trial for that?

What conversation?

[lliqerty]

skyeagle409, on 29 June 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:

Did we go to war when terrorist detonated explosives beneath the WTC in 1993? Did we go to war when they attacked our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? Did we go to war when they blew up Pan Am 103? However, when they attacked us on 9/11/2001, that was enough and as a result, al Qaeda has lost a good portion of its leadership, but, it  is not stopping there because the operations against al Qaeda will continue to many years to come.

The United States had nothing to do with supplying explosives to the terrorist in regards to the 1993 WTC bombing.

What conversation?

Gullible or blind? What is your excuse? Of course, we did supply them. Look at the trial.

Your justification is, we did not go to war - therefore it is okay that the FBI bombed the WTC?

What logic is that? I don't care much about islamists one way or another. Our FBI agents is what I am expecting to live up to a certain standard - like not to bomb our own people!

(The conversations that the FBI had with their contact person were recorded by him)

Edited by lliqerty, 29 June 2012 - 06:50 AM.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 29 June 2012 - 05:18 AM, said:

How can you possibly claim that the impacts on WTC 1 and 2 were random? I can see an argument for the WTC 7 damage to be classified as "random" in some measure, but 1 and 2?

Different speeds, trajectories, impact locations, column damage, fuel loads... the whole impact and fire events were chaotic/random... yet all three buildings suffered the same sudden, near freefall, virtually symmetrical, complete destruction... of course, demolition may have such a regular effect.

lliqerty, on 29 June 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

Gullible or blind? What is your excuse? Of course, we did supply them. Look at the trial.

Both... for some, whatever it takes...

You can't ask people like skyeagle to comprehend that the FBI contact, in their full knowledge, supplied the explosives in the '93 bombing. The FBI's inside man was very concerned about it, but the FBI themselves, who had asked him to befriend Ramzi Yousef and the other genuine terrorists in the first place, cajoled him along.

Does that make it an intelligence or 'Al Qaeda' attack?

Thankfully the informant recorded the calls with his FBI handler, otherwise we would be none the wiser.

All indication is that intelligence agencies used the same tactics on 9/11. The Hamburg Cell in particular were not lifelong, diehard terrorists - their background and actions more likely indication of agents/informants; part of the 1999 CIA infiltration plan which commenced the same year as their affiliation with bin Laden.

FBI > Emad Salem > Ramzi Yousef
CIA > Mohammed Atta > bin Laden

Edited by Q24, 29 June 2012 - 11:23 AM.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 29 June 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

Different speeds, trajectories, impact locations, column damage, fuel loads... the whole impact and fire events were chaotic/random... yet all three buildings suffered the same sudden, near freefall, virtually symmetrical, complete destruction... of course, demolition may have such a regular effect.

There was nothing random about the fact that terrorists crashed very large airplanes at high speeds into towers 1 and 2.  That the specific variables inherent in each crash and the specific resulting damage sustained by the buildings were not identical was not "random" per sey, it was merely that these specific variables and damage were different.

As for the collapses, 1 and 2 had many similarities, but the collapse of 7 was unlike the other two in many ways.  The features of the collapses that you point out as somehow significant in your opinion (sudden, near free fall, virtually symmetrical, complete destruction) are empty comparatives if you ask me.

Once a building begins to collapse, everything that happens from that moment forward could be considered "sudden."  So what?
WTC 1 and 2 didn't fall at near free fall speed.  The North face of WTC 7 did for a time, and even exceeded free fall speed momentarily.
How else do you expect large buildings like these to come down other than in a 'virtually symmetrical' fashion?
Once the collapses initiated, in all 3 cases, there was no way for them to end other than complete destruction unless Superman or the hand of God reached down and caught them before they could finish what physics deemed as inevitable.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 29 June 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

There was nothing random about the fact that terrorists crashed very large airplanes at high speeds into towers 1 and 2. That the specific variables inherent in each crash and the specific resulting damage sustained by the buildings were not identical was not "random" per sey, it was merely that these specific variables and damage were different.

Which is like saying variable dice rolls are not random, just different. Anyhow, I can see this line of discussion will deteriorate to arguing the definition of "random" which is a waste of our time. The obvious point turbonium made was that three instances of chaotic, assymetrical and different damage, supposedly caused three very similar collapses... and when three of the same occurrances happen in a row, it appears more likely by design than chance.

booNyzarC, on 29 June 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

Once a building begins to collapse, everything that happens from that moment forward could be considered "sudden." So what?

Slow onset with large visible deformation as in fire induced collapse: -




Rapid onset of collapse as in demolition: -

booNyzarC, on 29 June 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

WTC 1 and 2 didn't fall at near free fall speed. The North face of WTC 7 did for a time, and even exceeded free fall speed momentarily.

How could WTC7 exceed freefall?

booNyzarC, on 29 June 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

How else do you expect large buildings like these to come down other than in a 'virtually symmetrical' fashion?
Once the collapses initiated, in all 3 cases, there was no way for them to end other than complete destruction unless Superman or the hand of God reached down and caught them before they could finish what physics deemed as inevitable.

Oh stop it - we've been over it all before.

I only wish you had been around to train the firefighters prior to 9/11...

"We recognized the possibility of a collapse, but our thought process was that there was going to be a partial collapse, a gradual collapse ... Before we had the partial collapse, we were aware that timewise we thought we had a couple of hours. And I think everybody envisioned the idea we’re going to get everybody down and back everybody out a few blocks and watch this event, the top 15 or 20 floors fold in. That’s what we thought."

~Peter Hayden, FDNY Cheif

Oh Hayden, how else did you expect the building to come down but rapidly, symmetrically and completely???

Except booNy, you now talk only with hindsight and a will that the official theory be true.

Edited by Q24, 29 June 2012 - 02:38 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 29 June 2012 - 02:34 PM, said:

A question about that photo above? Was that building struck by a B-767? Or should I say, anything as large that struck WTC 7?


Rapid onset of collapse as in demolition: -

In the photo above, there is nothing there to indicate bomb explosions.

[skyeagle409]

lliqerty, on 29 June 2012 - 06:48 AM, said:

Gullible or blind? What is your excuse?

Neither!

Quote

Of course, we did supply them. Look at the trial.

The terrorist prepared their own explosives.

Quote

Homemade, Cheap and Dangerous

Terror Cells Favor Simple Ingredients In Building Bombs

LONDON, July 4 -- The 39-page memo recovered from an al-Qaeda laptop computer in Pakistan three years ago read like an Idiot's Guide to Bombmaking. Forget military explosives or fancy detonators, it lectured. Instead, the manual advised a shopping trip to a hardware store or pharmacy, where all the necessary ingredients for a terrorist attack are stocked on the shelves.

"Make use of that which is available at your disposal and . . . bend it to suit your needs, (improvise) rather than waste valuable time becoming despondent over that which is not within your reach," counseled the author of the memo, Dhiren Barot, a British citizen who said he developed his keep-it-simple philosophy by "observing senior planners" at al-Qaeda training camps.

Barot, who was later captured near London and is serving a 30-year sentence, had envisioned an attack with multiple car bombs that would detonate liquid-gas cylinders encased in rusty nails -- a strategy with striking similarities to an attempt last week by a suspected terrorist cell to blow up three vehicles in London and Glasgow, Scotland.

Counterterrorism officials have warned for years that Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants have tried to obtain weapons of mass destruction, such as a nuclear device or chemical or biological weapons. In response, U.S. military and intelligence agencies have invested vast amounts of money to block their acquisition.

http://www.washingto...0401814_pf.html

One of those terrorist involved in the 1993 WTC bombing was Ramzi Yousef, who was also involved in the Bonjinka Plot and note that he prepared explosives in other cases as well.

Quote

The Bojinka plot

Bojinka) was a planned large-scale Islamist attack by Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to blow up 12 airliners and their approximately 4,000 passengers that would have flown from Asia to the United States.
The term also refers to a combination of plots by Yousef and Mohammed to take place in January 1995, including a plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II. Murad's proposal was to crash a plane into the CIA's headquarters in Fairfax County, Virginia, in addition to the plan to bomb multiple aeroplanes.





Ramzi Yousef

Despite careful planning and the skill of Ramzi Yousef, the Bojinka plot was disrupted after a chemical fire drew the Philippine National Police's (PNP) attention on January 6 and January 7, 1995. Yousef set off test bombs in a mall and theater, injuring scores of people, and one person was killed in the course of the plot — a passenger seated near a nitroglycerin bomb on Philippine Airlines Flight 434, which could have caused enough damage to lose the entire plane. The money handed down to the plotters originated from al-Qaeda.

As soon as Yousef arrived in Manila along with other "Arab Afghans" that were making cells in Manila, he started to work on making bombs. Yousef had shown up in Singapore with Khan earlier in fall 1994. The two got their Philippine visas in Singapore.

Test bombs: mall, theater, 747 airliner

His first operational test of his bomb was inside a mall in Cebu City. The bomb detonated several hours after Yousef put it in a generator room. It caused minor damage, but it proved to Yousef that his bomb was workable.
On December 1, Shah placed a bomb under a seat in the Greenbelt Theatre in Manila to test what would happen if a bomb exploded under an airline seat. The bomb went off, injuring several patrons.

On December 11, 1994, Yousef built another bomb, which had one tenth of the power that his final bombs were planned to have, in the lavatory of an aircraft. He left it inside the life jacket under his seat (26 K) and got off the plane when it arrived in Cebu. Yousef had boarded the flight under the assumed name of Arnaldo Forlani, using a false Italian passport. The aircraft was Philippine Airlines Flight 434 on a Manila to Narita route, stopping partway at Cebu. Yousef had set the timer for four hours after he got off the aircraft.

http://topics.nytime...plot/index.html


1993 WTC Bombing

The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993, when a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York, NY. The 1,336 lb (606 kg) urea nitrate–hydrogen gas enhanced device was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into the South Tower (Tower Two), bringing both towers down and killing thousands of people. It failed to do so, but did kill six people and injured more than a thousand. The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal A. Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj.

They received financing from Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. In November 1997, two more were convicted: Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb.

Yousef was assisted by Iraqi bomb maker Abdul Rahman Yasin, who helped assemble the complex 1,310-pound (590 kg) bomb, which was made of a urea nitrate main charge with aluminum, magnesium and ferric oxide particles surrounding the explosive. The charge used nitroglycerine, ammonium nitrate dynamite, smokeless powder and fuse as booster explosives. Three tanks of bottled hydrogen were also placed in a circular configuration around the main charge, to enhance the fireball and afterburn of the solid metal particles. The use of compressed gas cylinders in this type of attack closely resembles the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing 10 years earlier. Both of these attacks used compressed gas cylinders to create fuel-air and thermobaric bombs^[18] that release more energy than conventional high explosives. According to testimony in the bomb trial, only once before the 1993 attack had the FBI recorded a bomb that used urea nitrate

http://www.fas.org/i...hr/s980224c.htm

Quote

Your justification is, we did not go to war - therefore it is okay that the FBI bombed the WTC?

Of course not! I have read from time to time from those within the 9/11 CT movement that the reason for the bombings was to use the bombings as an excuse to go to war or to raise the defense budget, among other things.

Edited by skyeagle409, 29 June 2012 - 04:06 PM.

[lliqerty]

Q24, on 29 June 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

Both... for some, whatever it takes...

You can't ask people like skyeagle to comprehend that the FBI contact, in their full knowledge, supplied the explosives in the '93 bombing. The FBI's inside man was very concerned about it, but the FBI themselves, who had asked him to befriend Ramzi Yousef and the other genuine terrorists in the first place, cajoled him along.

Does that make it an intelligence or 'Al Qaeda' attack?

Thankfully the informant recorded the calls with his FBI handler, otherwise we would be none the wiser.

All indication is that intelligence agencies used the same tactics on 9/11. The Hamburg Cell in particular were not lifelong, diehard terrorists - their background and actions more likely indication of agents/informants; part of the 1999 CIA infiltration plan which commenced the same year as their affiliation with bin Laden.

Q24, if we are correct that 911 and 1993 were partly or completely US government sponsored, the government is naturally doing everything it can to hide it. One technique to help with this is disinformation, people intentionally providing wrong or misleading information. A good place to do such a thing is a forum like this one here. How do you evaluate the likelihood that somebody in this or other threads actually works for an agency with that goal? Are you concerned your ISP may be required to give up your personal data?

On another note, I heard that in 1994 anti-terror legislation was rejected by Congress. After the 1995 OK bombing it passed. Was the government just "lucky" or do you see a connection there?

Edited by lliqerty, 30 June 2012 - 04:40 PM.

[skyeagle409]

lliqerty, on 30 June 2012 - 04:38 PM, said:

Q24, if we are correct that 911 and 1993 were partly or completely US government sponsored, the government is naturally doing everything it can to hide it.

There is no way to hide such an operation had it been government-sponsored. How long did it take to reveal details of Watergate?

Quote

One technique to help with this is disinformation, people intentionally providing wrong or misleading information.

That won't work either in regards to a government conspiracy, but it worked brilliantly for the 9/11 CT websites spewing misinformation and disinformation. After all, if you examine each of their claims and using available evidence. you will see how their claims toppled over like dominoes.

[turbonium]

booNyzarC, on 29 June 2012 - 05:18 AM, said:

How can you possibly claim that the impacts on WTC 1 and 2 were random?  I can see an argument for the WTC 7 damage to be classified as "random" in some measure, but 1 and 2?

Come on now.

The issue is random damage.

As to the plane impacts not being random - do you mean that they specifcally had targeted those points of impact?

There is simply no way to prove or disprove that claim, and it's not relevant anyway. Why?

Because .any plane impact, whether a random point, or a specifically targeted point....we will have the same resut - random damage.

Do you understand the conflict here?   .