Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 911 is a conspiracy and has NOT been DEBUNKED
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > News, Media & World Events > Conspiracies & Secret Societies
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
BZRK
"I envision 100 million Americans looking for indicators of terrorism and promptly reporting it to a central database where it would get analyzed."

Or so says Mike Licata of the New Jersey-based Community Anti-Terrorism Training Institute, or CAT Eyes who wishes to create what he calls "a modern civil defense network," converting neighborhood watch groups into "antiterrorist informant cells". You see, without one in three Americans being FBI informers, the evil boogeymen that live in caves will come to get us, for no apparent reason other than they hate our freedoms. That is why we must be stripped of our precious freedom so it can be put in a "lock-box" of sorts where the terrorists cannot get to it.

Remember, these terrorists are brilliant. They are so brilliant that they anticipated and managed to piggy-back the September 11th attacks on top of two drills going on that morning. blink.gif (One, a CIA drill, where an airplane crashing into a building was to be "simulated", and the other, a semi-annual NORAD drill apparently intended to "test" our nations defenses against attack.)

Yet, these are also the same "stupid cowards" who told their flight instructors that they wanted to learn how to fly planes, but not land them. (This of course is false, not that anyone really cares or will let silly things like facts interfere with a perfectly good conspiracy theory. A May 22, 2002 New York Times article reported that "[Secretary of Transportation] Norman Mineta said today that it was not true that Mr. Moussaoui told his instructors, as has been widely reported, that he was only interested in learning to maneuver a Boeing 747 and not in how to land one. Mr. Moussaoui did want to learn to land the plane, Mr. Mineta said.")

These ingenious/stupid cave-dwellers are part of an international terrorist group called "al-Qaeda" that was assembled from members of the Muslim Brotherhood by the US government in the mid to late 1970's to fight the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Recent myth and folklore describe this relationship to be "a necessary evil" that ended promptly after the Soviets had been driven off. This is hardly the case. The U.S. Congress has documented in detail, the links of Al Qaeda to agencies of the U.S. government during the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as in Kosovo. More recently in Macedonia, just a few months before September 11, U.S. military advisers were mingling with Mujahideen mercenaries financed by "al Qaeda". Both groups were fighting under the auspices of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), within the same terrorist paramilitary formation.

The present state of this organization, as of 5/6/03 "remains a serious threat, with sleeper cells and agents "ready to act" and bases apparently relocated outside of Afghanistan". This dramatically changed in one day from "a growing belief among U.S. intelligence agencies that 19 months of worldwide counterterrorism operations and arrests have nearly crippled the organization." The cause of this change is unknown, but upon reflecting on Ari Fleicher's comments that Americans "had better watch what they say", the lack of any serious journalistic investigation of these changes can be expected. But I digress.

America is taking action against this "serious threat". We have expanded our central government to a size never before seen in history. We have created a "Department of Homeland Security" and an "Office of Information Awareness" to ensure protection from this "threat to freedom". There has been great success in this area. Recently in Texas, some "cowards" and "terrorists" were tracked by the Department of Homeland Security, presumably for "trying to force a change of government policy" as terrorism is defined by the USA PATRIOT ACT. These "terrorists" were Democratic Texas House Legislators.

Even local officials have begin to help "protect America" such as those who drafted proposed Oregon Senate Bill 742. Apparently in Oregon, they have no laws against terrorism or the initiation of violence, so they felt the need to create some. A few activities listed under Section 19, chapter 666 include theft, unauthorized use of a vehicle, forgery, prostitution, cheating, dogfighting, unlawful distribution of cigarettes, unauthorized use of a livestock animal, interference with livestock production, and even unlawful labeling of a sound recording. Anyone convicted of "terrorism" would get an automatic life sentence (at a "forest or work camp") with a 25-year minimum before being considered for parole. If a group is engaging in these activities, such as protesting, or "unlawful labeling of a sound recording", the entire group could be detained, charged with said crime, and sent to a "forest or work camp" for the rest of their lives.

Critics of these kinds of actions and legislation have questioned the need to put so much power and so many resources into the hands of those who "failed to protect us" that dark Tuesday morning. These "so called patriots" have brought up the possibility, based on the knowledge of world history, that the US government might use these tools to create a police state and dismantle the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the protections that make this country and the American way of life the finest in the world.

This is obviously extreme paranoia. These "delusional America-haters" have sided with the enemy. Remember, there are evil boogeymen hiding under every single bed in every home in America. Without a KGB-style police state to "root them out", they will strike again. They will take away your freedom. They will come over here wielding swords and force everybody to grow beards.

Don't believe me? You must be a "terrorist" yourself. wacko.gif

Worry not, FEMA is building your new home as we speak.

"We're from the government and we're here to help." no.gif

In many circles of internet forae, the official version of 9-11 has been deeply questioned. Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours, there are numerous problematic facts, as reported by the mainstream media, that do not synch with the official version of the events that unfolded that day.

On most internet forums, there is little or no defense made for the official version anymore. It is so full of holes that it simply "need not be discussed any longer" or you run the oh-so-awful risk of being labeled an "anti-American marxist spewing communist propaganda".

However, on the few forums that still do allow uncensored free-speech like Unexplained Mysteries - in hopes that the best memes make it to the top of the pack, there is still a group that refuses to acknowledge some of the very relevant facts, such as the meetings (before, after and during 9.11) between Senator Bob Graham (D), Representative Porter Goss ® and Senator John Kyl ® with ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed, who was, as confirmed by the FBI responsible for wiring 100,000 dollars to Mohamed Atta, (the alleged head terrorist pilot, who incidentally worked for CDS International, an elite US - German government exchange program).

These are the people who refuse to believe that Arabs or anyone of Arabic origin had anything to do with 9.11, and the entire operation was masterminded and executed by Israeli operatives working to perpetuate Israeli foreign policy. The problem with this "conspiracy theory" is that is it just like the official version; "a theory". There is not a shred of evidence to back this claim up.

I am very well aware that the largest spy ring ever uncovered on US soil, as documented by Fox News' Carl Cameron (Video), happened on 9.11 and led to the deportation of an undisclosed, although rather large number of Israeli citizens with connection to communications firms with "back doors" to virtually all Federal wiretapping equipment.

That being said, it was well known that Mossad and the CIA were trailing the hijackers before the event. An FBI informant lived with the hijackers, some of which lived in a motel right outside the gates of the NSA.

It is also well known as documented by Daniel Hopsicker of MadCowMorningNews that some of the Venice flight schools had been used for CIA ops and has always had scandalous activity going on, according to statements as such: "Venice was even targeted by the Soviet Union in the event of nuclear war, because of the military nature of certain activities taking place at the Airport."

"It's not unusual to see a military Blackhawk helicopter touch down at the Venice Airport in the middle of the night," stated the official, who requested anonymity, "and then take off again thirty seconds later, after dropping off its cargo or passengers."

"Or you look up and all of a sudden there's 5000 soldiers from the 101st Airborne landing and taking off. Strange things have been going on out there for a long time."

The rabbit hole gets even deeper when you consider Stanley Hilton's lawsuit representing 400 family members suing Bush and others in the federal government for "causing, aiding and abetting 9/11".

Hilton, Bob Dole's former senior advisor and Wolfowitz schoolmate, claims to be in possession of 9.11 witness deposition, one of which from an ex-wife of one of the hijackers who claimed to have met Atta, that insists they were "operating in a series of cells that were aided and abetted by the US government".

Excerpted from interview (03/11/03) : "But one of the points that she stressed is they are really not Muslims. They are more interested in Playboy than in the Koran. I mean these people drink. They are very secular. They are not the fanatical Muslim zealots that the Bush criminals would lead us to believe is what’s operating here. What they are is they receive regular payments from the U.S. Government. They have been recruited by the CIA, FBI, counter-intelligence, and so-forth and paid money and allowed to exchange information with U.S. government agents about various activities going on.... "

Michel Chossudovsky of the Centre for Research on Globalisation, has also come to similar conclusions:

"Of course they knew! The foreknowledge issue is a red herring. The "Islamic Brigades" are a creation of the CIA. In standard CIA jargon, Al Qaeda is categorized as an "intelligence asset". Support to terrorist organizations is an integral part of U.S. foreign policy. Al Qaeda continues to this date (2002) to participate in CIA covert operations in different parts of the World. These "CIA-Osama links" do not belong to a bygone era, as suggested by the mainstream media."

"The U.S. Congress has documented in detail, the links of Al Qaeda to agencies of the U.S. government during the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as in Kosovo. More recently in Macedonia, barely a few months before September 11, U.S. military advisers were mingling with Mujahideen mercenaries financed by Al Qaeda. Both groups were fighting under the auspices of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), within the same terrorist paramilitary formation."

"The CIA keeps track of its "intelligence assets". Amply documented, Osama bin Laden's whereabouts were always known. Al Qaeda is infiltrated by the CIA. In other words, there were no "intelligence failures"! In the nature of a well-led intelligence operation, the "intelligence asset" operates (wittingly or unwittingly) with some degree of autonomy, in relation to its U.S. government sponsors, but ultimately it acts consistently, in the interests of Uncle Sam."

"While individual FBI agents are often unaware of the CIA's role, the relationship between the CIA and Al Qaeda is known at the top levels of the FBI. Members of the Bush Administration and the U.S. Congress are fully cognizant of these links."

"The foreknowledge issue focusing on "FBI lapses" is an obvious smokescreen. While the whistleblowers serve to underscore the weaknesses of the FBI, the role of successive U.S. administrations (since the presidency of Jimmy Carter) in support of the "Islamic Militant Base"[video], is simply not mentioned."

LibertyThink researcher BlackJade has dug even deeper into some of the goals of the "war on terror":

"The CIA's intent was never to destroy their Al Qaeda offspring or even to "badly disrupt" the Bin Laden network. The CIA wants to grab and silence those with "loose lips," and make sure that they never get on the witness stand, such as in the Moussaoui case and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed." (not to mention the ill fate of both John O'Neill and Michael Riconosciuto.)

"HUJI and HUM were creations of the CIA, which have served the CIA well for the last two decades. The Chechen connections follow this same pattern."

So where do the illusive Zionist operatives fit into the picture? They don't. That's exactly the point. Those who prefer that these facts never make it into the spotlight are no longer the Chinese-made American flag waving types.

Its been told that all of the above information is "Zionist disinfo" planted throughout the datasphere to take the attention off of the true culprits.

I am open to many possibilities, but I find it simply implausible that in addition to masterminding and executing the attacks, these "Zionists" are planting stories and using "clever disinfo" to fabricate the fact that at least 5 hijackers were trained at secure US military facilities.

If immediately after the attacks, the FBI went into 'recovery and damage control mode', why I ask, did they try to implicate the US government before again going into 'recovery and damage control mode' to saying that there were stolen identities?

Do we have any names for these illusive "Zionists" that executed and masterminded this attack? I'm sure they have names as I'm sure they have faces. I'm sure all the money trails could be exposed. Are they really that good at covering their tracks, or is there simply a lack of research?

It just doesn't add up. The assumption that Mossad, or some similar operatives are trying to frame the CIA for 9-11, and the US military for the anthrax attacks, and managed to go behind the CIA's back to "piggy-backed" the attacks on top of the two drills taking place that morning, one of them being a CIA drill, the other a semi-annual NORAD drill, just doesn't hold water in my book.

This is the information campaign that is the most damaging to the disclosure of the truth of the events of that dark Tuesday morning in September.

I could go on and on with pages and pages of evidence that just does not add up to the official story from the US Government and those written in the 911 Commission Report.

Has anyone read the Commission Report? If you bothered to read page by page you will know the distortion of facts and the coverup is blatantly obvious.

Cheers

BZRK
dmgspycat
All one has to do is just read about the janitor of WTC william rodriguez and you will see that something isnt right. this janitor had pulled people from the basement but that when his story disappeared from the news...people werent supposed to be talking about the basement explosions.

Secondly...people ask how the explosives could have been placed in the first place with all that security...well, youre going to love this...just before 9-11 the building complex was bought by Silverstien...2 weeks prior to 9-11 guess whos security firm was in charge of security there...yep Marvin Bush...the presidents brothers security firm.

Where did the terrorists train? Ruddi Dekkers flight school and Huffman aviation...both owned by Dutchmen close to CIA. 4 of the terrorists were traced back to a navy base in Florida where foriegn nationals are trained. Even Senator Graham quetioned Ashcroft about that one but got a short response denying any connection.

Seen the videos of molten steel pouring out of the side of the WTC? Thats probably thermite use dto melt the steel supports at the desired intervals people below the crash site in WTC were complaining of the high heat too...interesting that it should be that hot 30 floors below the damage.

Molten pools of steel found weeks later after the cleanup...the steel connecting the WTC to bedrock was melted...folks that just does not happen. Also in slow-mo you can see explosives...squibs exploding perfectly outward everyfloor all the way down.

Theres all kinds of other indicators...too many to list but basically, Toto, we are not in Kansas anymore.
BZRK
QUOTE(dmgspycat @ Aug 28 2006, 05:17 AM) [snapback]1324782[/snapback]

All one has to do is just read about the janitor of WTC william rodriguez and you will see that something isnt right. this janitor had pulled people from the basement but that when his story disappeared from the news...people werent supposed to be talking about the basement explosions.

Secondly...people ask how the explosives could have been placed in the first place with all that security...well, youre going to love this...just before 9-11 the building complex was bought by Silverstien...2 weeks prior to 9-11 guess whos security firm was in charge of security there...yep Marvin Bush...the presidents brothers security firm.

Where did the terrorists train? Ruddi Dekkers flight school and Huffman aviation...both owned by Dutchmen close to CIA. 4 of the terrorists were traced back to a navy base in Florida where foriegn nationals are trained. Even Senator Graham quetioned Ashcroft about that one but got a short response denying any connection.

Seen the videos of molten steel pouring out of the side of the WTC? Thats probably thermite use dto melt the steel supports at the desired intervals people below the crash site in WTC were complaining of the high heat too...interesting that it should be that hot 30 floors below the damage.

Molten pools of steel found weeks later after the cleanup...the steel connecting the WTC to bedrock was melted...folks that just does not happen. Also in slow-mo you can see explosives...squibs exploding perfectly outward everyfloor all the way down.

Theres all kinds of other indicators...too many to list but basically, Toto, we are not in Kansas anymore.



Yep your right and the list of evidence is so big you can fly 40 jumbo jets into it........

But people are so blind to see what there government is upto. Its called NWO. angry.gif

Cheers


BZRK
frenat
QUOTE(dmgspycat @ Aug 28 2006, 01:17 AM) [snapback]1324782[/snapback]

Secondly...people ask how the explosives could have been placed in the first place with all that security...well, youre going to love this...just before 9-11 the building complex was bought by Silverstien...2 weeks prior to 9-11 guess whos security firm was in charge of security there...yep Marvin Bush...the presidents brothers security firm.

It's funny that people still claim this when it has been shown to be wrong. Marvin Bush was on the board of one of the companies that handled security. That's right, there were other companies involved too, not just the one with the association with Marvin Bush. He was also a board member. Since when are board member involved with the day to day operations of any company? Now here's the kicker, he left over a year before 911. Yep, that's right, he had been gone for over a year.
http://www.911myths.com/html/stratesec.html
Arkan Wolfshade
[quote name='BZRK' date='Aug 28 2006, 12:02 AM' post='1324769']
"I envision 100 million Americans looking for indicators of terrorism and promptly reporting it to a central database where it would get analyzed."

Or so says Mike Licata of the New Jersey-based Community Anti-Terrorism Training Institute, or CAT Eyes who wishes to create what he calls "a modern civil defense network," converting neighborhood watch groups into "antiterrorist informant cells". You see, without one in three Americans being FBI informers, the evil boogeymen that live in caves will come to get us, for no apparent reason other than they hate our freedoms. That is why we must be stripped of our precious freedom so it can be put in a "lock-box" of sorts where the terrorists cannot get to it.
[/quote]
Straw man

[quote name='BZRK' date='Aug 28 2006, 12:02 AM' post='1324769']
Remember, these terrorists are brilliant. They are so brilliant that they anticipated and managed to piggy-back the September 11th attacks on top of two drills going on that morning.
[/quote]
Please show where (1) it was not public knowledge when the drills were going to take place and (2) the terrorists chose their date based upon knowledge of when the drills were going to take place. Failing to do both means it is just as likely it was coincidence as it was planned.

[quote name='BZRK' date='Aug 28 2006, 12:02 AM' post='1324769']
blink.gif (One, a CIA drill, where an airplane crashing into a building was to be "simulated", and the other, a semi-annual NORAD drill apparently intended to "test" our nations defenses against attack.)
[/quote]
[quote=gumboot]
NORAD had two major things going on that day.

The first was Operation Northern Vigilance. This was a real-world operation, involving the movement of fighter aircraft to Alaska and Canada to shadow Russian long-range bombers that were involved in an exercise in Siberia.

Basically, throughout the Cold War and into the present, when either side moves their attack force closer to the "enemy" for an exercise, the other wise will move its defence force closer in response to keep an eye on them. While the Russian operation is simply an exercise, the NATO operation is very much "real-world" (hence the "Operation" tag at the beginning).

The other thing that was going on was a yearly NORAD exercise called "Guardian". Guardian consists of two Command Post Exercises (CPXs), so often it is incorrectly identified as two different exercises.

Basically, in a CPX you get all your command post staff in their positions, but no actual aircraft take part in the operation - computers simulate troop movements instead. So when Squadron X are moved to location Z, on the computer screens at the Command Post the squadron is shown to have moved, but in reality the Squadron aren't involved at all.

The two Command Posts involved were US Strategic Command and US Space Command.

NORAD exercise codenames use two words. The first word indicates the command that is involved, and the second name indicates the type of exercise.

The names allocated to different commands are done alphabetically in letter blocks. Each exercise may have a different name, but by looking at the first two letters of the first word you can work out which command is involved.

If you look at this (http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/codenames.html#_Blocks) list you'll see what I mean.

The two parts of the Guardian exercise (that you will often heard CTers naming as two different exercises) are "Global" and "Vigilant".

In the list you'll see that block 26 GG-GL is allocated to US Strategic Command, so we know that "Global Guardian" refers to the US Strategic Command CPX.

Further down, Block 86 VG-VL is allocated to US Space Command, so we know "Vigilant Guardian" refers to the US Space Command CPX.

So, what IS Guardian?

Guardian is an exercise that tests US defences to a Russian Nuclear Attack. Most of the exercise involves the two CPs coordinating the nation's response to waves of Russian nuclear bombers and nuclear missiles.

However, they often throw in additional problems to add a bit of spice - for example an airliner coming into the US and getting hijacked. It appears that a hijacking was scheduled into the 2001 Guardian Exercise at some point.

However, it is important to remember that such a hijacking was to be conventional, and not involving ramming a building.

You will also sometimes hear an exercise called "Amalgam Warrior" mentioned, which involves Drone Aircraft. This is a "live-fly" (or "field") exercise, involving the intercept of drones by fighter aircraft.

Amalgam Warrior was held in June, 2001.

The big question is, did Guardian interfere with NORAD's response to 9/11? First, bear in mind neither Guardian, nor the real world operation I mentioned involved the 14 fighters at Ready-Alert on 7 Continential US air bases. In additional neither of these actions involved NEADS - the NORAD controllers responsible for responding to the 9/11 hijackings.

However, NORAD further indicated that the CPXs actually ENHANCED response, because all of the necessary staff were already at their seats. Normally some would not be there.

This is indicated in a quesiton to Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff Richard Myers.

The transcript of that exchange can be found here: (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/031505_mckinney_transcript.shtml)

The relevant section is quoted below:

(CMK is Representative Cynthia McKinney and RM is Richard Myers)

31:25
CMK: The question was, we had four wargames going on on September 11th, and the question that I tried to pose before the Secretary had to go to lunch was whether or not the activities of the four wargames going on on September 11th actually impaired our ability to respond to the attacks.

RM: The answer to the question is no, it did not impair our response, in fact General Eberhart who was in the command of the North American Aerospace Defense Command as he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission I believe - I believe he told them that it enhanced our ability to respond, given that NORAD didn't have the overall responsibility for responding to the attacks that day. That was an FAA responsibility. But they were two CPXs; there was one Department of Justice exercise that didn't have anything to do with the other three; and there was an actual operation ongoing because there was some Russian bomber activity up near Alaska. So we -[/quote] source

[quote name='BZRK' date='Aug 28 2006, 12:02 AM' post='1324769']
Yet, these are also the same "stupid cowards" who told their flight instructors that they wanted to learn how to fly planes, but not land them. (This of course is false, not that anyone really cares or will let silly things like facts interfere with a perfectly good conspiracy theory. A May 22, 2002 New York Times article reported that "[Secretary of Transportation] Norman Mineta said today that it was not true that Mr. Moussaoui told his instructors, as has been widely reported, that he was only interested in learning to maneuver a Boeing 747 and not in how to land one. Mr. Moussaoui did want to learn to land the plane, Mr. Mineta said.")
[/quote]
Not sure why you included this as you yourself show that it was a flase rumor.

[quote name='BZRK' date='Aug 28 2006, 12:02 AM' post='1324769']
These ingenious/stupid cave-dwellers are part of an international terrorist group called "al-Qaeda" that was assembled from members of the Muslim Brotherhood by the US government in the mid to late 1970's to fight the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan. Recent myth and folklore describe this relationship to be "a necessary evil" that ended promptly after the Soviets had been driven off. This is hardly the case. The U.S. Congress has documented in detail, the links of Al Qaeda to agencies of the U.S. government during the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as in Kosovo. More recently in Macedonia, just a few months before September 11, U.S. military advisers were mingling with Mujahideen mercenaries financed by "al Qaeda". Both groups were fighting under the auspices of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), within the same terrorist paramilitary formation.
[/quote]
Links to this Congressional documentation please.

[quote name='BZRK' date='Aug 28 2006, 12:02 AM' post='1324769']
The present state of this organization, as of 5/6/03 "remains a serious threat, with sleeper cells and agents "ready to act" and bases apparently relocated outside of Afghanistan". This dramatically changed in one day from "a growing belief among U.S. intelligence agencies that 19 months of worldwide counterterrorism operations and arrests have nearly crippled the organization." The cause of this change is unknown, but upon reflecting on Ari Fleicher's comments that Americans "had better watch what they say", the lack of any serious journalistic investigation of these changes can be expected. But I digress.
[/quote]
Indeed. The fact that it is a dynamic situation and that the threat al Qaeda poses has been reevaluated is moot to the discussion.

[quote name='BZRK' date='Aug 28 2006, 12:02 AM' post='1324769']
America is taking action against this "serious threat". We have expanded our central government to a size never before seen in history. We have created a "Department of Homeland Security" and an "Office of Information Awareness" to ensure protection from this "threat to freedom". There has been great success in this area. Recently in Texas, some "cowards" and "terrorists" were tracked by the Department of Homeland Security, presumably for "trying to force a change of government policy" as terrorism is defined by the USA PATRIOT ACT. These "terrorists" were Democratic Texas House Legislators.

Even local officials have begin to help "protect America" such as those who drafted proposed Oregon Senate Bill 742. Apparently in Oregon, they have no laws against terrorism or the initiation of violence, so they felt the need to create some. A few activities listed under Section 19, chapter 666 include theft, unauthorized use of a vehicle, forgery, prostitution, cheating, dogfighting, unlawful distribution of cigarettes, unauthorized use of a livestock animal, interference with livestock production, and even unlawful labeling of a sound recording. Anyone convicted of "terrorism" would get an automatic life sentence (at a "forest or work camp") with a 25-year minimum before being considered for parole. If a group is engaging in these activities, such as protesting, or "unlawful labeling of a sound recording", the entire group could be detained, charged with said crime, and sent to a "forest or work camp" for the rest of their lives.
[/quote]
Links to details please. Also, don't confuse corrolation with causation. Even if the government is overreaching its power, and even if this is a result of 9/11, this does not mean that they government caused 9/11.

[quote name='BZRK' date='Aug 28 2006, 12:02 AM' post='1324769']
Critics of these kinds of actions and legislation have questioned the need to put so much power and so many resources into the hands of those who "failed to protect us" that dark Tuesday morning. These "so called patriots" have brought up the possibility, based on the knowledge of world history, that the US government might use these tools to create a police state and dismantle the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the protections that make this country and the American way of life the finest in the world.

This is obviously extreme paranoia. These "delusional America-haters" have sided with the enemy. Remember, there are evil boogeymen hiding under every single bed in every home in America. Without a KGB-style police state to "root them out", they will strike again. They will take away your freedom. They will come over here wielding swords and force everybody to grow beards.

Don't believe me? You must be a "terrorist" yourself. wacko.gif
[/quote]
Straw man

[quote name='BZRK' date='Aug 28 2006, 12:02 AM' post='1324769']
Worry not, FEMA is building your new home as we speak.
[/quote]
Evidence?

[quote name='BZRK' date='Aug 28 2006, 12:02 AM' post='1324769']
"We're from the government and we're here to help." no.gif

In many circles of internet forae, the official version of 9-11 has been deeply questioned. Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours, there are numerous problematic facts, as reported by the mainstream media, that do not synch with the official version of the events that unfolded that day.
[/quote]
Example?

[quote name='BZRK' date='Aug 28 2006, 12:02 AM' post='1324769']
On most internet forums, there is little or no defense made for the official version anymore. It is so full of holes that it simply "need not be discussed any longer" or you run the oh-so-awful risk of being labeled an "anti-American marxist spewing communist propaganda".

However, on the few forums that still do allow uncensored free-speech like Unexplained Mysteries - in hopes that the best memes make it to the top of the pack, there is still a group that refuses to acknowledge some of the very relevant facts, such as the meetings (before, after and during 9.11) between Senator Bob Graham (D), Representative Porter Goss ® and Senator John Kyl ® with ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed, who was, as confirmed by the FBI responsible for wiring 100,000 dollars to Mohamed Atta, (the alleged head terrorist pilot, who incidentally worked for CDS International, an elite US - German government exchange program).
[/quote]
Evidence of these meetings? Your link to this forum was 404.

[quote name='BZRK' date='Aug 28 2006, 12:02 AM' post='1324769']
These are the people who refuse to believe that Arabs or anyone of Arabic origin had anything to do with 9.11, and the entire operation was masterminded and executed by Israeli operatives working to perpetuate Israeli foreign policy. The problem with this "conspiracy theory" is that is it just like the official version; "a theory". There is not a shred of evidence to back this claim up.

I am very well aware that the largest spy ring ever uncovered on US soil, as documented by Fox News' Carl Cameron (Video), happened on 9.11 and led to the deportation of an undisclosed, although rather large number of Israeli citizens with connection to communications firms with "back doors" to virtually all Federal wiretapping equipment.

That being said, it was well known that Mossad and the CIA were trailing the hijackers before the event. An FBI informant lived with the hijackers, some of which lived in a motel right outside the gates of the NSA.

It is also well known as documented by Daniel Hopsicker of MadCowMorningNews that some of the Venice flight schools had been used for CIA ops and has always had scandalous activity going on, according to statements as such: "Venice was even targeted by the Soviet Union in the event of nuclear war, because of the military nature of certain activities taking place at the Airport."

"It's not unusual to see a military Blackhawk helicopter touch down at the Venice Airport in the middle of the night," stated the official, who requested anonymity, "and then take off again thirty seconds later, after dropping off its cargo or passengers."

"Or you look up and all of a sudden there's 5000 soldiers from the 101st Airborne landing and taking off. Strange things have been going on out there for a long time."

The rabbit hole gets even deeper when you consider Stanley Hilton's lawsuit representing 400 family members suing Bush and others in the federal government for "causing, aiding and abetting 9/11".

Hilton, Bob Dole's former senior advisor and Wolfowitz schoolmate, claims to be in possession of 9.11 witness deposition, one of which from an ex-wife of one of the hijackers who claimed to have met Atta, that insists they were "operating in a series of cells that were aided and abetted by the US government".

Excerpted from interview (03/11/03) : "But one of the points that she stressed is they are really not Muslims. They are more interested in Playboy than in the Koran. I mean these people drink. They are very secular. They are not the fanatical Muslim zealots that the Bush criminals would lead us to believe is what’s operating here. What they are is they receive regular payments from the U.S. Government. They have been recruited by the CIA, FBI, counter-intelligence, and so-forth and paid money and allowed to exchange information with U.S. government agents about various activities going on.... "

Michel Chossudovsky of the Centre for Research on Globalisation, has also come to similar conclusions:

"Of course they knew! The foreknowledge issue is a red herring. The "Islamic Brigades" are a creation of the CIA. In standard CIA jargon, Al Qaeda is categorized as an "intelligence asset". Support to terrorist organizations is an integral part of U.S. foreign policy. Al Qaeda continues to this date (2002) to participate in CIA covert operations in different parts of the World. These "CIA-Osama links" do not belong to a bygone era, as suggested by the mainstream media."

"The U.S. Congress has documented in detail, the links of Al Qaeda to agencies of the U.S. government during the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as in Kosovo. More recently in Macedonia, barely a few months before September 11, U.S. military advisers were mingling with Mujahideen mercenaries financed by Al Qaeda. Both groups were fighting under the auspices of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), within the same terrorist paramilitary formation."
[/quote]
That's a lot of anecdotal evidence from biased sources.

[quote name='BZRK' date='Aug 28 2006, 12:02 AM' post='1324769']
"The CIA keeps track of its "intelligence assets". Amply documented, Osama bin Laden's whereabouts were always known. Al Qaeda is infiltrated by the CIA. In other words, there were no "intelligence failures"! In the nature of a well-led intelligence operation, the "intelligence asset" operates (wittingly or unwittingly) with some degree of autonomy, in relation to its U.S. government sponsors, but ultimately it acts consistently, in the interests of Uncle Sam."
[/quote]
How conveniently you leave out, from the article, "but the intercepts and field reports didn't specify where or when a strike might occur"

[quote name='BZRK' date='Aug 28 2006, 12:02 AM' post='1324769']
"While individual FBI agents are often unaware of the CIA's role, the relationship between the CIA and Al Qaeda is known at the top levels of the FBI. Members of the Bush Administration and the U.S. Congress are fully cognizant of these links."

"The foreknowledge issue focusing on "FBI lapses" is an obvious smokescreen. While the whistleblowers serve to underscore the weaknesses of the FBI, the role of successive U.S. administrations (since the presidency of Jimmy Carter) in support of the "Islamic Militant Base"[video], is simply not mentioned."

LibertyThink researcher BlackJade has dug even deeper into some of the goals of the "war on terror":

"The CIA's intent was never to destroy their Al Qaeda offspring or even to "badly disrupt" the Bin Laden network. The CIA wants to grab and silence those with "loose lips," and make sure that they never get on the witness stand, such as in the Moussaoui case and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed." (not to mention the ill fate of both John O'Neill and Michael Riconosciuto.)

"HUJI and HUM were creations of the CIA, which have served the CIA well for the last two decades. The Chechen connections follow this same pattern."

So where do the illusive Zionist operatives fit into the picture? They don't. That's exactly the point. Those who prefer that these facts never make it into the spotlight are no longer the Chinese-made American flag waving types.

Its been told that all of the above information is "Zionist disinfo" planted throughout the datasphere to take the attention off of the true culprits.

I am open to many possibilities, but I find it simply implausible that in addition to masterminding and executing the attacks, these "Zionists" are planting stories and using "clever disinfo" to fabricate the fact that at least 5 hijackers were trained at secure US military facilities.

If immediately after the attacks, the FBI went into 'recovery and damage control mode', why I ask, did they try to implicate the US government before again going into 'recovery and damage control mode' to saying that there were stolen identities?

Do we have any names for these illusive "Zionists" that executed and masterminded this attack? I'm sure they have names as I'm sure they have faces. I'm sure all the money trails could be exposed. Are they really that good at covering their tracks, or is there simply a lack of research?
[/quote]
A lot more anecdotes from biased sources.

[quote name='BZRK' date='Aug 28 2006, 12:02 AM' post='1324769']
It just doesn't add up. The assumption that Mossad, or some similar operatives are trying to frame the CIA for 9-11, and the US military for the anthrax attacks, and managed to go behind the CIA's back to "piggy-backed" the attacks on top of the two drills taking place that morning, one of them being a CIA drill, the other a semi-annual NORAD drill, just doesn't hold water in my book.

This is the information campaign that is the most damaging to the disclosure of the truth of the events of that dark Tuesday morning in September.

I could go on and on with pages and pages of evidence that just does not add up to the official story from the US Government and those written in the 911 Commission Report.

Has anyone read the Commission Report? If you bothered to read page by page you will know the distortion of facts and the coverup is blatantly obvious.

Cheers

BZRK
[/quote]

Let me ask you this, what evidence could be provided that would cause you to rethink your position on the OV?
BZRK
QUOTE(Arkan Wolfshade @ Aug 28 2006, 02:56 PM) [snapback]1325127[/snapback]

Straw man
Please show where (1) it was not public knowledge when the drills were going to take place and (2) the terrorists chose their date based upon knowledge of when the drills were going to take place. Failing to do both means it is just as likely it was coincidence as it was planned.
source
Not sure why you included this as you yourself show that it was a flase rumor.
Links to this Congressional documentation please.
Indeed. The fact that it is a dynamic situation and that the threat al Qaeda poses has been reevaluated is moot to the discussion.
Links to details please. Also, don't confuse corrolation with causation. Even if the government is overreaching its power, and even if this is a result of 9/11, this does not mean that they government caused 9/11.
Straw man
Evidence?
Example?
Evidence of these meetings? Your link to this forum was 404.
That's a lot of anecdotal evidence from biased sources.
How conveniently you leave out, from the article, "but the intercepts and field reports didn't specify where or when a strike might occur"
A lot more anecdotes from biased sources.
Let me ask you this, what evidence could be provided that would cause you to rethink your position on the OV?


I love how you say "That's a lot of anecdotal evidence from biased sources" but really all your so called debunking only refers to one website 911myths.com. Dont you think that's a lot of anecdotal evidence from biased sources? yes.gif

So your saying it was purely a coincedence the so called terrorists chose that day where NORAD were conducting drills? this comment in it self makes me ponder how ignorent your judgment is. but lets move on......its obviouse you are either very ignorent or just plain stupid to accept the facts.... Do you think your government is not capable of organising such a catastrophic event like 911?

Well all we have to do is read about Operation Northwood and it is obvious they ARE capable of such an event.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

We all know what happened to President Kennedy a year later, he was assasinated. Why? maybe because he didnt agree on the NWO and its plans. Was it the Government? Yes.

QUOTE
Even if the government is overreaching its power, and even if this is a result of 9/11, this does not mean that they government caused 9/11.


So you agree on the government overreaching its power as a result of 911.

How do you know the government didnt cause 911? what evidence do you have to suggest they did not know 911 was going to occur? None because they were well made aware of the facts surrounding 911.

How do you trust your government when they have lied to you many times over? How can you justify your governments actions as to saying they did not know anything was going to happen and then came out saying they had substancial evidence to suggest a supposed attack was going to happen... ohhhh please give me a break.....

They tell you to sit and roll over at the same time and then you scratch your head and say what the?

You didnt answer my question. Have you read the 911 Commission Report page by page?

If you have then you will understand where im comming from.

Cheers

BZRK



Arkan Wolfshade
QUOTE(BZRK @ Aug 28 2006, 08:19 PM) [snapback]1325870[/snapback]

I love how you say "That's a lot of anecdotal evidence from biased sources" but really all your so called debunking only refers to one website 911myths.com. Dont you think that's a lot of anecdotal evidence from biased sources? yes.gif

911myths.com cites all of its sources. An example from one of their page http://www.911myths.com/html/progressive_collapse.html; here are the sources cited:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/challenge.html
http://www.eng.uab.edu/cee/reu_nsf99/ambiance.htm
http://www.engineering.com/content/Content...tentId=41009018
http://www.djc.com/news/co/11155170.html
http://www.scoss.org.uk/publications/rtf/07Report.pdf
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b...C-6-23-2006.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20040719180205/...vised+paper.pdf
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse######pre...sed######paper.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?0510522
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse######pre...ore######paper.pdf

Now, what was that about your accusations of 911.myths being biased?

QUOTE(BZRK @ Aug 28 2006, 08:19 PM) [snapback]1325870[/snapback]

So your saying it was purely a coincedence the so called terrorists chose that day where NORAD were conducting drills? this comment in it self makes me ponder how ignorent your judgment is.

Would you mind attacking the arguments, and not the person?

QUOTE(BZRK @ Aug 28 2006, 08:19 PM) [snapback]1325870[/snapback]

but lets move on......its obviouse you are either very ignorent or just plain stupid to accept the facts....

Seriously, these personal attacks do nothing to support your claims.

QUOTE(BZRK @ Aug 28 2006, 08:19 PM) [snapback]1325870[/snapback]

Do you think your government is not capable of organising such a catastrophic event like 911?

Whether they are capable of organizing such has no bearing on where the facts, and evidence, point; that it was carried out by al Qaeda operatives.

QUOTE(BZRK @ Aug 28 2006, 08:19 PM) [snapback]1325870[/snapback]

Well all we have to do is read about Operation Northwood and it is obvious they ARE capable of such an event.

Yes, and Tom Clancy wrote about terrorists using airliners as weapons; does that mean he was the puppetmaster behind everything?

QUOTE(BZRK @ Aug 28 2006, 08:19 PM) [snapback]1325870[/snapback]

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

Your point?

QUOTE(BZRK @ Aug 28 2006, 08:19 PM) [snapback]1325870[/snapback]

We all know what happened to President Kennedy a year later, he was assasinated. Why?

Because Oswald was delusional.

QUOTE(BZRK @ Aug 28 2006, 08:19 PM) [snapback]1325870[/snapback]

maybe because he didnt agree on the NWO and its plans.

Evidence? Otherwise I am sticking with Oswald.

QUOTE(BZRK @ Aug 28 2006, 08:19 PM) [snapback]1325870[/snapback]

Was it the Government? Yes.

Evidence?

QUOTE(BZRK @ Aug 28 2006, 08:19 PM) [snapback]1325870[/snapback]

So you agree on the government overreaching its power as a result of 911.

Yes.

QUOTE(BZRK @ Aug 28 2006, 08:19 PM) [snapback]1325870[/snapback]

How do you know the government didnt cause 911?

Because the evidence does not point to it.

QUOTE(BZRK @ Aug 28 2006, 08:19 PM) [snapback]1325870[/snapback]

what evidence do you have to suggest they did not know 911 was going to occur?
None because they were well made aware of the facts surrounding 911.

You can't prove a negative. Show that they did know about it.

QUOTE(BZRK @ Aug 28 2006, 08:19 PM) [snapback]1325870[/snapback]

How do you trust your government when they have lied to you many times over?

I don't need to trust the gov't on 9/11; experts from every field have made it clear that the facts are consistent with FEMA, NIST, and the Commission.

QUOTE(BZRK @ Aug 28 2006, 08:19 PM) [snapback]1325870[/snapback]

How can you justify your governments actions as to saying they did not know anything was going to happen and then came out saying they had substancial evidence to suggest a supposed attack was going to happen... ohhhh please give me a break.....

Knowing an attack is going to happen, but now knowing how, or where makes the information useless. Show that they knew when and where, and then you have something.

QUOTE(BZRK @ Aug 28 2006, 08:19 PM) [snapback]1325870[/snapback]
They tell you to sit and roll over at the same time and then you scratch your head and say what the?

You didnt answer my question. Have you read the 911 Commission Report page by page?

If you have then you will understand where im comming from.

Cheers

BZRK

I do understand from where you are coming. You are coming from a position of confirmational bias. You have made up your mind before beginning to examine any evidence; therefore any evidence that you can twist to support your theory is fact, and any that contradicts it is disinfo. It's the same bilge that Loose Change regurgitates. It's the same drek that Jones and Reynolds spew.

Guess what; questions aren't evidence. Come up with engineers to publish papers in academic and professional journals that run contradictory to the OV (ST911 is not a peer review journal just to short-circuit that point). Show solid evidence of demolition charges. Find passengers/hijackers alive and interview them. Find a whistleblower that was in a position to know something, have them spill the beans, and get those beans confirmed. Otherwise what you have is nothing more than mental masturbatory claptrap.
BZRK
QUOTE(Arkan Wolfshade @ Aug 29 2006, 02:32 AM) [snapback]1325956[/snapback]

911myths.com cites all of its sources. An example from one of their page http://www.911myths.com/html/progressive_collapse.html; here are the sources cited:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/challenge.html
http://www.eng.uab.edu/cee/reu_nsf99/ambiance.htm
http://www.engineering.com/content/Content...tentId=41009018
http://www.djc.com/news/co/11155170.html
http://www.scoss.org.uk/publications/rtf/07Report.pdf
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b...C-6-23-2006.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20040719180205/...vised+paper.pdf
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse######...######paper.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?0510522
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse######...######paper.pdf

Now, what was that about your accusations of 911.myths being biased?
Would you mind attacking the arguments, and not the person?
Seriously, these personal attacks do nothing to support your claims.
Whether they are capable of organizing such has no bearing on where the facts, and evidence, point; that it was carried out by al Qaeda operatives.
Yes, and Tom Clancy wrote about terrorists using airliners as weapons; does that mean he was the puppetmaster behind everything?
Your point?
Because Oswald was delusional.
Evidence? Otherwise I am sticking with Oswald.
Evidence?


Yes.
Because the evidence does not point to it.
You can't prove a negative. Show that they did know about it.
I don't need to trust the gov't on 9/11; experts from every field have made it clear that the facts are consistent with FEMA, NIST, and the Commission.
Knowing an attack is going to happen, but now knowing how, or where makes the information useless. Show that they knew when and where, and then you have something.
I do understand from where you are coming. You are coming from a position of confirmational bias. You have made up your mind before beginning to examine any evidence; therefore any evidence that you can twist to support your theory is fact, and any that contradicts it is disinfo. It's the same bilge that Loose Change regurgitates. It's the same drek that Jones and Reynolds spew.

Guess what; questions aren't evidence. Come up with engineers to publish papers in academic and professional journals that run contradictory to the OV (ST911 is not a peer review journal just to short-circuit that point). Show solid evidence of demolition charges. Find passengers/hijackers alive and interview them. Find a whistleblower that was in a position to know something, have them spill the beans, and get those beans confirmed. Otherwise what you have is nothing more than mental masturbatory claptrap.



As always everytime i ask you debunkers have you read the 911 Commission Report you never answer whether you have or not.

If you did truly read page by page you will understand the 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues.

It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. There is an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But there is an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention "to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11." They are also lies insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least most instances.

Here is a list of omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that are portrayed as lies:

1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).

14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).

22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).

23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).

24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).

25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).

26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).

27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).

28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).

29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).

30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).

31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America's "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).

32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).

33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).

34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).

35. The Commission's denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).

36. The Commission's denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).

37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).

38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).

39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).

40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).

41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright's charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).

42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer (91-94).

43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds—-testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).

44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).

45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).

46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).

47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).

48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).

49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).

50. The omission of Gerald Posner's report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).

51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be "coming down" (114).

52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as "opportunities" (116-17).

53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that "a new Pearl Harbor" would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).

54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).

55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks—-Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).

56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).

57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).

58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).

59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).

60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld's conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).

61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (133-34).

62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).

63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD's Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).

64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).

65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).

66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane's transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military's radar to track that plane (166-67).

67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).

68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).

69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).

70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD's earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (cool.gif how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).

71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).

72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175's hijacking (183-84, 186).

73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).

74. The omission, in the Commission's claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).

75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI's counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).

76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar (191-92).

77. The failure to explain, if NORAD's earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was "incorrect," how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).

78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).

79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).

80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke's videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).

81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department"---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).

82. The Commission's claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke's videoconference---although Clarke's book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).

83. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke's contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke's videoconference (213-17).

84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke's account of Rumsfeld's whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld's own accounts (217-19).

85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).

86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).

87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a "high-speed dive") and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).

88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from "Phantom Flight 11," were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).

89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).

90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93's hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).

91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).

92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).

93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).

94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC's Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).

95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).

96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).

97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).

98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).

99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).

100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).

101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).

102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).

103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).

104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).

105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).

106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).

107. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).

108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).

109. The failure to probe the issue of how the "war games" scheduled for that day were related to the military's failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).

110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).

111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).

112. The failure to point out that the Commission's claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).

113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).

114. The failure to point out that the Commission's chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).

115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report "without dissent," to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of "looking at information only partially," had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).

QUOTE
I do understand from where you are coming. You are coming from a position of confirmational bias. You have made up your mind before beginning to examine any evidence; therefore any evidence that you can twist to support your theory is fact, and any that contradicts it is disinfo. It's the same bilge that Loose Change regurgitates. It's the same drek that Jones and Reynolds spew.

Guess what; questions aren't evidence. Come up with engineers to publish papers in academic and professional journals that run contradictory to the OV (ST911 is not a peer review journal just to short-circuit that point). Show solid evidence of demolition charges. Find passengers/hijackers alive and interview them. Find a whistleblower that was in a position to know something, have them spill the beans, and get those beans confirmed. Otherwise what you have is nothing more than mental masturbatory claptrap.


Your arguments are weak, and your links are even weaker. Half the links you provided do not work or could not be found. The other half just discusses the partially erected structural frame of L'Ambiance Plaza, a 16-story apartment tower being constructed in Bridgeport, Conn., totally collapsed, killing 28 construction workers.

Yes it collapsed, was partially completed, no fire... your point? your argument is weak.

In Madrid, a 32-story building burns for more than 24 hours and does not collapse. It does not collapse because buildings made of steel and concrete, despite what we are led to believe, do not typically fall to the ground because of fire, even a protracted fire as witnessed in Madrid. In fact before September 11th, 2001, no building had ever collapsed as a result of fire alone. In past events, high-rise buildings burned for as long as six days before the fires were extinguished and yet remained standing. PROVE ME WRONG.......dontgetit.gif

In Venezuela a fire broke out on in the early morning hours of Sunday October, 18, 2004 in Venezuela’s highest skyscraper, an important government building in downtown Caracas. During the early morning hours, explosions could be heard as flammable material ignited as well as the explosion of windows that were reached by the fire. The fire roared out of control for 17 hours, by which time all floors from the 34th to the top had been burned. But yet did not collapse. dontgetit.gif

Please visit www.physics911.net/ ....... it is created and maintained by a group of scientists, engineers and other professionals known collectively as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven.

Would love for you to prove all there scientific evidence wrong.

I look forward to it with open arms.

Cheers

BZRK thumbsup.gif
An Urban Legend
Damn right BZRK!!!!

thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif yes.gif
Arkan Wolfshade
[quote name='BZRK' date='Aug 29 2006, 12:23 AM' post='1326142']...
1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).
[/quote]
Please provide your evidence that they are still alive.

[quote name='BZRK' date='Aug 29 2006, 12:23 AM' post='1326142']
2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).
[/quote]
Atta has been associated with a sect called Al Takfir wal Hijra, run by al Quaeda second-in-command Ayman Al-Zawahiri. This is an extreme fundamentalist sect, however...

"A major element of Takfir religious practice is subterfuge. The threat of Takfir is that its cold, heartless killers could easily be the boy or girl next door. Takfir Wal Hijra members are permitted to disregard the injunctions of Islamic law in order to blend into infidel societies.

In other words, Takfirs can have sex with loose women, drink alcohol, eat pork and do whatever else they feel is appropriate to advance their mission...

Mohammed Atta, although puritanical in his behavior, was believed to be Takfiri. He's not the only al Qaeda operative you could point the finger at. Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed went to discos, drank alcohol and dated call girls. Yousef in particular is renowned for being generally unIslamic and non-observant of prayers and fasting. Although no one has suggested openly that Yousef and KSM were Takfiri, it's hardly a stretch".
http://www.rotten.com/library/history/terr...akfir-wal-hijra

The group's warriors should blend in with Western society and are allowed to disobey all rules of the Islam for the goal of destroying Western civilisation from within. According to this ideology the warriors will be martyrs in Paradise after death.
http://www.answers.com/topic/takfir-wal-hijra

Roland Jacquard, one of the world's leading scholars on Islamic terrorism, says flatly, "Atta was Takfiri"...

French officials think that Takfiri beliefs have bred a distinct form of terrorism. "The goal of Takfir," says one, "is to blend into corrupt societies in order to plot attacks against them better. Members live together, will drink alcohol, eat during Ramadan, become smart dressers and ladies' men to show just how integrated they are."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...,182746,00.html

[quote name='BZRK' date='Aug 29 2006, 12:23 AM' post='1326142']
3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).
[/quote]
I assume you arrive at this conclusion from this quote, "Alleged flight 77 (Pentagon) pilot Hani Hanjour had a history of great difficulties in his efforts to learn to fly. As late as Aug. 2001, he was unable to demonstrate enough piloting skills to rent a Cessna 172...

Certainly there is no evidence that Hanjour ever had any sort of practice flying commercial jetliners or any jet-propelled aircraft."
http://www.911-strike.com/remote_skills.htm

Which was one person making a judgement call not to rent him a Cesna. However Hanjour was apparently good enough to do the following,
"In 1996, Hanjour returned to the United States to pursue flight training,after being rejected by a Saudi flight school. He checked out flight schools in Florida, California, and Arizona; and he briefly started at a couple of them before returning to Saudi Arabia. In 1997, he returned to Florida and then, along with two friends, went back to Arizona and began his flight training there in earnest. After about three months, Hanjour was able to obtain his private pilot's license. Several more months of training yielded him a commercial pilot certificate, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in April 1999."
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-242.html

"Settling in Mesa, Hanjour began refresher training at his old school,Arizona Aviation. He wanted to train on multi-engine planes, but had difficulties because his English was not good enough.The instructor advised him to discontinue but Hanjour said he could not go home without completing the training. In early 2001, he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa.An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing.Again, Hanjour persevered; he completed the initial training by the end of March 2001."
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-243.html

"Jarrah and Hanjour also received additional training and practice flights in the early summer.A few days before departing on his cross-country test flight, Jarrah flew from Fort Lauderdale to Philadelphia, where he trained at Hortman Aviation and asked to fly the Hudson Corridor, a low-altitude "hallway" along the Hudson River that passes New York landmarks like the World Trade Center. Heavy traffic in the area can make the corridor a dangerous route for an inexperienced pilot. Because Hortman deemed Jarrah unfit to fly solo, he could fly this route only with an instructor.

Hanjour, too, requested to fly the Hudson Corridor about this same time,at Air Fleet Training Systems in Teterboro, New Jersey, where he started receiving ground instruction soon after settling in the area with Hazmi. Hanjour flew the Hudson Corridor, but his instructor declined a second request because of what he considered Hanjour's poor piloting skills. Shortly thereafter, Hanjour switched to Caldwell Flight Academy in Fairfield, New Jersey, where he rented small aircraft on several occasions during June and July. In one such instance on July 20, Hanjour--likely accompanied by Hazmi--rented a plane from Caldwell and took a practice flight from Fairfield to Gaithersburg, Maryland, a route that would have allowed them to fly near Washington, D.C. Other evidence suggests that Hanjour may even have returned to Arizona for flight simulator training earlier in June."
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-259.html

"FBI agents have questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour's instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour's flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot's license.

That instructor said he told agents that Hanjour was "a very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit." The instructor added, "Maybe his English wasn't very good.""
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/...ain508656.shtml

[quote]
4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).
[/quote]
They were not listed as victims on the released manifests.

[quote]
5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
[/quote]
Aside from the fact that examples have already been provided; look at your logic. Even if there were no other buildings that were even close to being analgous you have two major problems (1) it was not just fire, it was also the fact that an airplane crashed into WTC1 and WTC2; and debris from the aforementioned buildings into WTC7 and (2) just because something has never happened before, doesn't mean it won't happen. That is an argument to personal incredulity. You have to show that it could not have happened, not that it has never happened before.

[quote]
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
[/quote]
The South tower was struck at a lower floor than the North tower. Ergo, the structural stresses on the South tower at the point of impact were much greater than at the point of impact on the North tower. Additionally, you make this claim that the South should have fallen second, because it was hit second, without providing any substantiating evidence.


[quote]
9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).
[/quote]
And what are these "features"?

[quote]
10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).
[/quote]
The structural failure of the core contributed to the collapse. Since the core failed, why would it be sticking up in the air?

[quote]
11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).
[/quote]
You mean to pull the fire team out?

[quote]
12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).
[/quote]
It was in a disposal site in Stanton (iirc) for over a month; this isn't sufficient to take samples?

[quote]
13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).
[/quote]
Debris from 1 hit 7; therefore there is a chance that victims from 1 could be buried in 7's rubble. Additionally, how are the rescue crews supposed to leave 7's debris and remove 1 & 2's debris only in their efforts to rescue victims?

[quote]
14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).
[/quote]
Evidence to the specific quote?

[quote]
15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).
[/quote]
Relevance?

<snip because it's 2 am, I'm tired, and you're recycling the same tired, unsubstantiated drek that's been floating around the 'net for years>
[quote]
Yes it collapsed, was partially completed, no fire... your point? your argument is weak.

In Madrid, a 32-story building burns for more than 24 hours and does not collapse. It does not collapse because buildings made of steel and concrete, despite what we are led to believe, do not typically fall to the ground because of fire, even a protracted fire as witnessed in Madrid.
[/quote]
The steel structure around the core did fail, the concrete core did not.

[quote]
In fact before September 11th, 2001, no building had ever collapsed as a result of fire alone. In past events, high-rise buildings burned for as long as six days before the fires were extinguished and yet remained standing. PROVE ME WRONG.......dontgetit.gif

In Venezuela a fire broke out on in the early morning hours of Sunday October, 18, 2004 in Venezuela’s highest skyscraper, an important government building in downtown Caracas. During the early morning hours, explosions could be heard as flammable material ignited as well as the explosion of windows that were reached by the fire. The fire roared out of control for 17 hours, by which time all floors from the 34th to the top had been burned. But yet did not collapse. dontgetit.gif
[/quote]
Strawman. The twin towers collapsed because of fire and the fact that each was struck by a large, fuel-laden airplane. Or are you one of these "no-planers"?

[quote]
Please visit www.physics911.net/ ....... it is created and maintained by a group of scientists, engineers and other professionals known collectively as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven.

Would love for you to prove all there scientific evidence wrong.

I look forward to it with open arms.

Cheers

BZRK thumbsup.gif
[/quote]
Why aren't they publishing their work in peer reviewed journals? Why aren't they the ones going to the media outlets instead of Do-Over Dylan?

Let me extend an invitation to you; if you feel you have objective, verifiable evidence supporting your claim post it here. If it is factual, verifiable, objective, and relevant it will stand up to scrutiny.
BZRK
[quote name='Arkan Wolfshade' date='Aug 29 2006, 08:12 AM' post='1326235']
Please provide your evidence that they are still alive.
Atta has been associated with a sect called Al Takfir wal Hijra, run by al Quaeda second-in-command Ayman Al-Zawahiri. This is an extreme fundamentalist sect, however...

"A major element of Takfir religious practice is subterfuge. The threat of Takfir is that its cold, heartless killers could easily be the boy or girl next door. Takfir Wal Hijra members are permitted to disregard the injunctions of Islamic law in order to blend into infidel societies.

In other words, Takfirs can have sex with loose women, drink alcohol, eat pork and do whatever else they feel is appropriate to advance their mission...

Mohammed Atta, although puritanical in his behavior, was believed to be Takfiri. He's not the only al Qaeda operative you could point the finger at. Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed went to discos, drank alcohol and dated call girls. Yousef in particular is renowned for being generally unIslamic and non-observant of prayers and fasting. Although no one has suggested openly that Yousef and KSM were Takfiri, it's hardly a stretch".
http://www.rotten.com/library/history/terr...akfir-wal-hijra

The group's warriors should blend in with Western society and are allowed to disobey all rules of the Islam for the goal of destroying Western civilisation from within. According to this ideology the warriors will be martyrs in Paradise after death.
http://www.answers.com/topic/takfir-wal-hijra

Roland Jacquard, one of the world's leading scholars on Islamic terrorism, says flatly, "Atta was Takfiri"...

French officials think that Takfiri beliefs have bred a distinct form of terrorism. "The goal of Takfir," says one, "is to blend into corrupt societies in order to plot attacks against them better. Members live together, will drink alcohol, eat during Ramadan, become smart dressers and ladies' men to show just how integrated they are."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...,182746,00.html
I assume you arrive at this conclusion from this quote, "Alleged flight 77 (Pentagon) pilot Hani Hanjour had a history of great difficulties in his efforts to learn to fly. As late as Aug. 2001, he was unable to demonstrate enough piloting skills to rent a Cessna 172...

Certainly there is no evidence that Hanjour ever had any sort of practice flying commercial jetliners or any jet-propelled aircraft."
http://www.911-strike.com/remote_skills.htm

Which was one person making a judgement call not to rent him a Cesna. However Hanjour was apparently good enough to do the following,
"In 1996, Hanjour returned to the United States to pursue flight training,after being rejected by a Saudi flight school. He checked out flight schools in Florida, California, and Arizona; and he briefly started at a couple of them before returning to Saudi Arabia. In 1997, he returned to Florida and then, along with two friends, went back to Arizona and began his flight training there in earnest. After about three months, Hanjour was able to obtain his private pilot's license. Several more months of training yielded him a commercial pilot certificate, issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in April 1999."
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-242.html

"Settling in Mesa, Hanjour began refresher training at his old school,Arizona Aviation. He wanted to train on multi-engine planes, but had difficulties because his English was not good enough.The instructor advised him to discontinue but Hanjour said he could not go home without completing the training. In early 2001, he started training on a Boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Flight Academy in Mesa.An instructor there found his work well below standard and discouraged him from continuing.Again, Hanjour persevered; he completed the initial training by the end of March 2001."
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-243.html

"Jarrah and Hanjour also received additional training and practice flights in the early summer.A few days before departing on his cross-country test flight, Jarrah flew from Fort Lauderdale to Philadelphia, where he trained at Hortman Aviation and asked to fly the Hudson Corridor, a low-altitude "hallway" along the Hudson River that passes New York landmarks like the World Trade Center. Heavy traffic in the area can make the corridor a dangerous route for an inexperienced pilot. Because Hortman deemed Jarrah unfit to fly solo, he could fly this route only with an instructor.

Hanjour, too, requested to fly the Hudson Corridor about this same time,at Air Fleet Training Systems in Teterboro, New Jersey, where he started receiving ground instruction soon after settling in the area with Hazmi. Hanjour flew the Hudson Corridor, but his instructor declined a second request because of what he considered Hanjour's poor piloting skills. Shortly thereafter, Hanjour switched to Caldwell Flight Academy in Fairfield, New Jersey, where he rented small aircraft on several occasions during June and July. In one such instance on July 20, Hanjour--likely accompanied by Hazmi--rented a plane from Caldwell and took a practice flight from Fairfield to Gaithersburg, Maryland, a route that would have allowed them to fly near Washington, D.C. Other evidence suggests that Hanjour may even have returned to Arizona for flight simulator training earlier in June."
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-259.html

"FBI agents have questioned and administered a lie detector test to one of Hanjour's instructors in Arizona who was an Arab American and had signed off on Hanjour's flight instruction credentials before he got his pilot's license.

That instructor said he told agents that Hanjour was "a very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit." The instructor added, "Maybe his English wasn't very good.""
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/...ain508656.shtml
They were not listed as victims on the released manifests.
Aside from the fact that examples have already been provided; look at your logic. Even if there were no other buildings that were even close to being analgous you have two major problems (1) it was not just fire, it was also the fact that an airplane crashed into WTC1 and WTC2; and debris from the aforementioned buildings into WTC7 and (2) just because something has never happened before, doesn't mean it won't happen. That is an argument to personal incredulity. You have to show that it could not have happened, not that it has never happened before.
The South tower was struck at a lower floor than the North tower. Ergo, the structural stresses on the South tower at the point of impact were much greater than at the point of impact on the North tower. Additionally, you make this claim that the South should have fallen second, because it was hit second, without providing any substantiating evidence.
And what are these "features"?
The structural failure of the core contributed to the collapse. Since the core failed, why would it be sticking up in the air?
You mean to pull the fire team out?
It was in a disposal site in Stanton (iirc) for over a month; this isn't sufficient to take samples?
Debris from 1 hit 7; therefore there is a chance that victims from 1 could be buried in 7's rubble. Additionally, how are the rescue crews supposed to leave 7's debris and remove 1 & 2's debris only in their efforts to rescue victims?
Evidence to the specific quote?
Relevance?

<snip because it's 2 am, I'm tired, and you're recycling the same tired, unsubstantiated drek that's been floating around the 'net for years>

The steel structure around the core did fail, the concrete core did not.
Strawman. The twin towers collapsed because of fire and the fact that each was struck by a large, fuel-laden airplane. Or are you one of these "no-planers"?
Why aren't they publishing their work in peer reviewed journals? Why aren't they the ones going to the media outlets instead of Do-Over Dylan?

Let me extend an invitation to you; if you feel you have objective, verifiable evidence supporting your claim post it here. If it is factual, verifiable, objective, and relevant it will stand up to scrutiny.
[/quote]


[quote]Please provide your evidence that they are still alive.[/quote]

Here you go.

If you want more links i can feel the whole page. DO YOUR RESEARCH PLEASE.

[quote]Atta has been associated with a sect called Al Takfir wal Hijra, run by al Quaeda second-in-command Ayman Al-Zawahiri. This is an extreme fundamentalist sect, however...

"A major element of Takfir religious practice is subterfuge. The threat of Takfir is that its cold, heartless killers could easily be the boy or girl next door. Takfir Wal Hijra members are permitted to disregard the injunctions of Islamic law in order to blend into infidel societies.[/quote]

Again your arguments and research depth is very weak.

Yes it is so extreme that it once tried to assassinate bin Laden.

Many of their members were, in the early 1980s backed, financed, armed and even given travel documents by the CIA, British intelligence and other intelligence agencies in return for their support in the fight against the Russians in Afghanistan.

Its amazing how everything falls back on the CIA or FBI. w00t.gif

[quote]French officials think that Takfiri beliefs have bred a distinct form of terrorism. "The goal of Takfir," says one, "is to blend into corrupt societies in order to plot attacks against them better. Members live together, will drink alcohol, eat during Ramadan, become smart dressers and ladies' men to show just how integrated they are.[/quote]

Key word "THINK".
[quote]
That instructor said he told agents that Hanjour was "a very average pilot, maybe struggling a little bit." The instructor added, "Maybe his English wasn't very good.""
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/10/...ain508656.shtml[/quote]

Please read, they said they couldnt believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had. It was that bad. NOT AVERAGE.

Chevrette said Hanjour's English was so poor that it took him five hours to complete a section of a mock pilot's oral exam that is supposed to last just a couple of hours.

Chevrette said she contacted Anthony again when Hanjour began ground training for Boeing 737 jetliners and it became clear he didn't have the skills for the commercial pilot's license.

Its amazing how you miss out crucial pieces of the puzzle.

[quote]They were not listed as victims on the released manifests.[/quote]

Although we are told that four or five of the alleged hijackers were on each of the four flights, no proof of this claim has been provided. The story, of course, is that they did not force their way onto the planes but were regular, ticketed passengers. If so, their names should be on the flight manifests. But the flight manifests that have been released contain neither the names of the alleged hijackers nor any other Arab names. We have also been given no proof that the remains of any of these men were found at any of the crash sites.

do you know what flight manifests are? wink2.gif

[quote]Aside from the fact that examples have already been prov