Was 9/11 an inside job?[views:72529][posts:246][poll! to vote:click here] to view:click here] ___________________________________ [Sep 10,2007 9:30pm - DEATH2ALL ""] PatMeebles said:Also, when the planes hit the WTC, do you really think the liquid fuel just stayed in one place? The fuel went down vents and utility shafts, setting everything around in on fire, therefore making more fire and a higher temperature. Also, technically the WTC did take the impact of the plane. It did stand for a while before finally collapsing due to a loss in structural integrity. The titanic was designed to withstand an iceberg. Designers make mistakes, too (or are unable to deal with all the factors, like an UNcontained fire). Nobody said the fuel stayed in 1 place. But actually had it stayed in 1 place it would support your theory 100%. The "collapses" started at the point of impact. You're going against the facts you're trying to support. To compare the Titanic to the WTC is like comparing a TV to a microwave. |
| ___________________________________ [Sep 10,2007 9:38pm - DEATH2ALL ""] If you take 2 mins outta your life to watch this, you might think differently.... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=54...Along+is%3Afree+genre%3ADOCUMENTARY ....Move the timer up to 23:32 minutes. Watch that video for 2 minutes as it shows you demolition charges in great detail. If you still don't buy it, I have nothing more to say here. |
| _____________________________________ [Sep 10,2007 9:39pm - huntableed ""] hahahaha To hook up a 100+ floor infrastructure with the appropriate explosives to drop it "intentionally" would take hundreds of fucking engineers and dozens of fucking weeks of tearing down drywall, studs, and frame work to go as planned. Drink up, cock suckers...keep hating on America when you honestly should be focussing your hate on people who would cut your throt faster than Daniel Pearl. Go ahead, stick up for the enemy some more....reach-arourd-ass-fuckers. |
| ___________________________________ [Sep 10,2007 9:53pm - DEATH2ALL ""] huntableed said:hahahaha To hook up a 100+ floor infrastructure with the appropriate explosives to drop it "intentionally" would take hundreds of fucking engineers and dozens of fucking weeks of tearing down drywall, studs, and frame work to go as planned. Drink up, cock suckers...keep hating on America when you honestly should be focussing your hate on people who would cut your throt faster than Daniel Pearl. Go ahead, stick up for the enemy some more....reach-arourd-ass-fuckers. Nobody disagrees with what it would take to bring those buildings down. Nobody's "hating on America". Actually as an American, it's my right to question my government. If you got a problem with that, move to another country. You make it sound impossible to have wired those buildings. What do you do for work? Have you ever worked in a skyscraper? I have. I've seen how possible it is to accomplish that job. "Stick up for the enemy"...... You're the enemy |
| _____________________________________ [Sep 10,2007 10:21pm - PatMeebles ""] So you're saying that every time I use one of these... [img] ... I'm actually using a detonation charge? Sweet! |
| ____________________________________ [Sep 10,2007 10:27pm - DEATH2ALL ""] PatMeebles said:So you're saying that every time I use one of these... [img] ... I'm actually using a detonation charge? Sweet! Did you watch the video? I'm not talking about poofs of smoke. |
| ______________________________ [Sep 10,2007 10:31pm - pam ""] 9/11 was a terrorist attack that our government exploited to fuck us in the ass. End of story. |
| _____________________________________ [Sep 10,2007 10:33pm - PatMeebles ""] DEATH2ALL said:PatMeebles said:Also, when the planes hit the WTC, do you really think the liquid fuel just stayed in one place? The fuel went down vents and utility shafts, setting everything around in on fire, therefore making more fire and a higher temperature. Also, technically the WTC did take the impact of the plane. It did stand for a while before finally collapsing due to a loss in structural integrity. The titanic was designed to withstand an iceberg. Designers make mistakes, too (or are unable to deal with all the factors, like an UNcontained fire). Nobody said the fuel stayed in 1 place. But actually had it stayed in 1 place it would support your theory 100%. The "collapses" started at the point of impact. You're going against the facts you're trying to support. To compare the Titanic to the WTC is like comparing a TV to a microwave. Actually, what you said is completely asinine, because burning fuel moving doesn't make a collapse less likely. It spreads the fire. You think that when burning fuel moves, the fire stays with it while leaving the building completely untouched? In case you hadn't noticed, office buildings tend to have a lot of wood, paper, and other combustibles. And considering the planes each had more than enough fuel for 6 hours of flying, there was plenty of fuel to go around. And while the comparison was somewhat silly, you should still know that I have a point when I say that scientists can't always account for every scenario when designing something. |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 10,2007 10:33pm - huntableed ""] oh my fucking God. D2All's last video post is quite possibly the most absurd 9/11 hoax video I've seen to date. If that is supposed to be the "I have nothing more to say" segment of those of that opinion, then you honestly must be a fucking retard to believe that shit. WTF?...honestly, what the mother-fucking-michael jackson-child-molesting-fuck.... DO NOT SWALLOW, DO NOT INHALE, AND MOST OF ALL DO NOT PUT ON THE FUCKING NIKES: [img] |
| _____________________________________ [Sep 10,2007 10:39pm - PatMeebles ""] DEATH2ALL said: Did you watch the video? I'm not talking about poofs of smoke. I'm actually waiting for it to load. My internet is really slow tonight. However, I've seen tons of videos shows actually explosions in different parts of the building. Well, guess what? Buildings tend to have gas tanks in them, and they tend to be kinda-sorta flammable if an inferno of jet fuel is thrown on them. Send that fire down a gas line and you've got a recipe for multiple explosions. |
| ______________________________ [Sep 10,2007 10:39pm - pam ""] Why is it so hard to accept that bad shit happens, bad shit that our government could prevent or at least prepare for if they gave a shit or GASP read shit once in a while...and when that bad shit happens the government uses it to stomp all over the constitution and keep the people terrified? [THE COLOR CODE HAS RISEN, VOTE FOR BUSH OR WE'LL GET HIT AGAIN!!] I mean really. Knock it off. Welcome to Washington, full of self-serving, power-hungry dickheads. USA! USA! Where's that "there's no 9/11 conspiracy you idiots" page? That shit was funny. |
| _____________________________________ [Sep 10,2007 10:42pm - PatMeebles ""] http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons |
| _______________________________________ [Sep 10,2007 10:43pm - hungtableed ""] pam said:9/11 was a terrorist attack that our government exploited to fuck us in the ass. End of story. Thank you Pam, we actually agree on something that doesn't involve music... |
| _________________________________________ [Sep 10,2007 10:57pm - Brad Weymouth ""] how could a building that big be set up for demolision in ONE FUCKING DAY!! do you really think the people involved with a project that massive could keep it secret? do you know how much wire that would take? where would they put it without it being noticed....fucking retards |
| _________________________________________ [Sep 10,2007 11:02pm - Brad Weymouth ""] my cat thinks you suck also |
| ________________________________________ [Sep 10,2007 11:04pm - y_ddraig_goch ""] Either way everything was orchestrated to benefit the 10 percent of the population that controls 90 percent of the wealth. I don't care if Pakis, Jews, Indian, blacks, or our government did it. It still happened and because of it we have had our rights revoked. I find it funny how no one is questioning NORAD,, and how we couldn't scramble fighters to take down the four planes. They were reported fast enough so that a jet could deploy and either escort them or take them down. and did anyone ever mention how during the train bombings in London there was a police exercise scheduled the exact scenario, day, time, and place of the event. and how about the fact that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to either weaken or melt steal? We could go on and on battling about what facts are phoney and real, the bottom line is that we all got fucked over on that day and we need to keep our eyes open. look out for National ID act, coming to a state near you in may next year, besides glorious NH. and that's tha bottom lahhhhn, cause Big bird said so! |
| ________________________________ [Sep 10,2007 11:05pm - Arist ""] lol, one day? |
| ______________________________ [Sep 10,2007 11:14pm - pam ""] hungtableed said:pam said:9/11 was a terrorist attack that our government exploited to fuck us in the ass. End of story. Thank you Pam, we actually agree on something that doesn't involve music... I might be a queer-loving, pro-choice, feminist, liberal, fan of the French...but I'm not a fucking moron. |
| ____________________________________ [Sep 10,2007 11:31pm - DEATH2ALL ""] I love how 27 believe it was an inside job & 15 believe the official story. And only 4 or 5 of the 27 are being vocal about it. |
| _____________________________________ [Sep 10,2007 11:55pm - PatMeebles ""] And only 2 of the 28 are vocal. Whatever that means. And Jet fuel does burn hot enough to weaken steel. And I just saw your response to my debris at the pentagon post. Check out Screw Loose Change. They do a good number on the Loose Change video. I don't remember if it was the pentagon specifically, but SLC was able to prove that on one occasion the LC guys called the wrong warehouse, and then said the company as a whole didn't make a specific plane part. Pretty fucking stupid fact checking. |
| ____________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 12:11am - DEATH2ALL ""] PatMeebles said:DEATH2ALL said:PatMeebles said:Also, when the planes hit the WTC, do you really think the liquid fuel just stayed in one place? The fuel went down vents and utility shafts, setting everything around in on fire, therefore making more fire and a higher temperature. Also, technically the WTC did take the impact of the plane. It did stand for a while before finally collapsing due to a loss in structural integrity. The titanic was designed to withstand an iceberg. Designers make mistakes, too (or are unable to deal with all the factors, like an UNcontained fire). Nobody said the fuel stayed in 1 place. But actually had it stayed in 1 place it would support your theory 100%. The "collapses" started at the point of impact. You're going against the facts you're trying to support. To compare the Titanic to the WTC is like comparing a TV to a microwave. Actually, what you said is completely asinine, because burning fuel moving doesn't make a collapse less likely. It spreads the fire. You think that when burning fuel moves, the fire stays with it while leaving the building completely untouched? In case you hadn't noticed, office buildings tend to have a lot of wood, paper, and other combustibles. And considering the planes each had more than enough fuel for 6 hours of flying, there was plenty of fuel to go around. And while the comparison was somewhat silly, you should still know that I have a point when I say that scientists can't always account for every scenario when designing something. The only thing you just said that makes any sense at all, is that office buildings tend to have a lot of paper & other combustibles. Most office buildings and in this case skyscrapers, don't have any wood. They're built with steel & concrete as the structural components. Any inner walls are built with drywall & alluminum studs & serve no structural support purpose. Do you agree that the collapse started at the point of impact? If so, the more fuel burning in that area, the greater the chance of a collapse due to fire weakening steel. More heat = weaker steel. It aint brain surgury, it's simple physics. Who cares if the fire spread, it doesn't back up the "pancake theory", it goes against it. In the NIST Report, the tests done by NIST & UL to recreate the same scenario, (fire weakening steel- using the same materials), showed that sufficient heat was not possible. So then they have to say that the structural steel used in the buildings was "flawed", even though it was approved by UL. This is a joke. As far as this.... "You think that when burning fuel moves, the fire stays with it while leaving the building completely untouched?" Um.... No. When did I say that? What does that have to do with anything, if the collapse began @ the point of impact? |
| ___________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 1:01am - DEATH2ALL ""] huntableed said:oh my fucking God. D2All's last video post is quite possibly the most absurd 9/11 hoax video I've seen to date. If that is supposed to be the "I have nothing more to say" segment of those of that opinion, then you honestly must be a fucking retard to believe that shit. WTF?...honestly, what the mother-fucking-michael jackson-child-molesting-fuck.... DO NOT SWALLOW, DO NOT INHALE, AND MOST OF ALL DO NOT PUT ON THE FUCKING NIKES: [img] It seems like you just refuse to hear anything other than the official story. There are thousands of 9-11 victims family members & survivors who are asking all of these questions & the government ignores them. The 3 official investigations of 9-11 are, The 9-11 commision report, The NIST report, And The FEMA BPAT report. They're inconclusive, contradict each other, and actually raised some of these questions to begin with. There are so many unexplained questions about 9-11. To believe the official story you must have all the answers to these questions, or you simply don't care. You must care since you've taken the effort to tell me how retarded I am for believing what I believe. So maybe you can answer some of these questions, instead of just insulting me. Give me reasons why I should believe the official story, I've said a lot of facts here, give me some facts that might make me see it your way. I'm just trying to get people to ask themselves these questions, maybe they can answer them. Nobody in this thread, who believes the official story, has said anything to answer any of these questions, or to make me 2nd guess what I believe. You watched that video & call it a hoax & call me a retard. So I have nothing more to say. I won't post or read anymore of this thread. If I didn't respond to any posts & you want me to, or if anyone wants to have a serious discussion/debate about it, PM me. |
| ______________________________ [Sep 11,2007 1:03am - Lamp ""] [img] |
| _______________________________ [Sep 11,2007 1:08am - yummy ""] I think it takes an unpatriotic faggot to ever ask....REALLY? Don't ever think to ask questions. It's better to just assume that because Bush was elected...ahem...he must be the best man for the job. I mean why else would we be at War with Iraq. We all know Saddam knocked down those towers. So, let's get those freedom haters. Let's also not send the wrong message to the troops or the terrorists by pulling out. We have nothing to be sorry about. We're liberators. Mission accomplished. |
| ____________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 1:22am - PatMeebles ""] I'm trying to figure out why you think moving fire causes less damage overall. And I said lots of things that make sense. Just because you have trouble getting your head around it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. 1) The planes had a LOT of fuel 2) They knocked out fire proofing and bent steel already 3) More Jet Fuel doesn't need to be around: Combustibles like rugs, shades, couches, and various other WOOD furniture like desks and maybe a hardwood floor hear and there would be sufficient. When I said that the WTC did take the impact, I'm talking about what conspiracy theorists are claiming: that the building was supposed to be able to handle it. Well, it did for a while. If the building wasn't designed to take the impact, it probably would've fell over a lot faster, maybe even instantly (I'm just saying). And it is not nonsensical to say that scientists (or engineers in this case) can't always account for every scenario when planning buildings, or experiments, etc. One last thing. This whole fraud was done to get us into the middle east and get rid of our freedoms, etc. right? Well, why would our government not keep that good will given by the American people and fake a nuke or two in a fake saddam bunker? They got away with 9/11, right? Why wouldn't they have done this, and in effect waste all their good will? If Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rice/Powell were so diabolically evil and clever, why would they be sooooo stupid at the same time? It would've been so EASY to do after 9/11; it'd comparably be a cakewalk. WHY HAVEN'T THEY FAKED A NUKE IN IRAQ?!!? I know what you'll say. It'll either be a simple "I don't know" or a "I'm just here debating what already occured." Well, guess what sherlock! WHAT HAPPENS IN THE MIDDLE EAST IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN, BECAUSE WITHOUT EXPLAINING AWAY THE WMD PROBLEM, YOU'VE LOST THE WHOLE ARGUMENT, AND ALL YOU'RE LEFT WITH IS A FEW SCIENTIFIC ANOMALIES, IF THEY'RE EVEN TRUE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! You know, I never knew caps abuse could be such a therapeutic experience. |
| _____________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 1:42am - sacreligion ""] PatMeebles said:When I said that the WTC did take the impact, I'm talking about what conspiracy theorists are claiming: that the building was supposed to be able to handle it. Well, it did for a while. If the building wasn't designed to take the impact, it probably would've fell over a lot faster, maybe even instantly (I'm just saying). so all of the steel support beams lost integrity at the same time when both buildings fell? the places of impact would've been weakened first, and the fires would have started there as well. the buildings should have toppled over to the weakest side(the side of impact and initial fire), not fall perfectly with gravity as if there weren't 70 stories of reinforced building beneath. it's funny how everyone's arguments against this are "you have too much time on your hands" or "that's not what the official report says" is it really that hard to believe that the people in charge are an elite group of power-hungry scumbags? i mean, george w. bush as president is a FUCKING JOKE! that man was given the status of governor of texas after being a C student, AWOL, alcoholic, AND addicted to coke. *EDIT* not to mention that his father gave him money to run several companies that quickly fell straight into the ground. *EDIT* but still somehow the republican party says "hey, this guy is MORE than qualified to be our number one candidate for president!" and daddy's little boy is now head of a nation(well, let's be honest, he's the mannequin that gives blank statements and provides a front for those truly in charge to do their bidding behind the scenes without anyone noticing). but hey, if the press isn't reporting it, it musn't be happening. i mean, why would an ongoing stalemate in iraq need to be discussed when paris hilton is going to jail for three days? not too familiar with the bildeberg group are you? |
| _____________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 1:44am - sacreligion ""] PatMeebles said:[IMG src[img] notice the aluminum confetti on the ground? yeah, that one piece that might actually equal 1 3000th of an entire airplane? FOR CHRIST SAKE THERE ARE NO WINGS TO BE FOUND ANYWHERE! DO YOU REALIZE HOW FUCKING HUGE WINGS ARE?! |
| ___________________________________________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 2:06am - ahhhhhhhhhhyeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ""] So what are you saying hit the Pentagon??? And what purpose would it serve?? |
| ____________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 2:18am - PatMeebles ""] Except for all the other debris all over the field, you nitwit. And you think the wings would just fall off and bounce off the building? |
| ___________________________________________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 2:59am - ahhhhhhhhhhyeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ""] So what are you saying hit the Pentagon??? And what purpose would it serve?? |
| _________________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 8:20am - SacreligionNLI ""] mmm a missile perhaps? perhaps is used liberally here |
| _________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 8:35am - ZenErik ""] I vote missile as well. Things like large chunks of wings should still be in tact. Along with the engine that was actually from the plane, you know. As for the purpose this would serve. It breaches our national security and allows the government to freely take more "security" measures...Like taking away rights for the "safety of the American people". Along with allowing for pre-emptive strikes on other nations... Since these acts were done by those pesky evil terrorists, much of the population got all patriotic and would approve of whatever the government wanted. Obviously because God speaks through our government. GOOD TIMES! |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 8:40am - SkinSandwich ""] Haha, people here are not smart. Anyone who believes the Government set this up has the IQ of a hockey puck. |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 8:43am - Aura_At_Dusk ""] DEATH2ALL said:PatMeebles said:[img] So why didn't buildings 5 and 6 fall down? You can't even see them in that chaos. They were closer than building 7 & suffered way more damage. Yet they stood there till 3 or 4 months later, when they were demolished by engineers in the clean up. This part is absurd, I can just picture them trying to talk about it.."Well jet fuel burns hot enough to make building around it collapse...and they weren't built correctly anyway..." I'm sure there was something else supposed to hit it but they screwed up and took it down any way...they figured there was a small fire on the 78th floor, thats good enough. It really bothers me that no one talks about this building and as ridiculous as the explanations are for the other towers, the ones for these are almost non existent |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 9:06am - SkinSandwich ""] Oh yeah, I guess this is a government agent pretending to be a Bin Laden crony too, right? Retards. http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll...ticle?AID=/20070911/NEWS11/70911005 |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 9:08am - the_reverend ""] you all keep drinking your kool-aid death2all and skinsandwich. 1) the US government has done plenty of fucked up shit that would make this completely plausible. 2) conspiracy theorists are all wackadoodles. you are all on yet another FBI list just for posting in this thread. |
| __________________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 9:13am - thegreatspaldino ""] SkinSandwich said:Haha, people here are not smart. Anyone who believes the Government set this up has the IQ of a hockey puck. why not... War = $. why not set up attacks to initiate the public's interest to allow us to go to war? it means more money for those in the positions to gain from it. i have been looking up shit about this crap for like 3 weeks straight. im no expert but there are a lot of things pointing to believe that this shit was straight up garbage. on the news at the time of the second building getting "hit", a guy on the phone with the station stated not seeing a plane. people in the station during the "live feed" were like "OH GOD ANOTHER PLANE JUST HIT" and the guy on the phone goes "what? i didnt see a plane, it just exploded...".. im pretty sure a guy on the scene would notice a low flying 737, you also would have HEARD it in that guy's phone. not to mention if you look at the different videos, the planes that hit the building are all different and most have different flight paths. the videos were all shitty computer edits for the most part. also notice that the day was sunny in NY and all the high quality news cameras could pick up looked like a shitty overcast, foggy-like day. and what was up with the different hue colors on the different videos? again... these are supposed to be high quality cameras for BIG TIME news stations. there was also a 17 second delay in the live feed. too much bullshit, not enough clear facts. |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 9:17am - SkinSandwich ""] the_reverend said:you all keep drinking your kool-aid death2all and skinsandwich. 1) the US government has done plenty of fucked up shit that would make this completely plausible. 2) conspiracy theorists are all wackadoodles. you are all on yet another FBI list just for posting in this thread. It is more like a waiting list. Pass the Kool-aid mang. |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 9:39am - the_reverend ""] I'm going to sit here, sip my kool-aid and wait for spaldino to go all babykiller on shit. |
| _________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 9:41am - soloman ""] thegreatspaldino said: why not... War = $. why not set up attacks to initiate the public's interest to allow us to go to war? it means more money for those in the positions to gain from it. i have been looking up shit about this crap for like 3 weeks straight. im no expert but there are a lot of things pointing to believe that this shit was straight up garbage. on the news at the time of the second building getting "hit", a guy on the phone with the station stated not seeing a plane. people in the station during the "live feed" were like "OH GOD ANOTHER PLANE JUST HIT".... My girlfriend's brother worked at goldman sachs in newyork on 9-11. He saw the second plane hit the tower from the window of his office. All the hard questions that you can find or read about regarding 9-11 can be pretty scary... but usually it's bullshit. |
| ________________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 9:55am - DestroyYouAlot ""] huntableed said:hahahahahahaha I can't believe how many fucking moon-bat fuck job's frequent here? Drink some more of the kool aid.....you fucking faggots... huntableed said:pussies... go suck a fatty dick, homo fags: huntableed said:hahahaha To hook up a 100+ floor infrastructure with the appropriate explosives to drop it "intentionally" would take hundreds of fucking engineers and dozens of fucking weeks of tearing down drywall, studs, and frame work to go as planned. Drink up, cock suckers...keep hating on America when you honestly should be focussing your hate on people who would cut your throt faster than Daniel Pearl. Go ahead, stick up for the enemy some more....reach-arourd-ass-fuckers. Well-reasoned arguments to be sure; I now renounce any doubts I may have previously harbored concerning our benevolent masters. Americaland Über Alles! 'Cause, y'know, I don't want to be a homo. |
| ______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 9:56am - Aura_At_Dusk ""] I can't say that all of the conspiracies are correct, no one can. But the fact that it is possible, is enough to make me think that everything they tell us isn't the truth. It should do the same to everyone, It is a very naive thing to listen and believe everything that is told to you..whether it is from the main stream media or a conspiracy video. |
| _______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 10:12am - the_reverend ""] we're through the looking glass people. |
| _______________________________ [Sep 11,2007 10:40am - Yeti ""] 9/11 was a massive conspiracy amongst American flag manufacturers to boost slacking sales. |
| ________________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 11:52am - y_ddraig_goch ""] Yeti said:9/11 was a massive conspiracy amongst American flag manufacturers to boost slacking sales. BINGO! on a serious note about the reason for war in Iraq, the wmds? Come on are you that fucking stupid, of course he had them, Reagan sold him that shit to go to war with Iran. and why would you think a nuke would make us go to war if the government faked it? It would fuck things up. We had a reason to go to war with him by thinking he still had the wmds, he most likely sold them or dumped them because they guy knew he was going to get framed. If we faked a nuke it would have made the whole middleeast a war zone, so bad we wouldn't be able to fight or control it. We are slowly invading the middle east one country at a time rather than fuck it up with a nuke. If a nuke went off in Europe every nation would be in riot and all the armies would be ready to pounce at the drop of the hat. same thing would have happened in the middle east. Afganistan, Iraq, next is Iran or syria or Saudi Arabia. |
| _______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 11:56am - Aura_At_Dusk ""] Iraq was not a threat to us, there was and is no reason we should be in there. Iran is a much bigger threat to us that Iraq ever was. |
| ________________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 12:10pm - y_ddraig_goch ""] To all the people calling names and saying anyone who denies the commission report, refute all of these points with hard evidence. And by the way, since when does questioning the government make a person an ant-american fag? Last time I checked we were Americans because we have the power and freedom to protest government to regress our grievances!!! to add more fuel to the fire, the government has issued a warning to all psychiatrists to report any people who talk about the constitution alot, it is now considered a new mental illness to be overly-zealous in defending the constitution. 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 (b) 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 Cente post was too long read more at your own risk |
| __________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 12:14pm - sxealex ""] cheers |
| _______________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 12:14pm - Aura_At_Dusk ""] jesus christ |
| __________________________________ [Sep 11,2007 12:16pm - sxealex ""] the pentagon was a bad move on their part. |