One-third see U.S. hand in 9/11 [Archive] - The Orange Mane

View Full Version : One-third see U.S. hand in 9/11

W*GS

08-03-2006, 09:12 AM

Rocky Mountain News

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/nation/article/0,1299,DRMN_16_4889964,00.html

Scripps poll: One-third see U.S. hand in 9/11
Conspiracy beliefs reflect anger with government

By Thomas Hargrove and Guido H. Stempel III, Scripps Howard News Service
August 2, 2006

More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.

The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be.

Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appears to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Suspicions that the 9/11 attacks were "an inside job" - the common phrase used by conspiracy theorists on the Internet - quickly have become nearly as popular as decades-old conspiracy theories that the federal government was responsible for President John F. Kennedy's assassination and that it has covered up proof of space aliens.

Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."

"One out of three sounds high, but that may very well be right," said Lee Hamilton, former vice chairman of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also called the 9/11 Commission.) His congressionally appointed investigation concluded that federal officials bungled their attempts to prevent, but did not participate in, the attacks by al-Qaida five years ago.

The poll also found that 16 percent of Americans speculate that secretly planted explosives, not airliners, were the reason the twin towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.

Conspiracy groups for at least two years have questioned why the World Trade Center collapsed when fires that heavily damaged similar skyscrapers around the world did not cause such destruction. Sixteen percent said it's "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that "the collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings."

Twelve percent suspect the Pentagon was struck by a military cruise missile in 2001 rather than by an airliner captured by terrorists.

That lower percentage may result from an effort by the conservative Washington-based Judicial Watch advocacy group to debunk the claim.

The group filed claims under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained images from Pentagon security cameras, showing "a plane hitting the Pentagon at incredibly high speed," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Many conspiracy Web sites have posted the video segments and report the films are inconclusive or were manipulated by the government.

"Some folks will never be convinced," Fitton said. "But I'm hoping that these videos will dissuade reasonable people from falling into a trap with these conspiracy theories."

University of Florida law professor Mark Fenster, author of the book Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture, said the poll's findings reflect public anger over the Iraq war, realization that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction and growing doubts of the veracity of the Bush administration.

The Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University has tracked the level of resentment people feel toward the federal government since 1995, starting shortly after Timothy McVeigh bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City.

But the new survey found that 77 percent say their friends and acquaintances have become angrier with government recently and 54 percent say they, themselves, have become angrier - both records.

The survey also found that people who regularly use the Internet but who do not regularly use so-called "mainstream" media are significantly more likely to believe in Sept. 11 conspiracies.

The level of suspicion of U.S. official involvement in a Sept. 11 conspiracy was only slightly behind the 40 percent who suspect "officials in the federal government were directly responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy" and the 38 percent who believe "the federal government is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life from other planets."

The survey was conducted by telephone from July 6-24 at the Scripps Survey Research Center at the University of Ohio under a grant from the Scripps Howard Foundation. The poll has a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

Copyright 2006, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.

Bronco_Beerslug

08-03-2006, 09:16 AM

And my point about a large portion of American's intelligence... confirmed.

Rohirrim

08-03-2006, 09:27 AM

Oy vey!

denver5459

08-03-2006, 09:57 AM

The survey was conducted by telephone from July 6-24 at the Scripps Survey Research Center at the University of Ohio under a grant from the Scripps Howard Foundation.

Another example of wasted money by our government.

GonzoLays

08-03-2006, 10:29 AM

Only a sheep dressed in Gap clothing would believe the 9/11 commission report.

But then again, 60% of Americans believes the Warren Commission's magic bullet theory.

Sad, really.

http://www.nistockfarms.com/jpeg/handspinning-sheep.jpg

Baahahhhaahhahah! Government do us right....Bahahahahahahah! I follow blindly.....Bhahahahahahaah!

Rohirrim

08-03-2006, 10:47 AM

mhgaffney

08-03-2006, 12:35 PM

defenseman

08-03-2006, 01:09 PM

Hotrod

08-03-2006, 01:12 PM

Ha! Im surprised the number is that low for two reasons. People like conspiracy BS and a large number of people are flat out stupid.

TailgateNut

08-03-2006, 01:18 PM

And the source of heating for the WTC towers was what?...dman

LOL They must have had one hell of a HVAC system to melt steel! I can't recall what the temps were that day, but maybe somebody turned up the themostat above 6000 deg F!

defenseman

08-03-2006, 01:35 PM

Physics this and physics that, and a nuclear reactor can blow up like an atomic bomb (of course this isn't true). Bottom line, folks buy into this stuff because they desire to believe in a conspiracy theory based on their overall disgust for america (the source of all evils of course), or the government(2nd source of evils), republicans (3rd source) or the president(satan himself), and are looking for any shred of potential evidence to allow them to do just that. Just wasting time grasping at straws, enjoy yourself and wasting your time. Really sad......dman

W*GS

08-03-2006, 01:51 PM

The official story does not stand up to scrutiny. Recently a BYU physics professor showed[...]

That would be Dr. Steve Jones, IIRC.

One problem - how were the "phosphorus bombs" planted without the tens of thousands of people who visited/worked in the WTC every day noticing?

Steel doesn't need to be melted to be weakened.

Check out

http://www.debunking911.com

Meck77

08-03-2006, 01:56 PM

defenseman

08-03-2006, 02:00 PM

Bush can barely name all the countries in the middle east let alone pull off something of this magnitude. I was skeptical myself but no way you could keep the few hundred people needed to pull this off silent.

If Bush farts over breakfast guys like LABF find articles about it. If Bush's hands were dirty it would have been exposed within days if not weeks.

Get over it.

Meck, it will never stop for the reasons stated above. A pure waste of quality time from where I sit...dman

Bronco_Beerslug

08-03-2006, 02:02 PM

The official story does not stand up to scrutiny. Recently a BYU physics professor showed that the free fall of the twin towers violated the laws of physics. His conclusion: explosive charges brought down the buildings, probably phosphorus bombs to cut through the steel. That's probably why they found pools of molten steel in the basement. That would also explain the many reports by firemen, who heard the bombs going off. But of course the 911 commission never bothered to investigate this.

Don't take my word for it, check it out:

http://www.physics911.net/ This stuff was debunked by the top structural engineers and scientist's in the world because most of it just isn't true.
The implosion of towers happened exactly as they were designed to fail (if they ever did) which now, of course, we know they did.

But I'm sure Gonzo will be along shortly to tell me how stupid I am for believing them over top blog sites.

alkemical

08-03-2006, 02:06 PM

alkemical

08-03-2006, 02:09 PM

And my point about a large portion of American's intelligence... confirmed.

yes roughly 40% of the people one way or another voted for bush and/or kerry.

alkemical

08-03-2006, 02:10 PM

This stuff was debunked by the top structural engineers and scientist's in the world because most of it just isn't true.
The implosion of towers happened exactly as they were designed to fail (if they ever did) which now, of course, we know they did.

But I'm sure Gonzo will be along shortly to tell me how stupid I am for believing them over top blog sites.

Tell me about WTC7.

alkemical

08-03-2006, 02:11 PM

Here is some other stuff as food for thought:

http://www.thehandstand.org/archive/may2005/articles/911.htm

SECRET PROBE OF STOCK DEALINGS BEFORE 9/11

alkemical

08-03-2006, 02:11 PM

Can anyone tell me how much of a coincidence it was that FEMA had a BIOATTACK excersise planned for 9/11?

alkemical

08-03-2006, 02:13 PM

I don't think Bush "knew" it was going to happen -

but i think someone somewhere did - and i don't think it was an option to stop it ala pearl harbor.

Who, i don't know - i'm not rich enough to know.

GonzoLays

08-03-2006, 02:14 PM

How do we know you're not a brainwashed CIA mole, sent to the OM to spread disinformation? :tinfoilha

Who knew that a jumbo jet gas tank could melt, weaken, and collapse a building with 200,000 tons of steel in it. Quite amazing isn't. What is even more amazing is that jet fuel can even melt steel. I thought steel's melting point was 2800 F? How hot can jet fuel possibly get? 1800{?) degrees max? And all you need is a jet's gas tank to do it? Amazing!! But then the jet fuel would have to stay WITHIN the building and not escape out the windows for it to truly be at its most potent. Considering that is impossible, the amount of fuel that actually burned and melted the steel and made the building collapse was actually LESS than a jet tank full! Craaazaay! And how long does jet fuel have to burn to collapse a 200,000 ton building? 10 hours? Two days? Hellllll no! 45 minutes, baby! That's right, 45 minutes worth of fuel that cannot reach the temperature to melt steel collapsed the WTC.

How intelligent those cave living terrorists were. While modern science had no clue this could happen, those caveatechs did all the calculations. If they were to hit the building at the precise angle with preciously the right amount of jet fuel, the WTC would be demolished! All three of them!!

**** thermite. Those foolish professional demolishers have been wasting their money for all these years. All they got to do now is by some jet fuel kerosene at a 95 cents a gallon and POOOF! down goes the building.

GonzoLays

08-03-2006, 02:22 PM

That would be Dr. Steve Jones, IIRC.

One problem - how were the "phosphorus bombs" planted without the tens of thousands of people who visited/worked in the WTC every day noticing?

Steel doesn't need to be melted to be weakened.

Check out

http://www.debunking911.com

What does he debunk? He says it is easy to comprehend such events occurring. You can comprehend anything, can't you?

Bronco_Beerslug

08-03-2006, 02:22 PM

Who knew that a jumbo jet gas tank could melt, weaken, and collapse a building with 200,000 tons of steel in it. Quite amazing isn't. What is even more amazing is that jet fuel can even melt steel. I thought steel's melting point was 2800 F? How hot can jet fuel possibly get? 1800{?) degrees max? And all you need is a jet's gas tank to do it? Amazing!! But then the jet fuel would have to stay WITHIN the building and not escape out the windows for it to truly be at its most potent. Considering that is impossible, the amount of fuel that actually burned and melted the steel and made the building collapse was actually LESS than a jet tank full! Craaazaay! And how long does jet fuel have to burn to collapse a 200,000 ton building? 10 hours? Two days? Hellllll no! 45 minutes, baby! That's right, 45 minutes worth of fuel that cannot reach the temperature to melt steel collapsed the WTC.
That didn't take long.
How come your memory is about as long as my little finger?
I told you at what temperature steel starts losing it's integrity. Once that happened, combined with the loss of multiple columns due to the actual impact, the towers fell on themselves. The "explosions" were steel columns snapping out (failing) at connecting points (very evident on the videos) from the weight of the building above impact zone.

http://orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1116585&postcount=64

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/fig2.gif
Figure 2. As the heat of the fire intensified, the joints on the most severely burned floors gave way, causing the perimeter wall columns to bow outward and the floors above them to fall. The buildings collapsed within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km/h (Getty Images (http://www.gettyimages.com/)).

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/fig1.gif
Figure 1. Flames and debris exploded from the World Trade Center south tower immediately after the airplane’s impact. The black smoke indicates a fuel-rich fire (Getty Images).

GonzoLays

08-03-2006, 02:24 PM

Bush can barely name all the countries in the middle east let alone pull off something of this magnitude. I was skeptical myself but no way you could keep the few hundred people needed to pull this off silent.

If Bush farts over breakfast guys like LABF find articles about it. If Bush's hands were dirty it would have been exposed within days if not weeks.

Get over it.

Has any president ever been the mastermind of anything? Do they write their policies? No. Do they even write their own speeches? No. Their job is to get elected; pander to the right audience. They leave thinking to others.

It's amazing that you don't realize this.

alkemical

08-03-2006, 02:28 PM

Who knew that a jumbo jet gas tank could melt, weaken, and collapse a building with 200,000 tons of steel in it. Quite amazing isn't. What is even more amazing is that jet fuel can even melt steel. I thought steel's melting point was 2800 F? How hot can jet fuel possibly get? 1800{?) degrees max? And all you need is a jet's gas tank to do it? Amazing!! But then the jet fuel would have to stay WITHIN the building and not escape out the windows for it to truly be at its most potent. Considering that is impossible, the amount of fuel that actually burned and melted the steel and made the building collapse was actually LESS than a jet tank full! Craaazaay! And how long does jet fuel have to burn to collapse a 200,000 ton building? 10 hours? Two days? Hellllll no! 45 minutes, baby! That's right, 45 minutes worth of fuel that cannot reach the temperature to melt steel collapsed the WTC.

How intelligent those cave living terrorists were. While modern science had no clue this could happen, those caveatechs did all the calculations. If they were to hit the building at the precise angle with preciously the right amount of jet fuel, the WTC would be demolished! All three of them!!

**** thermite. Those foolish professional demolishers have been wasting their money for all these years. All they got to do now is by some jet fuel kerosene at a 95 cents a gallon and POOOF! down goes the building.

Not to mention - that if it really was so hot inside- why were people shown walking around, etc?

Bronco_Beerslug

08-03-2006, 02:37 PM

Not to mention - that if it really was so hot inside- why were people shown walking around, etc? Please try and educate yourself.. the steel DID NOT melt. Read my links to the MIT structural engineers and scientists.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FIRE

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat.

In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame.

In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.

Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types.

If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.

This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2 (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html#ref2),3 (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html#ref3) It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot.

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html#ref4) This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
http://tinyurl.com/6luh

Hotrod

08-03-2006, 02:37 PM

That didn't take long.
How come your memory is about as long as my little finger?
I told you at what temperature steel starts losing it's integrity. Once that happened, combined with the loss of multiple columns due to the actual impact, the towers fell on themselves. The "explosions" were steel columns snapping out (failing) at connecting points (very evident on the videos) from the weight of the building above impact zone.

http://orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1116585&postcount=64

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/fig2.gif
Figure 2. As the heat of the fire intensified, the joints on the most severely burned floors gave way, causing the perimeter wall columns to bow outward and the floors above them to fall. The buildings collapsed within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km/h (Getty Images (http://www.gettyimages.com/)).

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/fig1.gif
Figure 1. Flames and debris exploded from the World Trade Center south tower immediately after the airplane’s impact. The black smoke indicates a fuel-rich fire (Getty Images).

LOL dont ruin Gonzos party.

alkemical

08-03-2006, 02:44 PM

Please try and educate yourself.. the steel DID NOT melt. Read my links to the MIT structural engineers and scientists.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
THE FIRE

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat.

In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame.

In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.

Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types.

If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.

This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2 (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html#ref2),3 (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html#ref3) It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot.

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html#ref4) This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.
http://tinyurl.com/6luh

So basically any physics i use to prove this, proves pretty much any theory i want. Esp since there was MOLTEN STEEL ( http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html ) in the remains of the buidling, so if the steel didn't melt, how did this happen?

Bronco_Beerslug

08-03-2006, 02:45 PM

LOL dont ruin Gonzos party.

:)
Looks like this poll is spot on after reading the replies to this thread.

alkemical

08-03-2006, 02:49 PM

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911smokingguns.html

Bronco_Beerslug

08-03-2006, 02:53 PM

So basically any physics i use to prove this, proves pretty much any theory i want. Esp since there was MOLTEN STEEL in the remains of the buidling, so if the steel didn't melt, how did this happen? Uh, there was no molten steel EXCEPT for the slag created by Boilermakers, Ironworkers and Pipefitters using oxygen lances and torches cutting apart steel looking for survivors.

I've explained this before. Having worked in Industrial Construction for over 25 years and personally working on steel structures of this type (skyscrapers), I had to complete four years of classroom work in metallurgy, mathematics, welding, rigging, mechanical drawing and a four year apprenticeship.

Please read the links I have posted, all of them, to better understand how the steel structure of the towers were compromised allowing for the eventual implosion of the towers.
http://tinyurl.com/6luh

GonzoLays

08-03-2006, 02:53 PM

Please try and educate yourself.. the steel DID NOT melt. Read my links to the MIT structural engineers and scientists.

All he is doing is contradicting himself in that article:

The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.

After stating the obvious, he then has the nerve to write:

The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse.

I thought the fire was not the principal cause of the collaspe?

Then he writes:

But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse.

He cannot even explain what he is trying to make you believe. He tells you that the airplane had little impact on the building:

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure.

So the building was designed to withstand 30 times the impact of the jumbo jet crashing into it. Basically, he tells you the plane had little impact on the integrity of the building.

* The plane had little impact on the integrity of the building
* The burning fuel "thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C."

But yet his conclusion was:

The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse.

Did you even read the article?

W*GS

08-03-2006, 02:57 PM

Tell me about WTC7.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

GonzoLays

08-03-2006, 03:01 PM

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Why post links? There are just as many websites out there that debunk the 9/11 commission's report as there are the ones you posted. It proves nothing.

What do you believe happened, W*GS?

Bronco_Beerslug

08-03-2006, 03:03 PM

All he is doing is contradicting himself in that article:
He cannot even explain what he is trying to make you believe. He tells you that the airplane had little impact on the building:
So the building was designed to withstand 30 times the impact of the jumbo jet crashing into it. Basically, he tells you the plane had little impact on the integrity of the building.
* The plane had little impact on the integrity of the building
* The burning fuel "thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C."

But yet his conclusion was:

The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse.

Did you even read the article?

I now understand why this poll is so accurate.

From the article..........................

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

Rascal

08-03-2006, 03:05 PM

OMG...not this again.

I've stated more then once how the WTC came down without needing to refer to some article. I perfectly explained how it crashed. If you want to read it search for it.

Rascal

08-03-2006, 03:06 PM

I now understand why this poll is so accurate.

From the article..........................

I've said this before, but when you have one part of the steel beam bending and weakening from the fire it creates additional stresses at the connection points.

alkemical

08-03-2006, 03:11 PM

Uh, there was no molten steel EXCEPT for the slag created by Boilermakers, Ironworkers and Pipefitters using oxygen lances and torches cutting apart steel looking for survivors.

I've explained this before. Having worked in Industrial Construction for over 25 years and personally working on steel structures of this type (skyscrapers), I had to complete four years of classroom work in metallurgy, mathematics, welding, rigging, mechanical drawing and a four year apprenticeship.

Please read the links I have posted, all of them, to better understand how the steel structure of the towers were compromised allowing for the eventual implosion of the towers.
http://tinyurl.com/6luh

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

alkemical

08-03-2006, 03:13 PM

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

W*GS

08-03-2006, 03:27 PM

Why post links? There are just as many websites out there that debunk the 9/11 commission's report as there are the ones you posted. It proves nothing.

As if the truth relies on majority opinion.

What do you believe happened, W*GS?

It's more reasonable to believe the 9/11 Commission Report than the various conspiracies floating around.

Occam's Razor, in short.

Rohirrim

08-03-2006, 04:11 PM

If we're going to hash this out again, somebody should notify TJ. Gonzo, the fire didn't have to melt the beams, just weaken them. The weight did the rest.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-03-2006, 04:24 PM

Bush can barely name all the countries in the middle east let alone pull off something of this magnitude.

Um, no one ever suggested that Bush "pulled something of this magnitude off" all by himself.

If Bush farts over breakfast guys like LABF find articles about it.

Whereas, when Bush commits high crimes and misdemeanors, guys like you look the other way and/or cover his flank.

Bronco_Beerslug

08-03-2006, 04:25 PM

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

If you actually believe this kind fantasy there is nothing I could ever do to convince you otherwise...

In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel

In order to melt steel you have use a furnace or pure oxygen cutting tools (torch, oxygen lance, etc...) or an environment that can sustain 2500*F plus.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-03-2006, 04:29 PM

A Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon

By George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.)

Sat May 20, 2006 02:33

Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11 2001, certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts. I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my own assessment of these facts.

Re: 9/11 - Conclusions must be drawn from the known facts
http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True: Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity

By George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.)

The precautionary principle is based on the fact it is impossible to prove a false claim. Failure to prove a claim does not automatically make it false, but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised. As I will show below, it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.

In July 1965 I had just been commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U. S. Air Force after taking a solemn oath that I would protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I took that oath very seriously. It was my constant companion throughout a thirty-year military career in the field of aircraft maintenance.

As an additional duty, aircraft maintenance officers are occasionally tasked as members of aircraft accident investigation boards and my personal experience was no exception. In 1989 I graduated from the Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course at the Institute of Safety and Systems Management at the University of Southern California. In addition to my direct participation as an aircraft accident investigator, I reviewed countless aircraft accident investigation reports for thoroughness and comprehensive conclusions for the Inspector General, HQ Pacific Air Forces during the height of the Vietnam conflict.

In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.

Following a certain number of flying hours or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be changed, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. When these parts are installed, their serial numbers are married to the aircraft registration numbers in the aircraft records and the plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists when the parts must be replaced. If the parts are not replaced within specified time or cycle limits, the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators , pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.

Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11 2001, certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts. I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my own assessment of these facts.

United Airlines Flight 93

This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four Arab hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field.

Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.

American Airlines Flight 11

This flight was reported by the government to be a Boeing 767, registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including five Arabs who had hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings.

Again, the government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.

United Airlines Flight 175

This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC.

Once more, the government has yet to produce one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.

American Airlines Flight 77

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.

Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.

Conclusion

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government's theoretical version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the problem with the government's 911 story. It is time to apply the precautionary principle.

As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history.

Footnote: It will soon be five years since the tragic events of 9/11/01 unfolded, and still the general public has seen no physical evidence that should have been collected at each of the four crash sites, (a routine requirement during mandatory investigations of each and every major aircraft crash.) The National Transportation Safety Board has announced on its website that responsibility for the investigations and reports have been assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but there is no indication that mandatory investigations were ever conducted or that the reports of any investigations have been written.
http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

S.P.I.N.E. : The Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven
http://www.physics911.net/spine.htm

911 Investigative Sites
http://www.physics911.net/resources.htm

APFN 9/11 INFO AND LINKS:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/wtc.htm

GonzoLays

08-03-2006, 04:42 PM

If we're going to hash this out again, somebody should notify TJ. Gonzo, the fire didn't have to melt the beams, just weaken them. The weight did the rest.

A jet's fuselage kerosene could cause a fire -- that by all accounts reached a maximum flame temperature of 1000 degree Celsius -- could collapse a 200,000 ton steel building in 45 minutes. Do you truly believe this?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-03-2006, 05:54 PM

Proof that the 9/11 Commission didn't do its job and evidence it doesn't care

Proof the Commission Didn't Do Its Job

I do not know what the truth is about 9/11. I don't know whether the official version of events is substantially correct or whether it's full of holes, whether it was basically an honest job or was a cover-up. I've studied the matter enough to know some subtantial points on both sides, but I lack the knowledge and the expertise that would be required to draw any hard-and-fast conclusions.

But now I do know something. I know that the 9/11 Commission has failed to do its job, and that it is not acting responsibly in view of that fact.

The job of a commission like that appointed to study and to report to the nation on the events of 9/11 is two-fold. First, it is to investigate the events and to draw valid conclusions about what happened. Second, it is to enable the American people to come to a common understanding about an important and sensitive part of our history.

Such consensus is vital because disagreements and suspicions about such national traumas are potentially poisonous to the body politic. (In Germany after World War I, for example, the belief that their defeat was due not to events on the battlefield against the enemy but to a "stab in the back" from parts of the German society helped to lay the foundations for the coming to power of the Nazis, and for all the nightmares that followed from that.) And the Commission certainly understood full well the centrality of this consensus-creating function.

Whether or not the 9/11 Commission fulfilled the first function -- to establish what happened -- some recent poll data prove indisputably that it has failed with respect to the second. A Zogby poll shows that more than 40% of Americans believe there has been a cover-up.

When nearly half of the population of the United States does not trust the truthfulness of the 9/11 Commission's Report, the Commission clearly has failed to do its job.

Evidence that the Commission Doesn't Care

The Zogby poll data presented, as I saw it, an opportunity. And I took steps to see if that opportunity could be seized.

What I thought the poll data might help to occur would be to have a real debate -- fair and rigorous -- between strong advocates of both the Commission's explanation of 9/11 and of the skeptics and challengers to that position.

That seemed to me important for the nation because up till now there has not been any such confrontation between the different positions, and such a confrontation would be the best way to get the truth to emerge. Just as in a courtroom procedure, different propositions can get clarified and tested, so also in a well-conducted debate.

I contacted some of the more prominent challengers to the official version and found them eager to participate in such a debate. They also indicated doubts that the people associated with the Commission would be willing to join in such a process, because they'd found those people unresponsive to previous invitations to engage with them.

But I hoped that, with the poll data indicating clearly that the Commission had failed pretty seriously to achieve the goal of resolving the uncertainties of the American people, the moment was propitious to try to enlist their participation in such a debate. So I wrote the following letter to members of the Commission, as well as (with slight variations) to others with technical knowledge who'd been associated with the Report.

Dear [Name],

As you probably know, a recent poll (conducted by Zogby in May) discovered that a substantial portion of Americans quite skeptical about the report of the 9/11 Commission, on which you served [or "to whose work you contributed"].

From Wikinews: "Forty-five percent of American adults surveyed in a Zogby poll think that the September 11, 2001 attacks should be investigated anew. Poll results indicated that 42% believe that there has been a cover up (with 10% unsure)..."

I hope you will agree that whether or not the skepticism is warranted, this is a dangerous situation for our country. If the skepticism is unwarranted, allowing nearly half of our countrymen to harbor needless suspicions about possible lies and crimes at the highest levels of our government needlessly corrodes the trust on which a healthy polity must operate. And if, on the other hand, the skepticism is justified, and the American people have not been given the truth about the events of 9/11, then surely the future health of our polity would need the truth to be told and dealt with.

It is the fact that –either way-we need to solidify the truth and dispel the falsehoods that now leads me to wish to convene a debate between the strongest and most knowledgeable possible advocates on each side of the issue. And it is to ask your help in convening such a debate that I am approaching you now.

At present the two sides of the issue –those who support the 9/11 Commission Report as essentially valid and satisfactory and those who doubt its validity and believe it fails to explain the evidence satisfactorily-propound their positions separately, but never confront the other point of view directly. There has been no rigorous debate of the kind that would enable sound arguments to prevail over bogus arguments.

The debate I propose would be conducted in writing and via email, and posted publicly. I would like to have at least three good participants from each side, perhaps more, especially where specialized expertise is relevant. The place on which the debate would be posted would be my own website, www.NoneSoBlind.org. I would serve as a moderator, seeking only to help make sure that each side dealt responsibly with the questions and challenges from the other. I myself am uncertain about which side is the more right, and am interested solely in helping the truth to emerge.

I will paste here a brief bio to introduce myself to you.

Would you be willing to participate in such a debate? And whether the answer to that is yes or no, can you recommend anyone else who you think might ably represent the 9/11 Commission Report in such a public forum?

I look forward to hearing back from you. And thank you for your consideration.

I sent out more than a dozen of these invitations, and the answer I received was completely consistent: absolute silence. Not a word of response from a single person.

What is one to make of such a failure to respond?

The sheer uniformity of the response suggests that some explicit policy to stonewall has been handed down from above. If some of the invitees had sent some sort of refusal while others had simply ignored the invitation, this inference about a general policy would be harder to draw. But when a substantive invitation like this elicits not a single word of response from more than a dozen people, it seems hard to believe that each recipient is making his own decision about how to respond.

Which leads to the question: why would there be such a policy of stonewalling?

If it were not for the Zogby poll results, one might imagine that the forces behind the Commission Report might have decided that the Report is so persuasive and valid that it can stand on its own, with no need for further defense, that the challengers are so off-the-wall that it would be a mistake to dignify their claims by bothering to refute them.

But in view of those poll results -- cited in my invitation, of course -- showing that 42 % of the American public believes there's been a cover-up, and in view its being one of the Commission's responsibilities to produce a national consensus and leave the matter unresolved, this policy of not "dignifying" the skeptics seems unsupportable.

The committed challengers whom I invited offered a different explanation. The Commission, they maintained, knew that in a fair and rigorous debate the findings of their Report would be ripped to shreds. Thus they are stonewalling in order to avoid having the Report fully discredited in the eyes of the rest of the American public.

That explanation is plausible, and if it were true it would mean that the Commission failed to do BOTH aspects of the job it was supposedly charged with, i.e. that it had not only failed to produce the national consensus the country needed nor had provided the country with a valid account of the events of 9/11.

On that point -- on whether the official version is basically valid or full of holes -- I remain uncertain, still wanting the kind of rigorous encounter of ideas that would enable non-experts like me to see which notions survive scrutiny and which do not.

But the refusal of the creators of the 9/11 Commission Report to take to the field in its defense does measurably increase my suspicion about that official version.

And even if the challengers are not correct in their interpretation of this refusal -- even if it isn't because their position is indefensible -- it would seem to indicate clearly at the very least that the Commission does not much concern itself with the fact that almost half the American people believe their Report is a cover-up of the real truth about 9/11.

That in itself is a disturbing and disreputable state of affairs.

http://www.nonesoblind.org/

alkemical

08-03-2006, 06:26 PM

If you actually believe this kind fantasy there is nothing I could ever do to convince you otherwise...

In order to melt steel you have use a furnace or pure oxygen cutting tools (torch, oxygen lance, etc...) or an environment that can sustain 2500*F plus.

Well enough evidence for me to agree there was melted metal in the bottom of WTC wreckage (towers 1/2) - WTC7 was defin. Demo'd -

I don't have the answers, only questions - and anyone who tells me they have the answers to 9/11 - i feel bad for them to be honest.

Play2win

08-03-2006, 07:06 PM

gunns

08-03-2006, 08:09 PM

Bush can barely name all the countries in the middle east let alone pull off something of this magnitude. I was skeptical myself but no way you could keep the few hundred people needed to pull this off silent.

If Bush farts over breakfast guys like LABF find articles about it. If Bush's hands were dirty it would have been exposed within days if not weeks.

Get over it.

No, Bush does not have the intelligence to put something like this together but he does have the criminal nature to want to be part of it. Wouldn't put it past Cheney.

W*GS

08-03-2006, 10:55 PM

[...]A Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon[...]By George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (ret.)[...]

(etc., etc., etc.)

The court that presided over Moussaoui's (sp?) case just released all the prosecution's and defense's exhibits; there's lots of material there that pretty much refutes Nelson.

mosca

08-03-2006, 11:03 PM

I think what points more towards the "inside job" angle is the fact that NORAD more or less stood down (as far as we know, maybe they did shoot down United 93 after all), and the fact that there were multiple wargames scheduled the same day that the attacks happened. All conveniently timed to cause mass confusion after the planes were hijacked. I personally wish that another investigation would be done.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-03-2006, 11:04 PM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-03-2006, 11:04 PM

Spider

08-04-2006, 12:01 AM

I've said this before, but when you have one part of the steel beam bending and weakening from the fire it creates additional stresses at the connection points.
;D I used your egg carton ezplanation .............made sence to me , though I didnt expalin it as well as you did ....... I ended up telling the asshole to go make love to himself

Spider

08-04-2006, 12:04 AM

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-04-2006, 12:14 AM

inside job?......Naw Bush would have screwed it up from the get go ......I think they knew or suspected somthing , but incompetence and having to admit Clinton was right was in play .....No way that sawed off little bastard wanted to admit Clinton was right about OBL , and attacks ........

If it was an inside job, then my guess is that it was in the planning stages before Chucklenuts took office - just like the Iraq war.

And, as was the case with so many other things, Dumbya was probably coached on what to do by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al.

Spider

08-04-2006, 12:20 AM

If it was an inside job, then my guess is that it was in the planning stages before Chucklenuts took office - just like the Iraq war.

And, as was the case with so many other things, Dumbya was probably coached on what to do by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al.
The oooops, did I do that , comes into play when the building went down .......... no one suspected that ...............an unexpected suprise ......The plan was fly Buildings to the flight path of planes , then blame Iraq ...... but the damage went way over , causing a massive investigation ....... but Saddam was the Next Hitler , with WMD ;D

Play2win

08-04-2006, 01:41 AM

My only question is– has this administration more resembled a Oligarchy, a Mafia, or a Fascist Regime...

Rohirrim

08-04-2006, 06:52 AM

A jet's fuselage kerosene could cause a fire -- that by all accounts reached a maximum flame temperature of 1000 degree Celsius -- could collapse a 200,000 ton steel building in 45 minutes. Do you truly believe this?

I watched a Frontline program on PBS where one of the building engineers of the WTC said he was surprised they stood as long as they did. I have no problem with it at all. The beams only need to lose a percentage of their strength. Once they reach the tipping point and begin to bend under the heat and stress, the weight of thirty floors (or whatever remains above them) comes down. The laws of kinetic energy take over. None of the floors below could sustain the weight of the others coming down. The forces begin to multiply exponentially as the weight drops floor to floor.

Anyway, it's much more logical to believe that, than to believe that the CIA wired the WTC for explosives in order to justify the invasion of Iraq. These neocons are far too arrogant to require an excuse for anything they do. It's far easier just to lie. You're asking me whether I should believe a simple, rather obvious explanation, or to indulge another explanation that requires prodigious leaps of logic at every step. AFAIC, Oswald killed JFK (alone), Sirhan killed RFK (alone), Ray killed King (alone) and jets hijacked by arab terrorists brought down the WTC, put a hole in the Pentagon and crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.

How anybody could look at the mind-boggling incompetence of this administration and then believe their incompetence did not also allow 9/11 to happen is struggling against reality. For the last six years, all we've seen out of this administration (including the CIA, FBI, Pentagon, NSA, etc.) is incompetence layered upon childish infighting layered upon more incompetence. That pathetic incompetence allowed a bunch of Arab psychopaths with box cutters to successfully attack us on 9/11. At a hundred places along the way, they could have been stopped. You see conspiracy, I see stupidity.

W*GS

08-04-2006, 08:07 AM

[...]You see conspiracy, I see stupidity.

Give that man a cigar!

footstepsfrom#27

08-04-2006, 08:20 AM

Rohirrim

08-04-2006, 08:32 AM

Two days after 911 I began an exhaustive internet search for facts using sources from all over the web, cross referencing statements with other statements, making notes on timelines, events, etc...in a process that lasted 3 months. During this time I basically did nothing else. I found 13 evidencial facts that were never accounted for by official explanations and remain unexplained to this day. These 13 facts led to my suspicions that we were not being told the whole story. When I mentioned this to my far left of center sister in Washington state, she freaked out and told me I was insane for even considering that we might have had a role in this.

Now more people believe that than support Bush.

I will ask what I've always asked when this question comes up...

When have we EVER been told the truth about ANYTHING?

Tick off the stuff in your mind that has involved coverups and lies, from the questions surrounding Pearl Harbor to the Bay of Pigs, the assasinations of Kennedy and King..on into the Viet Nam era, Watergate, the scandals in the Reagan administration over Iran-Contra, CIA involvement in covert operations in Central America, Clinton's flirtation with the Chinese...obviously the myriad of stuff in the present administration...

Ask yourself...WHEN have we EVER been told the TRUTH?

There's more justification for thinking we'll be lied to than for thinking we won't be.

The only reason the so-called "truth" is not going to come out about 9/11 is perfectly illustrated by what's going on right now in the uncovering of the NORAD and Pentagon tapes. It's not some vast conspiracy. It's petty bureaucrats trying to cover their asses by withholding info. Anybody who has read anything about the CIA and FBI for the last couple of decades knows that these two organizations despise each other and work against each other's interests. Look at when Freeh went to Yemen after the Cole bombing. The CIA was hiding sources from them. Freeh found it impossible (and extremely dangerous) trying to get info out of the Yemen government, and then discovers that his own countrymen in the CIA are also holding back in order to protect their own sources. This is perhaps the number one reason that 9/11 was allowed to happen. The CIA knew that two of the hijackers were in San Diego taking flight lessons, and for reasons of institutional ego and hubris, refused to tell the FBI. Anyone who thinks that these two organizations would join together and conspire on taking out the trash, let alone committing9/11, is living in a dream world. There's nothing the FBI would like better than to investigate the CIA and display their errors before a congressional committee (who would use that for their own political ends) - and vice versa.

alkemical

08-04-2006, 10:29 AM

I think some key players on the Int'l level knew - so someone had to keep things loose -

I honestly think OBL was a hired hitman - could have been china - or maybe the Oilmen in the ME decided they wanted to get some cash -

War makes more money than peace time for some people.

W*GS

08-04-2006, 10:45 AM

I found 13 evidencial facts that were never accounted for by official explanations and remain unexplained to this day. These 13 facts led to my suspicions that we were not being told the whole story.

What are these 13 facts?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-04-2006, 04:27 PM

The only reason the so-called "truth" is not going to come out about 9/11 is perfectly illustrated by what's going on right now in the uncovering of the NORAD and Pentagon tapes. It's not some vast conspiracy. It's petty bureaucrats trying to cover their asses by withholding info.

The third scenario is that Bush & Co. were not actually complicit in the attacks, but deliberately sat on their collective ass and didn't take any action to prevent the attacks. There is more than enough evidence to support this supposition.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-04-2006, 04:30 PM

I think some key players on the Int'l level knew...

It's undeniable that they knew.

Those mysterious American Airlines put options (which, BTW, have never been investigated) exercised the day before the attacks are proof.

footstepsfrom#27

08-04-2006, 04:32 PM

What are these 13 facts?
It's been five years, and so much more has come out, so I've long since lost track of some of this, but I still remember seven of these things from memory. They don't prove conspiracy...but they do leave you asking questions, which is what started me thinking. Keep in mind this was all way before all the information we have now has come out, meaning that while these things might not seem as significant as some of the stuff that's come out since 911...at the time they were sufficient to arouse my suspicion. I've never heard any real explanations for any of this. Obviously this stuff pales by comparison to the stuff that's come out since of course...

1) FACT- The terrorists were supposedly seen getting drunk and hanging with prostitutes and topless dancers the night before the attacks. QUESTION- Why did Muslim terrorists who believed they'd be seeing Alah in a few hours and partying with 72 virgins for eternity decide to piss off Alah and jeopardize their reward by breaking the Islamic code of behavior and engaging with harlots in the land of the Great Satan? Did this really happen or was it spin?

2) FACT- The paper documents the terrorists carried revealing their plans were found in the rubble of the Twin Towers. QUESTION- How did paper documents survive the explosive fireball and superheated jet fuel that vaporized bodies and melted steel? How is it that these specific pieces of paper managed to survive from the wreckage of the plane? Why would the terrorists be carrying them on the plane in the first place?

3) FACT- In an operation that initiallly went unclaimed...remember than in the beginning nobody claimed responsibility...it seems clear that this act was initially intended to remain anonomous to avoid retribution. QUESTION- Why...in an operation that required this much planning...did the terrorists foolishly leave their senstive papers in the rental cars they took to the airport? Why even use rental cars if you wanted to remain anonomous? Why not take taxis?

4) FACT- FBI investigators established that the hijackers got their box cutters on the planes with help from baggage handling personel who helped smuggle them on board. QUESTION- If you're Osamma bin Laden, worth $900 million and have access to billions more in capital from simpathetic Saudi Oil Sheiks, and you can bribe airport ground personel to smuggle something on board the airlines, why would you risk the success of such a highly coordinated mission on the ability of terrorists armed only with box cutters to hold off over a hundred passengers long enough to carry out your plan? If in fact they did that...25% of the plan failed because of it since the 4th plane (allegedly) was downed by the passengers before it struck its target. If you can smuggle something on board, why not guns? Why not a bomb?

5) FACT- The Minneapolis MN branch of the FBI was alerted by a pilot training school that the so called "20th terrorist" (Moussaoui) was a threat. Subsequent info from French military intelligence officials tracking Moussaoui in Algeiers told the US State Department that this guy was a terrorist on their watch list. The Minneapolis FBI office passed this to the US Justice Department asking for a warrant for suspected terrorist activity in order to search his computer and were denied. They were denied again when requesting a simple criminal warrant (a lower burder of proof than a terrorism warrant). QUESTION- Why did the US Justice Department deny these warrants when they knew Moussaoui was classified by the French as a terrorist and had domestic reports about his flying lessons in the US?

6) FACT- The time differential between the 2nd plane (the point where we knew for sure it was a terrorist attack) and the 3rd plane striking the Pentagon was about 40 minutes (maybe 39, maybe 41...look it up if you want). During this time period, the 3rd plane had time to fly all the way to Cleveland, AFTER switching off it's transponder, something no civilian airliner in the world would ever do. The FAA ground tracking radar lost sight of the plane when it's transponder was switched off, but not US military systems tracking from satelites in space or AWACS in the air. They had 39 minutes to get an F-16 in the air from Andrews Air Force Base, which his about 6 miles from the Pentegon...more than enough time to shoot it down. QUESTION- How did this plane have the opportunity to fly all the way to Cleveland and back to Washington DC while tracked by the US military and not get shot down?

7) FACT- The official government explanation regarding the crash of United Flight 93 is that it crashed into the ground when passengers overcame the hijackers. Only minutes after the crash, 2 witnesses on the ground interviewed live on CNN said they saw a military fighter jet streaking across the sky in the vicinity of the crash site. Another witness stated that they saw the plane on fire while still in the air, a scenario not consistent with it striking the ground and breaking apart on impact. FAA investigators found pieces of Flight 93 8 miles from the crash site, and the largest piece of debris measured only 7x8 feet, with wreckage scattered for miles. QUESTION- How does a passenger jet that breaks up on impact on the ground leave a debris field 8 miles wide if it broke up on the ground? Why did the eye witnesses CNN interviewed never appear again after their initial statements?

That's all I can remember now...but that stuff is so tame compared to the questions raised since then. The point is...even in the beginning, before we had any investigation, there seemed to be something funny going on here.

cbs1177

08-04-2006, 07:05 PM

Strange to me about most of the heresay about this and that as GWB used 9-11 to invade Iraq. No one mentions Afgan. I dont' think we wanted to invade them and stretch our forces like we are now if our soul purpose was Iraq. I really don't think GWB or any other president would want to be juggling all the international crises we are dealing with now. I only know this opening a can of worms and you really don't know what to expect or the outcome. If it was such a great conspricay and all why does no one mention Afgan. Why is it always the Iraq factor? Is it b/c it has went so horrible unlike Afghan?

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-04-2006, 07:16 PM

No one mentions Afgan. I dont' think we wanted to invade them and stretch our forces like we are now if our soul purpose was Iraq.

You're right - Afghanistan wasn't just about setting up the invasion of Iraq.

It was also about that oil pipeline Bush's UNOCAL buddies had been trying to build for years. Before 9/11, they were wining and dining the Taliban in the hope of getting the go-ahead.

They also wanted to establish a strategic foothold in Afghanistan in order to flank Iran from both sides.

And leave us not forget Afghanistan's extremely lucrative heroin trade.

cbs1177

08-04-2006, 07:23 PM

cbs1177

08-04-2006, 07:29 PM

I agree with you LA really for once I do in one sense of the puzzle b/c the oil in Iraq was supposed to pay for the war and rebuilding so said GWB. He gets an F

Weapons of mass destruction will be found. He gets an F

Links to the tailban are well documented and they talked to Saddam hussiem. He gets an F. (I think they have closer ties to Iran then Iraq)

We turn the corner. Okay he gets a freaking f every two months he says that on television.

Scary enough every superpower (meaning the greatest nation at the time) has always gotten in a quagmire in the Middle East. It is sucide to compete with three world major religions (which have been fighting for millieums and millieums.) and then adding politicals to the flame. We have to be crazy.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-04-2006, 07:36 PM

While Governor of Texas, bush allowed the Taliban (who were at that time harboring Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan) to meet with his Unocal cronies to negotiate the oil pipeline in question.

Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Bush Oil Team

According to Afghan, Iranian, and Turkish government sources, Hamid Karzai, the interim Prime Minister of Afghanistan, was a top adviser to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL Corporation which was negotiating with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan.

Karzai, the leader of the southern Afghan Pashtun Durrani tribe, was a member of the mujaheddin that fought the Soviets during the 1980s. He was a top contact for the CIA and maintained close relations with CIA Director William Casey, Vice President George Bush, and their Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Service interlocutors. Later, Karzai and a number of his brothers moved to the United States under the auspices of the CIA. Karzai continued to serve the agency's interests, as well as those of the Bush Family and their oil friends in negotiating the CentGas deal, according to Middle East and South Asian sources.

When one peers beyond all of the rhetoric of the White House and Pentagon concerning the Taliban, a clear pattern emerges showing that construction of the trans-Afghan pipeline was a top priority of the Bush administration from the outset. Although UNOCAL claims it abandoned the pipeline project in December 1998, the series of meetings held between U.S., Pakistani, and Taliban officials after 1998, indicates the project was never off the table.

Quite to the contrary, recent meetings between U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Wendy Chamberlain and that country's oil minister Usman Aminuddin indicate the pipeline project is international Project Number One for the Bush administration. Chamberlain, who maintains close ties to the Saudi ambassador to Pakistan (a one-time chief money conduit for the Taliban), has been pushing Pakistan to begin work on its Arabian Sea oil terminus for the pipeline.

Meanwhile, President Bush says that U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan for the long haul. Far from being engaged in Afghan peacekeeping -- the Europeans are doing much of that -- our troops will effectively be guarding pipeline construction personnel that will soon be flooding into the country.

Karzai's ties with UNOCAL and the Bush administration are the main reason why the CIA pushed him for Afghan leader over rival Abdul Haq, the assassinated former mujaheddin leader from Jalalabad, and the leadership of the Northern Alliance, seen by Langley as being too close to the Russians and Iranians. Haq had no apparent close ties to the U.S. oil industry and, as both a Pushtun and a northern Afghani, was popular with a wide cross-section of the Afghan people, including the Northern Alliance. Those credentials likely sealed his fate.

When Haq entered Afghanistan from Pakistan last October, his position was immediately known to Taliban forces, which subsequently pinned him and his small party down, captured, and executed them. Former Reagan National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, who worked with Haq, vainly attempted to get the CIA to help rescue Haq. The agency claimed it sent a remotely-piloted armed drone to attack the Taliban but its actions were too little and too late. Some observers in Pakistan claim the CIA tipped off the ISI about Haq's journey and the Pakistanis, in turn, informed the Taliban. McFarlane, who runs a K Street oil consulting firm, did not comment on further questions about the circumstances leading to the death of Haq.

While Haq was not part of the Bush administration's GOP (Grand Oil Plan) for South Asia, Karzai was a key player on the Bush Oil team. During the late 1990s, Karzai worked with an Afghani-American, Zalmay Khalilzad, on the CentGas project. Khalilzad is President Bush's Special National Security Assistant and recently named presidential Special Envoy for Afghanistan. Interestingly, in the White House press release naming Khalilzad special envoy, no mention was made of his past work for UNOCAL. Khalilzad has worked on Afghan issues under National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, a former member of the board of Chevron, itself no innocent bystander in the future CentGas deal. Rice made an impression on her old colleagues at Chevron. The company has named one of their supertankers the SS Condoleezza Rice.

Khalilzad, a fellow Pashtun and the son of a former government official under King Mohammed Zahir Shah, was, in addition to being a consultant to the RAND Corporation, a special liaison between UNOCAL and the Taliban government. Khalilzad also worked on various risk analyses for the project.

Khalilzad's efforts complemented those of the Enron Corporation, a major political contributor to the Bush campaign. Enron, which recently filed for bankruptcy in the single biggest corporate collapse in the nation's history, conducted the feasibility study for the CentGas deal. Vice President Cheney held several secret meetings with top Enron officials, including its Chairman Kenneth Lay, earlier in 2001. These meetings were presumably part of Cheney's non-public Energy Task Force sessions. A number of Enron stockholders, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, became officials in the Bush administration. In addition, Thomas White, a former Vice Chairman of Enron and a multimillionaire in Enron stock, currently serves as the Secretary of the Army.

A chief benefactor in the CentGas deal would have been Halliburton, the huge oil pipeline construction firm that also had its eye on the Central Asian oil reserves. At the time, Halliburton was headed by Dick Cheney. After Cheney's selection as Bush's Vice Presidential candidate, Halliburton also pumped a huge amount of cash into the Bush-Cheney campaign coffers. And like oil cash cow Enron, there were Wall Street rumors in late December that Halliburton, which suffered a forty per cent drop in share value, might follow Enron into bankruptcy court.

Assisting with the CentGas negotiations with the Taliban was Laili Helms, the niece-in-law of former CIA Director Richard Helms. Laili Helms, also a relative of King Zahir Shah, was the Taliban's unofficial envoy to the United States and arranged for various Taliban officials to visit the United States. Laili Helms' base of operations was in her home in Jersey City on the Hudson River. Ironically, most of her work on behalf of the Taliban was practically conducted in the shadows of the World Trade Center, just across the river.

Laili Helms' liaison work for the Taliban paid off for Big Oil. In December 1997, the Taliban visited UNOCAL's Houston refinery operations. Interestingly, the chief Taliban leader based in Kandahar, Mullah Mohammed Omar, now on America's international Most Wanted List, was firmly in the UNOCAL camp. His rival Taliban leader in Kabul, Mullah Mohammed Rabbani (not to be confused with the head of the Northern Alliance Burhanuddin Rabbani), favored Bridas, an Argentine oil company, for the pipeline project. But Mullah Omar knew UNOCAL had pumped large sums of money to the Taliban hierarchy in Kandahar and its expatriate Afghan supporters in the United States. Some of those supporters were also close to the Bush campaign and administration. And Kandahar was the city near which the CentGas pipeline was to pass, a lucrative deal for the otherwise desert outpost.

While Clinton's State Department omitted Afghanistan from the top foreign policy priority list, the Bush administration, beholden to the oil interests that pumped millions of dollars into the 2000 campaign, restored Afghanistan to the top of the list, but for all the wrong reasons. After Bush's accession to the presidency, various Taliban envoys were received at the State Department, CIA, and National Security Council. The CIA, which appears, more than ever, to be a virtual extended family of the Bush oil interests, facilitated a renewed approach to the Taliban. The CIA agent who helped set up the Afghan mujaheddin, Milt Bearden, continued to defend the interests of the Taliban. He bemoaned the fact that the United States never really bothered to understand the Taliban when he told the Washington Post last October, "We never heard what they were trying to say... We had no common language. Ours was, 'Give up bin Laden.' They were saying, 'Do something to help us give him up.' "

There were even reports that the CIA met with their old mujaheddin operative bin Laden in the months before September 11 attacks. The French newspaper Le Figaro quoted an Arab specialist named Antoine Sfeir who postulated that the CIA met with bin Laden in July in a failed attempt to bring him back under its fold. Sfeir said the CIA maintained links with bin Laden before the U.S. attacked his terrorist training camps in Afghanistan in 1998 and, more astonishingly, kept them going even after the attacks. Sfeir told the paper, "Until the last minute, CIA agents hoped bin Laden would return to U.S. command, as was the case before 1998." Bin Laden actually officially broke with the US in 1991 when US troops began arriving in Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Storm. Bin Laden felt this was a violation of the Saudi regime’s responsibility to protect the Islamic Holy Shrines of Mecca and Medina from the infidels. Bin Laden’s anti-American and anti-House of Saud rhetoric soon reached a fever pitch.

The Clinton administration made numerous attempts to kill Bin Laden. In August 1998, Al Qaeda operatives blew up several U.S. embassies in Africa. In response, Bill Clinton ordered cruise missiles to be launched from US ships in the Persian Gulf into Afghanistan, which missed Bin Laden by a few hours. The Clinton administration also devised a plan with Pakistan's ISI to send a team of assassins into Afghanistan to kill Bin Laden. But Pakistan's government was overthrown by General Musharraf, who was viewed as particularly close to the Taliban. The CIA cancelled its plans, fearing Musharraf's ISI would tip off the Taliban and Bin Laden. . The CIA's connections to the ISI in the months before September 11 and the weeks after are also worthy of a full-blown investigation. The CIA continues to maintain an unhealthy alliance with the ISI, the organization that groomed bin Laden and the Taliban. Last September, the head of the ISI, General Mahmud Ahmed, was fired by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf for his pro-Taliban leanings and reportedly after the U.S. government presented Musharraf with disturbing intelligence linking the general to the terrorist hijackers.

General Ahmed was in Washington, DC on the morning of September 11 meeting with CIA and State Department officials as the hijacked planes slammed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Later, both the Northern Alliance spokesman in Washington, Haron Amin, and Indian intelligence, in an apparent leak to The Times of India, confirmed that General Ahmed ordered a Pakistani-born British citizen and known terrorist named Ahmed Umar Sheik to wire $100,000 from Pakistan to the U.S. bank account of Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker.

When the FBI traced calls made between General Ahmed and Sheik's cellular phone - the number having been supplied by Indian intelligence to the FBI - a pattern linking the general with Sheik clearly emerged. According to The Times of India, the revelation that General Ahmed was involved in the Sheik-Atta money transfer was more than enough for a nervous and embarrassed Bush administration. It pressed Musharraf to dump General Ahmed. Musharraf mealy-mouthed the announcement of his general's dismissal by stating Ahmed "requested" early retirement.

Sheik was well known to the Indian police. He was arrested in New Delhi in 1994 for plotting to kidnap four foreigners, including an American citizen. Sheik was released by the Indians in 1999 in a swap for passengers on board New Delhi-bound Indian Airlines flight 814, hijacked by Islamic militants from Kathmandu, Nepal to Kandahar, Afghanistan. India continues to believe the ISI played a part in the hijacking since the hijackers were affiliated with the pro-bin Laden Kashmiri terrorist group, Harkat-ul-Mujaheddin, a group only recently and quite belatedly placed on the State Department's terrorist list. The ISI and bin Laden's Al Qaeda reportedly assists the group in its operations against Indian government targets in Kashmir.

The FBI, which assisted its Indian counterpart in the investigation of the Indian Airlines hijacking, says it wants information leading to the arrest of those involved in the terrorist attacks. Yet, no move has been made to question General Ahmed or those U.S. government officials, including Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who met with him in September. Clearly, General Ahmed was a major player in terrorist activities across South Asia, yet still had very close ties to the U.S. government. General Ahmed's terrorist-supporting activities - and the U.S. government officials who tolerated those activities - need to be investigated.

The Taliban visits to Washington continued up to a few months prior to the September 11 attacks. The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research's South Asian Division maintained constant satellite telephone contact with the Taliban in Kandahar and Kabul. Washington permitted the Taliban to maintain a diplomatic office in Queens, New York headed by Taliban diplomat Abdul Hakim Mojahed. In addition, U.S. officials, including Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs Christina Rocca, who is also a former CIA officer, visited Taliban diplomatic officials in Islamabad. In the meantime, the Bush administration took a hostile attitude towards the Islamic State of Afghanistan, otherwise known as the Northern Alliance. Even though the United Nations recognized the alliance as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, the Bush administration, with oil at the forefront of its goals, decided to follow the lead of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and curry favor with the Taliban mullahs of Afghanistan. The visits of Islamist radicals did not end with the Taliban. In July 2001, the head of Pakistan's pro-bin Laden Jamiaat-i-Islami Party, Qazi Hussein Ahmed, also reportedly was received at the George Bush Center for Intelligence (aka, CIA headquarters) in Langley, Virginia.

According to the Washington Post, the Special Envoy of Mullah Omar, Rahmatullah Hashami, even came to Washington bearing a gift carpet for President Bush from the one-eyed Taliban leader. The Village Voice reported that Hashami, on behalf of the Taliban, offered the Bush administration to hold on to bin Laden long enough for the United States to capture or kill him but, inexplicably, the administration refused. Meanwhile, Spozhmai Maiwandi, the director of the Voice of America's Pashtun service, jokingly nicknamed "Kandahar Rose" by her colleagues, aired favorable reports on the Taliban, including a controversial interview with Mullah Omar.

The Bush administration's dalliances with the Taliban may have even continued after the start of the bombing campaign against their country. According to European intelligence sources, a number of European governments were concerned that the CIA and Big Oil were pressuring the Bush administration not to engage in an initial serious ground war on behalf of the Northern Alliance in order to placate Pakistan and its Taliban compatriots. The early-on decision to stick with an incessant air bombardment, they reasoned, was causing too many civilian deaths and increasing the shakiness of the international coalition.

The obvious, and woefully underreported, interfaces between the Bush administration, UNOCAL, the CIA, the Taliban, Enron, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, the groundwork for which was laid when the Bush Oil team was on the sidelines during the Clinton administration, is making the Republicans worried. Vanquished vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman is in the ironic position of being the senator who will chair the Senate Government Affairs Committee hearings on the collapse of Enron. The roads from Enron also lead to Afghanistan and murky Bush oil politics.

UNOCAL was also clearly concerned about its past ties to the Taliban. On September 14, just three days after terrorists of the Afghan-base al Qaeda movement crashed their planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, UNOCAL issued the following statement: "The company is not supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan in any way whatsoever. Nor do we have any project or involvement in Afghanistan. Beginning in late 1997, Unocal was a member of a multinational consortium that was evaluating construction of a Central Asia Gas pipeline between Turkmenistan and Pakistan [via western Afghanistan]. Our company has had no further role in developing or funding that project or any other project that might involve the Taliban."

The Bush Oil Team, which can now rely on the support of the interim Prime Minister of Afghanistan, may think that war and oil profits mix. But there is simply too much evidence that the War in Afghanistan was primarily about building UNOCAL's pipeline, not about fighting terrorism. The Democrats, who control the Senate and its investigation agenda, should investigate the secretive deals between Big Oil, Bush, and the Taliban.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html

cbs1177

08-04-2006, 07:47 PM

Okay that answered my one question a little more humble now but hey can you tell me when comcast is gonna take over the Memphis cable market. I have been at odds edds to find a date. I figure with that last post you could find for me.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-04-2006, 07:54 PM

cbs1177

08-04-2006, 08:01 PM

:laugh:

Dunno, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. :D

Only reason I really care is b/c of the NFL network is carried by comcast and not TWC which is supposed to switch to Comcast. Any article I have found says middle of the year TWC will humbely give up its Memphis market to Comcast. but that as came and went and football season is fast in coming.

W*GS

08-04-2006, 09:28 PM

You're right - Afghanistan wasn't just about setting up the invasion of Iraq.

It was also about that oil pipeline Bush's UNOCAL buddies had been trying to build for years. Before 9/11, they were wining and dining the Taliban in the hope of getting the go-ahead.

If you're going to pilfer Moore's falsehoods, at least attribute them.

http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Proposed Unocal Pipeline in Afghanistan
Deceits 27-30

This segment is introduced with the question, "Or was the war in Afghanistan really about something else?" The "something else" is shown to be a Unocal pipeline.
Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while Bush was governor, over a possible pipeline deal with Unocal. But Moore doesn’t say that they never actually met with Bush or that the deal went bust in 1998 and had been supported by the Clinton administration.
Labash, Weekly Standard.
Moore asserts that the Afghan war was fought only to enable the Unocal company to build a pipeline. In fact, Unocal dropped that idea back in August 1998.
Jonathan Foreman, "Moore’s The Pity," New York Post, June 23, 2004.
In December 1997, a delegation from Afghanistan’s ruling and ruthless Taliban visited the United States to meet with an oil and gas company that had extensive dealings in Texas. The company, Unocal, was interested in building a natural gas line through Afghanistan. Moore implies that Bush, who was then governor of Texas, met with the delegation.
But, as Gannett News Service points out, Bush did not meet with the Taliban representatives. What’s more, Clinton administration officials did sit down with Taliban officials, and the delegation’s visit was made with the Clinton administration’s permission.
McNamee, Chicago Sun-Times.
Whatever the motive, the Unocal pipeline project was entirely a Clinton-era proposal: By 1998, as the Taliban hardened its positions, the U.S. oil company pulled out of the deal. By the time George W. Bush took office, it was a dead issue—and no longer the subject of any lobbying in Washington.
Isikoff & Hosenball, MSNBC.com.

Moore claims that "Enron stood to benefit from the pipeline." To the contrary, Enron was not part of the consortium which expressed interest in working with Unocal on the pipeline.

On December 9, 2003, the new Afghanistan government did sign a protocol with Turkmenistan and Pakistan to facilitate a pipeline. Indeed, any Afghani government (Taliban or otherwise) would rationally seek the revenue that could be gained from a pipeline. But the protocol merely aims to entice corporations to build a new pipeline; no corporation has has agreed to do so. Nor does the new proposed pipeline even resemble Unocal's failed proposal; the new pipeline would the bring oil and gas from the Caspian Sea basin, whereas Unocal's proposal involved deposits five hundred miles away, in eastern Turkmenistan.

Fahrenheit showed images of pipeline construction, but the images have nothing to do with the Caspian Sea pipeline, for which construction has never begun. Nor do they have anything to do with the Unocal pipeline, which never existed except on paper.

According to Fahrenheit, Afghanistan's new President, Hamid Karzai, was a Unocal consultant. This is false. Sumana Chatterjee and David Goldstein, "A lowdown on the facts behind the allegations in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'," Knight-Ridder newspapers, July 2, 2004. The origin of the claim appears to be a December 6, 2001 story in the center-left French newspaper Le Monde. The story does not cite any source for its claim. (The story is available on-line from Le Monde's website; registration and payment are required.) Unocal has denied that Karzai was ever a consultant.

(Deceits: 1. Governor Bush never met the Taliban; 2. The Unocal pipeline idea was abandoned; 3. The new pipeline is different from the Unocal proposal; 4. Construction has not begun. Bonus deceit: Enron.)

[Moore response: Regarding Karzai, cites the article in Le Monde, and two later articles which appear to use Le Monde's information. Moore's translation is: "He was a consultant for the American oil company Unocal, while they studied the construction of a pipeline in Afghanistan." The actual sentence was "Après Kaboul et l'Inde ou il a étudié le droit, il a parfait sa formation aux Etats-Unis ou il fut un moment consultant de l'enterprise pétrolière américaine Unocal, quand celle-ci étudiant la construction d'un oléduc en Afghanistan." Translated: After Kabul and India where he had studied law, he completed his training in the United States where he was briefly (literally: "for a moment") a consultant for the American petroleum business Unocal, when it was studying the construction of a pipeline in Afghanistan." Neither Le Monde nor Moore has provided any evidence to substantiate the claim about Unocal and Karzai.

alkemical

08-05-2006, 06:08 AM

ya don't find it funny though that it seems the same old hands are always busy

W*GS

08-05-2006, 07:25 AM

It's undeniable that they knew.

Those mysterious American Airlines put options (which, BTW, have never been investigated) exercised the day before the attacks are proof.

Wrong.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

From the 9/11 Commission Report (which I know you believe is a big coverup job) but anyway:

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

Bronco_Beerslug

08-05-2006, 05:44 PM

Wrong.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

From the 9/11 Commission Report (which I know you believe is a big coverup job) but anyway:

Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

Since I've been trading well before 9-11 I commented on this subject before. The SEC did find some possible irregularities but nothing widespread or large in scope. I, myself, reported to the FBI a guy on Raging Bull that was telling people days before 9-11 that there was a major event forthcoming. He had about 20 posts total and days after 9-11 all of them were removed from the website.

mhgaffney

08-05-2006, 05:54 PM

Anyone remember Building 7 It collapsed on 911, yet was never hit by a plane, hence no jet fuel, and it suffered only minor fire damage.

Building 7 fell into its footprint late in the day on 911. You can see a stunning video of this at the following website. This is hard evidence we've been lied to -- and that the buildings were brought down by explosives. MG

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

Bronco_Beerslug

08-05-2006, 06:00 PM

W*GS

08-05-2006, 06:47 PM

Anyone remember Building 7 It collapsed on 911, yet was never hit by a plane, hence no jet fuel, and it suffered only minor fire damage.

It did have major fires, and it was badly damaged by debris from the collapse of WTC 1.

http://www.debunking911.com/fig-1-7.jpg

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

clarker

08-05-2006, 08:54 PM

If you're going to pilfer Moore's falsehoods, at least attribute them.

http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Proposed Unocal Pipeline in Afghanistan
Deceits 27-30

This segment is introduced with the question, "Or was the war in Afghanistan really about something else?" The "something else" is shown to be a Unocal pipeline.
Moore mentions that the Taliban visited Texas while Bush was governor, over a possible pipeline deal with Unocal. But Moore doesn’t say that they never actually met with Bush or that the deal went bust in 1998 and had been supported by the Clinton administration.
Labash, Weekly Standard.
Moore asserts that the Afghan war was fought only to enable the Unocal company to build a pipeline. In fact, Unocal dropped that idea back in August 1998.
Jonathan Foreman, "Moore’s The Pity," New York Post, June 23, 2004.
In December 1997, a delegation from Afghanistan’s ruling and ruthless Taliban visited the United States to meet with an oil and gas company that had extensive dealings in Texas. The company, Unocal, was interested in building a natural gas line through Afghanistan. Moore implies that Bush, who was then governor of Texas, met with the delegation.
But, as Gannett News Service points out, Bush did not meet with the Taliban representatives. What’s more, Clinton administration officials did sit down with Taliban officials, and the delegation’s visit was made with the Clinton administration’s permission.
McNamee, Chicago Sun-Times.
Whatever the motive, the Unocal pipeline project was entirely a Clinton-era proposal: By 1998, as the Taliban hardened its positions, the U.S. oil company pulled out of the deal. By the time George W. Bush took office, it was a dead issue—and no longer the subject of any lobbying in Washington.
Isikoff & Hosenball, MSNBC.com.

Moore claims that "Enron stood to benefit from the pipeline." To the contrary, Enron was not part of the consortium which expressed interest in working with Unocal on the pipeline.

On December 9, 2003, the new Afghanistan government did sign a protocol with Turkmenistan and Pakistan to facilitate a pipeline. Indeed, any Afghani government (Taliban or otherwise) would rationally seek the revenue that could be gained from a pipeline. But the protocol merely aims to entice corporations to build a new pipeline; no corporation has has agreed to do so. Nor does the new proposed pipeline even resemble Unocal's failed proposal; the new pipeline would the bring oil and gas from the Caspian Sea basin, whereas Unocal's proposal involved deposits five hundred miles away, in eastern Turkmenistan.

Fahrenheit showed images of pipeline construction, but the images have nothing to do with the Caspian Sea pipeline, for which construction has never begun. Nor do they have anything to do with the Unocal pipeline, which never existed except on paper.

According to Fahrenheit, Afghanistan's new President, Hamid Karzai, was a Unocal consultant. This is false. Sumana Chatterjee and David Goldstein, "A lowdown on the facts behind the allegations in 'Fahrenheit 9/11'," Knight-Ridder newspapers, July 2, 2004. The origin of the claim appears to be a December 6, 2001 story in the center-left French newspaper Le Monde. The story does not cite any source for its claim. (The story is available on-line from Le Monde's website; registration and payment are required.) Unocal has denied that Karzai was ever a consultant.

(Deceits: 1. Governor Bush never met the Taliban; 2. The Unocal pipeline idea was abandoned; 3. The new pipeline is different from the Unocal proposal; 4. Construction has not begun. Bonus deceit: Enron.)

[Moore response: Regarding Karzai, cites the article in Le Monde, and two later articles which appear to use Le Monde's information. Moore's translation is: "He was a consultant for the American oil company Unocal, while they studied the construction of a pipeline in Afghanistan." The actual sentence was "Après Kaboul et l'Inde ou il a étudié le droit, il a parfait sa formation aux Etats-Unis ou il fut un moment consultant de l'enterprise pétrolière américaine Unocal, quand celle-ci étudiant la construction d'un oléduc en Afghanistan." Translated: After Kabul and India where he had studied law, he completed his training in the United States where he was briefly (literally: "for a moment") a consultant for the American petroleum business Unocal, when it was studying the construction of a pipeline in Afghanistan." Neither Le Monde nor Moore has provided any evidence to substantiate the claim about Unocal and Karzai.I quoted this just because. If Bush wanted this pipeline and was willing to committ 9-11, do nothing to stop 9-11 and take over afghanistan for it, then why the hell is the pipeline not built already?

mhgaffney

08-06-2006, 06:49 AM

It did have major fires, and it was badly damaged by debris from the collapse of WTC 1.

http://www.debunking911.com/fig-1-7.jpg

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Hogwash! How gullible!

You guys obviously have not watched the video. Go look at it. You can see with your own eyes the fire and other damage are minimal. This is a 30-40 story steel skyscraper -- that was NOT hit by a plane -- yet it fell into its footprint just like a controlled demolition.

Well, when something quacks, waddles and looks like a duck...chances are it is.

W*GS

08-06-2006, 07:09 AM

You guys obviously have not watched the video. Go look at it. You can see with your own eyes the fire and other damage are minimal. This is a 30-40 story steel skyscraper -- that was NOT hit by a plane -- yet it fell into its footprint just like a controlled demolition.

:bs:

It's all the Jews' fault, correct?

Bronco_Beerslug

08-06-2006, 07:15 AM

Hogwash! How gullible!

You guys obviously have not watched the video. Go look at it. You can see with your own eyes the fire and other damage are minimal. This is a 30-40 story steel skyscraper -- that was NOT hit by a plane -- yet it fell into its footprint just like a controlled demolition.

Well, when something quacks, waddles and looks like a duck...chances are it is.

Why is it people won't take the time to gather facts and reference but will swallow some blog, website conspiracy theory without a second look?

denver5459

08-07-2006, 05:14 PM

Here is my question if the government had a hand in 9-11, why go to all the trouble to train 20 terrorists to fly a airplane, get them all to hijack the planes and fly the planes into the WTC and in doing this committ suicide??

When they could have made it much easier to just "blow up the buildings" and forget all about the airplane hijacking. Then the govenrment could have said the terrorists put bombs in the WTC and blew them up following the same plan as the 1993 WTC bombing. Instead they came up with this elaborate scheme of hijacking planes and then wiring the buildings with explosives to blow up at the same time the planes crashed into the buildings. Although no one has ever said that they saw explosives wired all over the buildings. Didn't the WTC have security with cameras throughout the building but no one ever saw any suspicious activity??

The other question I have is deals with the Pentagon why if the government was somehow able to get the WTC to collapse did they not do the same to the Pentagon instead it was just damage to the one side caused by one airplane (or was it a missle LOL)?? Why was that not wired up with explosives to collapse the same time the plane hit??

Or could it be that what happened is what we already know. 20 Muslim terrorists hijacked 4 planes and flew them into the WTC and Pentagon and this is what caused the buildings to collapse. Humm that seems to make a little more sense.

RMT

08-07-2006, 05:18 PM

The official story does not stand up to scrutiny. Recently a BYU physics professor showed that the free fall of the twin towers violated the laws of physics. His conclusion: explosive charges brought down the buildings, probably phosphorus bombs to cut through the steel. That's probably why they found pools of molten steel in the basement. That would also explain the many reports by firemen, who heard the bombs going off. But of course the 911 commission never bothered to investigate this.

Don't take my word for it, check it out:

http://www.physics911.net/

Unbelieveable ... I wonder if the 1/3 of the public that buys into this crap are the same ones with subscriptions to The Enquirer.

spdirty

08-07-2006, 07:20 PM

One-third see U.S. hand in 9/11

And, on a regional level, wasn't there a Zogby poll awhile ago that found more than half of New Yorkers believed Team Smirk & Snarl had foreknowledge of the attacks and/or were somehow complicit?
Do you believe that the Bush administration had foreknowledge of the attacks and/or were somehow complicit?

Just a yes or no will do.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

08-07-2006, 10:06 PM

Do you believe that the Bush administration had foreknowledge of the attacks and/or were somehow complicit?

Just a yes or no will do.

It's already indisputable that the bush junta had foreknowledge.

Does intentionally sitting on your ass and allowing the attacks to happen for political gain qualify as 'complicity?'

I'd say so.

alkemical

08-08-2006, 07:33 AM

My on response to those that completley buy everything they are told by the gov't.

Look up Operation Northwoods (i believe).

defenseman

08-08-2006, 08:33 AM

My on response to those that completley buy everything they are told by the gov't.

Look up Operation Northwoods (i believe).

My on response to those that completley buy everything they are told by the liberal press and conspiracy theorists is get a life. Your wasting your time and definitely your life...dman

alkemical

08-08-2006, 08:36 AM

My on response to those that completley buy everything they are told by the liberal press and conspiracy theorists is get a life. Your wasting your time and definitely your life...dman

Deflection Dman.

So the us military planned on staging an attack on florida - blaming it on cuba - so they can invade (during kennedy's term)

Not liberal media spin - FACT -

W*GS

08-08-2006, 08:49 AM

It's already indisputable that the bush junta had foreknowledge.

I dispute this assertion. What proof do you have of "foreknowledge"? The 6 August memo? Why does that prove foreknowledge, and, do you have anything else?

And before you call me a "Kool-Aid drinker" or say that I'm "kneeling and bobbing for BushCo", drop that nonsense and make your case.

Does intentionally sitting on your ass and allowing the attacks to happen for political gain qualify as 'complicity?'

I'd say so.

You would.

defenseman

08-08-2006, 08:55 AM

I dispute this assertion. What proof do you have of "foreknowledge"? The 6 August memo? Why does that prove foreknowledge, and, do you have anything else?
Agreed. The memo was a far cry from incriminating..
And before you call me a "Kool-Aid drinker" or say that I'm "kneeling and bobbing for BushCo", drop that nonsense and make your case.

You would.

Well, I don't know about that. I don't think any of us would have let this go ahead and happen with prior knowledge of it occuring. I know I would not have..dman

Rohirrim

08-08-2006, 09:37 AM

1/3 of Americans still support Bush.

We live in weird times.

Bronco_Beerslug

08-08-2006, 10:12 AM

Do you believe that the Bush administration had foreknowledge of the attacks and/or were somehow complicit?

Just a yes or no will do.
No it won't as it's a little more complicated than that.

Did they have any warning that attacks might happen on American soil, absolutely! Were they complicit, possibly but ignorance and arrogance are more likely.
Did the intelligence community arrogance contribute to NOT preventing the attacks, absolutely!

W*GS

08-08-2006, 10:21 AM

Did they have any warning that attacks might happen on American soil, absolutely! Were they complicit, possibly but ignorance and arrogance are more likely.
Did the intelligence community arrogance contribute to NOT preventing the attacks, absolutely!

I wouldn't use "arrogance" to describe the intelligence community's mindset.

There's a limit to what satellites and so forth can provide in terms of data - which is a long ways from information and further still from knowledge. One of the bigger failures is a near-total lack of good human intelligence, i.e., a mole inside al-Qaeda. The reasons for that go back a long ways...

That said, bureaucratic infighting and probably-misinterpreted rules and regulations had an impact.

One of the issues I have with the "Bush was complicit and had foreknowlege" crowd is their refusal to recognize they're using 20/20 hindsight, to a large extent. Now that we know what happened on 9/11, the information in our possession beforehand makes a lot more sense. I just wonder if people realize just how difficult it is to properly interpret, and act on, the literally endless bits of data that are received daily by the intelligence community.

Am I excusing their failures? No - but given thousands and thousands of "dots", connecting them to see the bigger picture is a very nontrivial exercise!

Rohirrim

08-08-2006, 10:41 AM

(from The New Yorker)
Missed Opportunities
Issue of 2006-07-10
Posted 2006-07-03

This week in the magazine, Lawrence Wright tells, for the first time, the story of the F.B.I. agent who had the best chance of foiling the 9/11 plot. Here, with Amy Davidson, Wright talks about how turf wars with the C.I.A. got in the way. Wright’s book “The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11” will be published by Knopf in August.

AMY DAVIDSON: The question your article asks is whether the C.I.A. stopped an F.B.I. agent from preventing 9/11. Let’s start with the F.B.I. agent. Who was he, and why was he remarkable?

LAWRENCE WRIGHT: On 9/11, Ali Soufan, an Arab-American F.B.I. agent, was one of only eight agents in the F.B.I. who spoke Arabic, and the only one in New York City. He was absolutely invaluable to the bureau because of his skills, his innate talent, and his relentless nature. At the age of twenty-nine, he was appointed the chief agent in charge of investigating the attack on the U.S.S. Cole, in the harbor of Aden, Yemen, which killed seventeen American soldiers in October of 2000.

That was an Al Qaeda attack as well?

As it turned out—Soufan’s investigation proved that it was.

What could he have done to stop Osama bin Laden from attacking the World Trade Center?

People who were involved in the planning of the Cole bombing were connected to the people who planned 9/11. There was a meeting in Malaysia in January, 2000, where at least two of the 9/11 hijackers and the mastermind behind the Cole bombing, a man named Khallad, met with other Al Qaeda operatives. After that meeting, two of the hijackers flew to the United States and settled in San Diego. The C.I.A. knew about the meeting; the agency had had it monitored by Malaysia’s secret service, Special Branch, which took surveillance photos and sent them to the C.I.A. So the agency had in its file pictures of Khallad and of people who turned out to be among the hijackers. Had the C.I.A. told Soufan what it knew about the meeting, he might have uncovered the plot.

The C.I.A. knew that Soufan had an interest in this information?

Yes. He specifically asked the C.I.A. three times for information about the Cole bombers and their meetings in Malaysia and Southeast Asia—information that the C.I.A. had and knew was relevant to his Cole investigation but did not turn over to him.

Now, assuming that it wasn’t sheer ill will on the C.I.A.’s part, why would it withhold that information?

Well, there are various theories. One is that the C.I.A. simply wanted to hang on to the information for itself. The agency was afraid of disclosing something to the F.B.I. that would then come out in a trial. Once intelligence is made public, it’s no longer useful to the agency. There are people in the F.B.I. who believed that the C.I.A. had hoped to recruit, as informers, the two Al Qaeda cell members who arrived in America in 2000. It had nobody inside the Al Qaeda organization, and here were two members of the inner circle, in America. I think the most likely answer to your question is that the problem was a mix of personality clashes and the C.I.A. being overwhelmed by the number of threats that were coming in at that time.

In the article, you mention a policy that people referred to as “the Wall.” What was that?

The Wall stemmed from a 1995 law that sought to keep from criminal investigators information that was deemed to be relevant solely to foreign intelligence. It was originally designed to prevent such information from flowing out of the intelligence division of the F.B.I. into the hands of criminal prosecutors and into trials. But the bureau misinterpreted the law and used it to force its agents to withhold information from one another—even agents who were on the same squad. So if you have a criminal agent and an intelligence agent on the same squad, investigating the same crimes, one cannot disclose to the other what he knows.

Were there reasons for that divide? For instance, there’s a different standard for wiretapping suspects with links to terrorist organizations. Was there a concern that if the F.B.I. could use intelligence information in criminal investigations this would create a loophole that would allow it to evade civil-rights protections?

That’s exactly correct. There’s a different standard, a lower one, for obtaining wiretap information on foreign intelligence, and there was a fear in the Justice Department that F.B.I. agents would be tempted to label cases as being related to foreign intelligence rather than as criminal cases because it would be far easier to gain permission to surveil suspects. So the Justice Department erected the Wall. And the arbiter of what could be “thrown over the Wall,” in the bureaucratic parlance of the bureau, was the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, which was passed in 1978.

You said that the F.B.I. misinterpreted the Wall, and so did the C.I.A. Was it a good idea that was misused and misunderstood, or was the whole idea a mistake?

I think it was a terrible idea from the beginning. Criminal agents and intelligence agents have always worked together. For instance, after the 1993World Trade Center bombing, there was a subsequent plot by Islamic extremists in New York to destroy the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels and landmark buildings in the city, and it was intelligence wiretaps that uncovered the plan and the involvement of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. The wiretaps produced evidence that was used to convict the Sheikh in court. Had it not been for the free flow of information between the two halves of the bureau, it’s inconceivable that he could ever have been put on trial.
At the same time, the Justice Department never meant the Wall to be the phenomenon that it became. It was designed so that intelligence would be carefully monitored and not arbitrarily wind up in criminal prosecutions. No one intended the Wall to become an artificial device that restricted the flow of information to agents who badly needed access to certain kinds of intelligence. I should also mention that the Wall has now come down.

How did Soufan react when he realized what had happened—when he learned that the C.I.A. had this information?

Soufan finally received the information he’d been asking for on September 12, 2001. He was given the information in a manila envelope by the chief of the C.I.A. station in Yemen. And when he received the account of the Malaysia meeting, which he had been requesting for a year and a half, and saw that the agency had known for twenty months that the agents of Al Qaeda were in America, he ran into the bathroom and retched.

We’ve heard about the warnings that went unheeded before 9/11, and the famous Presidential daily intelligence briefing with the headline “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the U.S.” Do you think that a warning from Soufan would have been received differently? Or do you think it would have been lost in what we’ve come to call the “chatter” of missed signals before 9/11?

It might have been yet another failure on the part of the bureau. There’s no question that it had other opportunities, but none was as striking as this one. These were two Al Qaeda operatives inside America more than a year and a half before 9/11. Now, it’s conceivable, as one agent told me, that we might have followed them right up to the point where they got on the plane. But because of the connection of these two hijackers, Khaled al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, to bin Laden, and because there was already an indictment of bin Laden, the bureau had the authority to do what is called a full-field investigation on these men. That means that it had the authority to wiretap, to surveil them, to clone their computer hard drives—every single thing you can imagine, it had the authority to do. It could have easily disrupted the cell, at least, if not exposed the entire 9/11 plot. It was certainly its best opportunity, one that it wasn’t given.

Zacarias Moussaoui was recently shown to have done what you say the C.I.A. did: withholding information from the F.B.I. that might have allowed it to uncover the 9/11 plot. What do you think of his prosecution, in light of your reporting on this story?

It is a mystery to me that people in the C.I.A. have not been held accountable. The office of the inspector general in the Justice Department did two internal investigations, one of the F.B.I. and one of the C.I.A. The report on the F.B.I. was declassified and released to the public, and the F.B.I. took a lot of heat for the revelations about its pre-9/11 missteps. The report on the C.I.A. has not been released to the public. I believe that the story of Ali Soufan is part of what is in that report. I’d like to see it made public, so the full story can be told.

In your article, you describe Soufan’s interrogation techniques. He engaged the suspects; he won their respect; he debated them on theological issues. In interrogations he carried out just after 9/11, these techniques worked very well; he got crucial information about the hijackers and their connections. His methods were very different from the “extreme measures” that we’ve been hearing about—waterboarding, sleep deprivation, humiliation—and that are being justified on the grounds that they’re the only way to get this kind of information. Have we been given a false choice between abusing prisoners or letting something terrible happen?

Ali Soufan has shown that intelligent and careful interrogation can achieve real results. And it helps immensely, obviously, to have the language and cultural skills that he does. There are very few people in the American intelligence community that have his set of talents. The U.S. is known to have used these sorts of tactics. You mention the C.I.A.’s impulse has been to deliver Al Qaeda suspects to foreign intelligence agencies that could torture them and extract information the C.I.A. thought it couldn’t otherwise obtain. However, what this abuse has yielded from the top Al Qaeda lieutenants is questionable. And I think that’s because it’s untrustworthy information obtained under torture.

So the problem with torture isn’t just that it’s torture— that it compromises America ethically, morally—but that torture doesn’t always work.

It doesn’t work. It often is misleading, as in the case of Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, an Al Qaeda lieutenant who was tortured into saying that Saddam Hussein worked with Al Qaeda and had weapons of mass destruction. That was the information that the U.S. was trying to get out of him, and he gave it to the interrogators under torture, and that became part of the rationale for the U.S. going to war with Iraq—a disastrous consequence of choosing an unethical approach to gaining information.

You mentioned that Soufan was the only Arabic-speaking F.B.I. agent in New York, and one of only eight in the country. Why was that? This is a country of immigrants—there must be a large pool of native speakers to draw on.

There is a large pool, but, unfortunately, the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. are very narrow cultures. The F.B.I., especially in the hierarchy, is made up largely of Irish and Italian men. You go to the seventh floor of the F.B.I. and you feel like you’ve walked back in time. It’s like being in a Cagney movie. And it was a real failure on their part not to have expanded to incorporate more American faces.

Soufan was spotted by a legendary F.B.I. official named John O’Neill, as you’ve mentioned. You wrote about O’Neill for The New Yorker in 2002. Who was he and how does he fit into this story?

John O’Neill was the head of the counterterrorism center in the New York office of the F.B.I. It became the nexus of America’s efforts to counter Al Qaeda. O’Neill was one of the first in the bureau to recognize the danger that Al Qaeda posed. And, through the force of his amazing personality, he made New York the center of America’s efforts to stop bin Laden. Early on, he recognized the talent that Ali Soufan brought to the table, and he drafted him to the I-49 squad in New York, which was devoted largely to stopping Al Qaeda. Under O’Neill, the New York squad was able to obtain the information that led to several successful terrorism convictions.

But, on 9/11, John O’Neill was no longer with the F.B.I.

In the summer of 2001, there was a damaging leak in the New York Times that exposed the fact that John O’Neill had taken classified information out of the bureau to an F.B.I. pre-retirement conference in Florida. His briefcase was stolen. It was discovered within hours and the information had not been touched, but because of this revelation he decided to retire. And he took a job as the head of security at the World Trade Center. He died on 9/11.

This week’s story is taken from your forthcoming book, “The Looming Tower.” There’s a lot in your book, of course, that’s not in your article.

That’s true. This is just a portion of a vast saga, beginning in 1948, with the arrival of Sayyid Qutb in America, and ending shortly after 9/11. It’s a story of the terrorists and the counter-terrorists, of two cultures in collision. It’s told equally from each side. Much of it has to do with the rise of radical Islam and our failed efforts to counter it. It’s told through the lives of four individuals: Osama bin Laden; Ayman al-Zawahiri, his deputy; Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former head of Saudi intelligence; and John O’Neill.

Bronco_Beerslug

08-08-2006, 10:52 AM

I wouldn't use "arrogance" to describe the intelligence community's mindset.

There's a limit to what satellites and so forth can provide in terms of data - which is a long ways from information and further still from knowledge. One of the bigger failures is a near-total lack of good human intelligence, i.e., a mole inside al-Qaeda. The reasons for that go back a long ways...

That said, bureaucratic infighting and probably-misinterpreted rules and regulations had an impact.

One of the issues I have with the "Bush was complicit and had foreknowlege" crowd is their refusal to recognize they're using 20/20 hindsight, to a large extent. Now that we know what happened on 9/11, the information in our possession beforehand makes a lot more sense. I just wonder if people realize just how difficult it is to properly interpret, and act on, the literally endless bits of data that are received daily by the intelligence community.

Am I excusing their failures? No - but given thousands and thousands of "dots", connecting them to see the bigger picture is a very nontrivial exercise!

I think arrogance is good term to describe the non-working relationship between the major intelligence gathering agencies in this country, each believing they are more important and relevant than the other.

This warning is a good example...

"Portions of the intelligence report dealing with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network and dated August 6, 2001, have been redacted for national security reasons, the White House said.

"The memo, titled 'Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States,' had been described by the White House as a largely historical document with scant information about domestic al Qaeda threats.

"The memo includes intelligence on al Qaeda threats as recent as three months before the attacks.

"Much of the intelligence was uncorroborated, and nothing in the memo points directly to the September 11 attacks.

"Highlights of the report include:

* An intelligence report received in May 2001 indicating that al Qaeda was trying to send operatives to the United States through Canada to carry out an attack using explosives. That information had been passed on to intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
* An allegation that al Qaeda had been considering ways to hijack American planes to win the release of operatives who had been arrested in 1998 and 1999.
* An allegation that bin Laden was set on striking the United States as early as 1997 and through early 2001.
* Intelligence suggesting that suspected al Qaeda operatives were traveling to and from the United States, were U.S. citizens, and may have had a support network in the country.
* A report that at least 70 FBI investigations were under way in 2001 regarding possible al Qaeda cells/terrorist-related operations in the United States.

http://tinyurl.com/qaolc

W*GS

08-10-2006, 09:38 PM

Another severe problem with the demolition conspiracy theory:

http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2006/08/911-conspiracy-theory.html