(2) Questions Islam and 911 & Inside Job Theories

Originally posted by dh

You're not a realist Ed Just for a moment you saw a little chink in your armor - the possibility that the supposed terrorists were alive
Buy it for Christ's sake you can move on

No I live in the real world, not on fantasy Island. My Armour is fine, its a spiritual one.

As I said the possibility of having the names wrong for a few is likely, I mean ID theft is rampant and with $500 you can get a whole new US I.D. no telling how easy it is in some third world country..

Just because the names were wrong, doesn't mean its an inside job. The thought is ludicrous.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Atta is not someone that has come forward. However, the FBI has admitted to having no paper trail on Bin Laden/al Qaeda in regards to 9/11. At one point they said they did, and that there was a paper trail linking the two, but they were just to later come back saying they had lied, basically.

Mueller: "In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper -- either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere -- that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot."

Paper trail? Your kidding right? You think these guys are amatures? They are CIA trained (some) , you don't leave paper trails. It grants plausible deniability.

Originally posted by bsbray11
And just out of curiousity, what do you base this on? What the government tells you? Because, you realize that if 9/11 was an inside job, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't bother to tell you about it. That would sort of defeat the whole point.

It seems what's more like it, is that you're not really relying on anything, but what you like to think, ie, you don't really care to argue over it anyway, you'd just rather accept it at face value and move along like all the other sheep in the US, and world for that matter.

No I just don't get caught up in some websites conspiracy theories. There are folks with access to information that you and I can not see and they would not be able to keep this one under the table...trust me, our government is not that good.

Originally posted by bsbray11
This is great, lmao. The reasoning here is, the government couldn't possibly have done this themselves, because if they did, people would find out about it, and yet we're here arguing that they did do this, and we did find out about it!

Maybe you can base your reasoning on why we're such nut-jobs with something a little more objective and less self-defeating?

No we are arguing about it on a conspiracy site, the press would LOVE to come forward with information that does Bush in, they have looked.

Originally posted by ThichHeadedHow does one aquire this said 30 min video of passengers on 911.. Hell for that matter how can the rest of us see it..
Cause in all the videos I have on 9/11 I have never heard about a 30 min video that shows these guys on it.

Its not a video you will be allowed to see neither will I but lets just say I design camera systems (digital) and have installed them. If I know the time, I can look through pretty damn quick and get the information I need, it publically available equipment I might add. You go to the many cameras that are installed at the airport and when you go through checks you are being filmed, don't you remember the picture of Atta going through, one piece of carry on if I remember.

Originally posted by magnito_student
Had they not collapsed 3 skyscrapers(WTC1, 2, and 7) perfectly like controlled demolitions they may have gotten away with the whole operation. Definate overkill yet a majority still follow and believe the Gov 911 Official Report....Educated people that have good jobs even.

Ask any Controlled Demolition engineer how they would collapse a 110 story building and I bet they would tell you not all at one time but in 2 parts. As for the melting steel theory,,,many buildings structured like the WTC towers have burned for 2 days straight and never collapsed.

Well you can thank the environazi's for this one, the asbestos was the best fireproofing material known, still is. if you can keep it from becoming airborne fibrous there is no harm. I walk on it everyday. The material that was used from the 73rd floor on, was not able to handle the heat. The structural beams once they are annealed in the heat will be like jello and well you will have serious problems supporting tons and tons of concrete with your skeleton gone. Just try to stand up with no bones!


Funny you would mention this, as the OKC bombings had the same questions asked and demolition experts said that charges would have had to have been set....there is a conspiracy everywhere these days....I think the Aliens are behind it.

Originally posted by bsbray11


Rather, there's no evidence they were ever much beyond 600 degrees Celsius, which is hardly enough to even make steel glow a dull red. Did we see any steel glowing a dull red, or any color other than a cool gray or black? No. Steel heated to the temps the government claimed would be a very clearly visible, bright orange. On top of that, the type of fires at the WTC complex hardly ever approach the max temps of hydrocarbon fires of about 800 degrees Celsius. So even if those fires had been burning in perfect conditions, how would they have went beyond 800 degrees? The fires' smoke also went black, indicating a poor burn and uncombusted hydrocarbons, which serves to further take heat away from the fire.

In short, saying those pitiful fires brought down any amount of the structure of such huge steel skyscrapers is bs. Saying they could take out a whole steel skyscraper of such size is even more bs. And saying they could do it twice in a row takes the cake. If such puny fires could so cleanly take out a skyscraper, the Windsor Tower would have fallen for sure, as would many other buildings. Hell, the WTC towers themselves would've fallen back in 1975 if it were so damned easy.

Here is a link for you, notice the references ok?


Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation


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. Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse (Figure 4).


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.


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




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






This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 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.





Gee is that enough to anneal steel? yes.



The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building.



A basic engineering assessment of the design of the World Trade Center dispels many of the myths about its collapse. First, the perimeter tube design of the towers protected them from failing upon impact. The outer columns were engineered to stiffen the towers in heavy wind, and they protected the inner core, which held the gravity load. Removal of some of the outer columns alone could not bring the building down. Furthermore, because of the stiffness of the perimeter design, it was impossible for the aircraft impact to topple the building.

However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse.




There is a decent explanation if you just look. And the reference

MIT & Cambridge is a good one.

No I just don't get caught up in some websites conspiracy theories. There are folks with access to information that you and I can not see and they would not be able to keep this one under the table...trust me, our government is not that good.

No we are arguing about it on a conspiracy site, the press would LOVE to come forward with information that does Bush in, they have looked.

Actually, these ideas have been presented in every media format except mainstream TV. There have been lots of videos and non-mainstream TV programs, there are lots of books out on the subject, the host of in-depth websites, and even at least one major, mainstream radio show.

The mainstream TV is owned by the same huge corporations that run the rest of American interests from the top. Now I wonder why they wouldn't present any of this information, despite so many other media sources doing just that?

Here's a thought: why don't we examine the events ourselves? Nothing wrong with self-education, is there? Or do you have to have your info fed to you through your TV before you'll believe it?

Well you can thank the environazi's for this one, the asbestos was the best fireproofing material known, still is. if you can keep it from becoming airborne fibrous there is no harm. I walk on it everyday. The material that was used from the 73rd floor on, was not able to handle the heat. The structural beams once they are annealed in the heat will be like jello and well you will have serious problems supporting tons and tons of concrete with your skeleton gone. Just try to stand up with no bones!

How unfortunate that the lack of fireproofing cannot explain how such low-temperature fires could effect steel.

This is the important thing that those blaming the fireproofing fail to understand: steel itself is extremely resiliant to heat. Fires that didn't even reach 700 degrees could not hurt those skyscrapers. Let alone could they explain away those perfect collapses. This has been done to death in the other WTC threads. You really should do some research.

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.

Less than 15% of either building's perimeter columns were taken out. Further, the South Tower's core columns were just grazed. Both buildings were designed to withstand much worse. As a construction manager of the WTC site once said, planes flying into those buildings would be like sticking pencils into screen netting: it does not effect the overall structure, but just the immediate area. The local steel easily compensates for the lost strength. This is known as "over-engineering," and is done with all skyscrapers for safety reasons.

Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse (Figure 4).

...and which burned up in the first few minutes of either fire. It's no secret jet fuel burns quickly. Further, it will only burn at high temperatures in ideal conditions, which were not met in the WTC complex on 9/11. Like I said, no evidence of any intense fires.

After the jet fuel finished burning, the fires began to feed off of office furnishings, etc., and it goes without saying that these fires were much less intense. They were the fires in the buildings for the remaining amount of time before collapse, producing the darker, blackish smoke coming from the buildings. As stated elsewhere in these forums, dark smoke from a hydrocarbon fire indicates that there is soot; ie, uncombusted hydrocarbons. It means there's a poor burn. Further, black smoke serves to take heat away from a fire because of its high thermal capacity, making the fire even cooler. And, to top it off, there was also less smoke at this time. This alone proves quite conclusively that the fires were weakening before collapse, after never being very intense at all even when burning off of jet fuel in poor burning conditions.

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

There is no proof of floors giving away. This is simply the result of guesswork, or an attempt to provide some kind of reasonable explanation as to how something so unreasonable could possibly happen. The fact that the building fell so fast is another point of concern, as the steel frame of the bottom halves of both buildings should have provided significant resistance to a perfectly vertical fall.

This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 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.

This is nonesense, and here's why:

Earlier on, the smoke coming from the building was light.

For example:



This was taken shortly after the first impact. Of course at this time, there would be plenty of jet fuel available for the fires because the fires had just began. So then why is the smoke light? Because there's little fuel and a lot of fire? Or because the burn is healthy? That's right; it was healthy at this point. There was not too much fuel. The jet fuel was burning at a very healthy pace, and in a matter of minutes, would be depleted.

Later on, when the smoke did turn black, there was also less of it. This is a flat-out poor burn. The poor burn isn't because there's simply too much (jet) fuel for the fires to completely burn, because at this point the jet fuel had long been burnt away, as again, jet fuel does burn quickly and there was a noticeable difference in smoke output around the time the jet fuel would have burned away



Look how little smoke is coming out here, and look how dark it is. This just further confirms what I'm saying. In fact, unless you can provide any evidence otherwise, the evidence here proves that the lighter fires were from a healthy burn, and the darker fires that would occur later, were after the jet fuel had burned away and were from a poor burn from office furnishings.

The only time there was black smoke from an incomplete burn caused by too much fuel, is when all that jet fuel was wasted on either impact. Two huge fireballs emerged upon impact, and apparently those fireballs are your evidence for the state of the fires for the whole damned morning. Doesn't really add up.

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.

The 750-800 degree range would not be enough to bring either tower down. Further, there's really no evidence that the fires were ever even that hot, lol.

The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building.

The fire was spread uniformly across the building? Lol, evidence?

As is common knowledge here, the jet fuel burned away within minutes. It was spread thin, a lot of it was wasted in the initial fireballs, and it burns fast. What more can you expect?

A basic engineering assessment of the design of the World Trade Center dispels many of the myths about its collapse. First, the perimeter tube design of the towers protected them from failing upon impact. The outer columns were engineered to stiffen the towers in heavy wind, and they protected the inner core, which held the gravity load. Removal of some of the outer columns alone could not bring the building down. Furthermore, because of the stiffness of the perimeter design, it was impossible for the aircraft impact to topple the building.

No argument here. Also notice that thus far, this report has stated much which contradcits directly reports by both FEMA and NIST. Specifically, it's figures for the temperatures of the fires is grossly below what the government has suggested.

However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling.

That some columns lost half their strength I won't argue with, but is this really enough to bring down a steel skyscraper? Again, I refer you to the Windsor Tower.

At the WTC, not only were the fires very localized, not presenting a threat at all to the rest of the building, but they also lacked to damage enough columns with enough heat. The Twin Towers were over-engineered just like any other skyscraper, and even some columns losing half their strength would not bring it down. Hell, some columns were knocked out completely! Did that bring it down? No. The WTC had a specific critical load ratio that day, that would've had to have been less than 50% apparently to cause a collapse of the whole building. How does this happen with fires? Answer: it doesn't. Demolition squibs, anyone?

This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse.

This, again, a very unsupported claim. It is the debunker's equivalent of saying a missile hit the Pentagon. It has absolutely no evidence in support of it.

There is a decent explanation if you just look. And the reference

MIT & Cambridge is a good one.

Uh, I wouldn't exactly trust the elite scholarship to inform us of government conspiracies, or more exactly lack thereof, especially considering these are the places most of our leaders come from in the first place.

At any rate, the info you've provided here, besides contradicting government reports, also does not stand up to the evidence that we've thoroughly covered at these forums time and again.

Do you have anything personally to add here, Edsigner, or are you just going to plagiarize articles?

Look I'm no expert on fires or structural integrity of the buildings in question. But there are certain disturbing questions that remain unanswered and worst of all remain ignored by the people in charge. To me the attempt to explain the events of 9/11 by the government have been based on complete inaccurate factual lies. Here is my moron's guide to understanding 911 and if anyone who believes the official government story or the 911 whitewash commission report, please answer the following questions.

I counted 2 planes in NYC. Yet 3 buildings fell. How did 7 fall? Official government response: no comment or no idea.

So Flight 77 hit the pentagon. Okay then can we see the dramatic video footage from the 100s of cameras that monitor every square inch of the Pentagon both inside and outside? What about the gas station across the street or the hotel? What do you mean those tapes are classified? How come we can't see Flight 77 hit the pentagon as they say it did?

Where is the wreckage from Flight 77? How come government officials were cleaning up the area? Isn't it a crime scene?

How come firefighters and eyewitnesses have been silenced from speaking out against official reports. How come people claiming to have seen and heard bombs going off in the buildings are under a gag order?

Why are several of the hijackers reported alive throughout the rest of the world? No wonder America's image has plummeted because the rest of the world can't believe we are stupid enough to believe this crap of a conspiracy.

Why was Norad told to stand down? Why did the FAA say they had a direct line of contact with Norad but Norad says the opposite? Why were there simulatenous exact replica terror drills happening at the exact same time?

How could Arabs who didn't speak English and were AWFUL pilots perform maneuvers that are near impossible for the most expert of pilots, namely the pentagon 180 turn to hit the helicopter landing pad zone?

And most importantely, how come the administration has limited the scope of the investigation and the funding given to the 911 investigation is laughable compared to the tens of millions other investigations received for various stupid issues?

I only ask these questions as a good citizen and patriot of this great nation. I want to believe that what we are doing in Iraq is good for our security. But until the government can answer all my questions and the questions of others and close the book on 911 we cannot let it die.

How did Bin Laden morph into Hussein?

Number of Iraqi hijackers on 911: ZERO
Evidence of Hussein involvement in 911? ZERO
ANY EVIDENCE OF HUSSEIN BEING A THREAT TO THE U.S.: ZERO

Sometimes you gotta kick back and watch some real news:

Here's a fun 2nd term drinking game...chug a beer every time Bush says "contentious but futile protest vote by democrats" and by the time Jeb Bush is elected, you'll be so wasted you won't even care about the war in Syria."
- Jon Stewart

Originally posted by bsbray11

Do you have anything personally to add here, Edsigner, or are you just going to plagiarize articles?

I added my comments, and I posted a link to the information so no plagiarizing here.......

I added my comments, and I posted a link to the information so no plagiarizing here.......

Ah, yeah. I retract my plagiarizing comment then. Apologies.

[edit on 21-7-2005 by bsbray11]

Well, there's this:www.abovetopsecret.com... and lots more that would make one wonder.

Originally posted by edsingerAs a side note, to the Muslim readers, somewhere in the Koran it supposedly says that Mecca will never be destroyed and that if it was that Allah would be proven a false God. I do not think it says that, and I can not find it in my searchs so I think that is propaganda. I would like to know what the readers of the Koran think about that statement.

Is this true? Can anyone confirm that the Koran says anything like this?

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Mohammed Atta's passport was found at Ground Zero, miraculously, unsinged and intact. Imagine the fortuitous path that it took out of the exploding jetliner to turn up as evidence.

Not to mention the manuals on "how to fly an airplane" etc...Sure..

The only way to shift blame for the attacks on America on 9/11 by Arab terrorists is to fabricate some nonsensical theory to show that it was done by the U.S. government, Israel or some green men from the moon. These apologists have another agenda to deal with the simple truth or they are just a real part of the problem.

Muslim fundamentalists are out to distroy anyone and anything that does not agree with or abide by the teachings of the Koran.

Keep putting the blame for these acts on something or someone else until they come to your home and your family and blow it up. Then who will you blame? The truth will look back at you from the mirror.

The only way to shift blame for the attacks on America on 9/11 by Arab terrorists is to fabricate some nonsensical theory to show that it was done by the U.S. government, Israel or some green men from the moon. These apologists have another agenda to deal with the simple truth or they are just a real part of the problem.

Or maybe this stuff is true and you're a part of the problem for believing what they tell you. Ever considered that?

If you think the idea is nonsensical then maybe you can succeed where everyone else on your side fails, and offer a real explanation as to why those two towers fell.

Proof comes from the questioner.

Originally posted by monk84
Proof comes from the questioner.

Bollocks.

The onus of proof at ATS is upon the person that uncovers the evidence.

Otherwise, your contribution is useless.

Merchants of denial, apologists, obfuscators all... when you merely criticize a point of view that you don't like as "crackpot", but you offer nothing tangible in return, then how is it that you see yourself belonging in discussions at a site with the mission that this one espouses?

So can someone answer my question?

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

The most noticeable gaps in the gov't stories...

911research.wtc7.net...

Far better structural descriptions and layouts than Ed S. provided, with commentary and salient questions...

Still looking for the picture of a survivor peering out of impact area in WTC ,which negates theory of huge conflagration and high heat...will also post quote of firemen who reached the impact area stating fires were minimal and easily controllable.

Disinfo toadies abound...

Ah...here we go.

globalresearch.ca.myforums.net...

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by edsingerAs a side note, to the Muslim readers, somewhere in the Koran it supposedly says that Mecca will never be destroyed and that if it was that Allah would be proven a false God. I do not think it says that, and I can not find it in my searchs so I think that is propaganda. I would like to know what the readers of the Koran think about that statement.

Is this true? Can anyone confirm that the Koran says anything like this?

Sounds like a rumor to me, personally.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

And a video to place issues is context.

Originally posted by edsinger

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

I keep meaning to point something out to everyone that uses that picture to back up their claims that there was so much jet fuel that could cause a hot enough burn, blah blah blah... Notice the insane amount of flames coming out of that building? Well that's the jet fuel spraying away from the same building that supposedly had its structural core weakened by an extremely hot and lengthy fire caused by said fuel. If it's all over other buildings and burning people below how can it be burning furiously enough inside the tower for an hour?

And let's think about this now, the architect designed the building to withstand the impact of a 707 and a 767 is not much heavier, nor does it carry much more fuel. Follow the math and figure it out yourself.

www.serendipity.li...

And this doesn't even begin to explain how Tower 2 went down due to extreme heat weakening when most of the plane had only gone through the corner and out the other side. That was a much smaller hit than Tower 1 and not even near the structural core.

Originally posted by edsinger
(1) Supposedly some of the people labeled by the US government as being hijackers on 911 have been reported to be alive and that they did come forward and just the American Press has chose not to mention it.

Can anyone give me PROOF that this is the case?

Nope, there's no proof whatsoever. All these stories originated before the FBI's official list of names + photos appeared, and it looks to me more likely that they just relate to people with similar names. Let's take some examples from the links you were given.

Waleed Alshehri. Supposed to be alive because of a story repeated by the BBC, but what www.welfarestate.com... doesn't tell you is that the hijacker was Waleed M Al Shehri, and the BBC report referred to Waleed A Al Shehri . See en.wikipedia.org... for more on this, including reports of the views of his family, who accept that he and his brother were involved, and are now dead.

Wail Alshehri is supposed to be alive, but that's based on what? A quote that "A man by the same name is a pilot, whose father is a Saudi diplomat in Bombay". He has the same name? That's not proof. Plus, the family of the accused man say he's dead -- sounds more convincing to me.

Mohammed Atta supposed to still be alive, as his father said he spoke to him two days afterwards. Personally I'm not at all surprised if family members of the hijackers want to deny they were involved, but I need more evidence than that.

Abdulaziz Al Omari is still alive according to the BBC story (news.bbc.co.uk...). Trouble is, they have two people claiming to be him, so all this proves is there was confusion over names.

Khalid Al Midhar is supposed to be alive based on quotes like "An FBI notice to banks on Sept. 19 raised the possibility that Almihdhar might still be alive without speculating or explaining how that could be possible. " So that'll be no proof at all, then.

And so it goes on. Salem Al-Hamzi is supposed to be alive according to the Telegraph, even though their man is 26, not 21, and has never been to the US -- so how do we know this is anything other than confusion over names? And the Said al Ghamdi "still alive" claim was down to much the same thing, and has been comprehensively debunked by Der Spiegel (service.spiegel.de...).

Of course, you won't read about any of that on pages like www.welfarestate.com/911 -- they're far more interested in finding conspiracies than finding the truth.

Here's the logic in the above post:


1. There is no proof.

2. Well, there is proof, but I don't like it because it disagrees with me. My opinions are more important than the proof.

3. I can add some contrived facts to my opinions too, and not many of you will notice.


And so it goes, ad infinitum.

[edit on 27-7-2005 by MaskedAvatar]