I found the problem of 9/11 unbelievers !

reply to post by C-JEAN

That makes so much sense! In their minds they KNOW it is real. But, they try to convince themselves that it is all fake. They don't need to be told to visit sites about it or talk to survivors. Chances are they have. They believe it.

Really we where only attack once, and that was on 911,

Achille Lauro
Beirut Barracks
TWA 847
Pan Am 103
US Embassy in Teheran
The 2 Embassies in Africa
USS Deyo (oh wait, we stopped that attack before they had a chance to hit us)
All the hostages taken in Beirut
USS Cole
There are a few more I could list, but you should get the point by now...

Either you have the memory recall of a goldfish, or you are a teenager whose history teachers have failed....with the exception of the USS Deyo, I will excuse you from knowing about that one because it was never publicized.

So, as I said, over 30 years of attacks/attempted attacks by Muslim extremists.

furthmore, your information that you read on those 911 debunking sites, which contain nothing but yellow journalism, and disinformation which has no place in my research, or my beliefs. Your lousy attempt to say Muslim extremist did 911 is a laughable joke it has already been proven that none of these highjackers where Muslim, infact they didn’t come from the country that WE attack for doing 911, and that is a fact. This goes to show that you have not done much research on the subject of 911, had you done just a little bite of research, then you would have not made such a ridiculous statement.

I understand that you do not like to accept the truth. Not sure why that is, but..okay.

Now on to the Muslim issue...if your statement wasnt so sad, I would laugh. All 19 of the hijackers were Muslim. All 19 came from Muslim countries. And the ludicrous statement about "they didnt come from a country we attacked for doing 911" is a sad commentary on the ignorance so many posess. We attacked Afghanistan because they were sheltering OBL, we attacked Iraq, because of its continued support of terrorists. IF you remember what the President said in any of his speeches the two weeks after 9/11, you would realize he said that if you supported terrorists that meant to do us harm....we were coming after you. He never once said we were limiting the war on terrorism to taking care of those behind 9/11.

I will refrain from pointing out that the intelligence agencies of at least three different countries to this day, insist that the Iraqi government met with Al Qaeda reps on several different occasions and that the Iraqi government provided diplomatic credentials for Al Qaeda terrorists. Because your hatred runs so deep you will never accept the facts.

Originally posted by Achorwrath

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by C-JEAN
For those who did not like our first post's "ground zero" photo?
here are more photos, where we see the obvious 45 degree cuts on columns:

911research.wtc7.net...
45* cuts 10 to 20 feet above ground !

911research.wtc7.net...
3 photos down.

www.amny.com...
Photo #6.
I guess the rescuers did not know they should have HIDDEN this one ? B-)

old.911digitalarchive.org...
2 or 3 of them.

The date is shown on some of them, but is not mandatory.
Nobody cuts steel at 45 degrees ! It makes the cut 1.4 times longer !

All found with:
us2.ixquick.com...
My key-words = ["ground zero" photos ]

EDIT to fix links.

Blue skies.

[edit on 2009/3/1 by C-JEAN]

QFT

I can't scientifically prove every aspect of the conspiracy...

but science does tell us that the official story is physically impossible.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by Jezus]

You obviously missed all of the posts showing why you cut like that and how.

next time you go out and cut a tree please cut horizontal to the ground.

Look up thermal Lance and Plasm Torch, then by all means please read what is required to get a building ready for controlled demo

you can choose a ton of companies that do it and check their work logs. by the time they are ready to demolished they would not be able to be occupied as they are structuraly unsound.

But please over look Physics, Construction Engineering, Explosives Science, everything.

You see what you want to see. Not what is there.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

Science is not believed it is observed.

Ok, thanks for that post... and how does that challenge or opose anything I have provided as evidence?

It seems that whenever anyone provides coherent evidence or information all many of the people in this thread can do is attack them or post innocous quotes that have nothing to do with the matter at hand.

I mean come on, I have been given links to the number of people that support that there is something fishy with 9/11 and a link to "how to see a Dissinformation Agent" but other than one or two people no one has challenged the actual data/information/theory I have posutlated.

I like a debate;

I have found that in many other threads here; but this one has been nothing but insults from most posters and very little counter arguments.

To the mods and admins if this is off base I apologize..

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Really we where only attack once, and that was on 911,

Achille Lauro
Beirut Barracks
TWA 847
Pan Am 103
US Embassy in Teheran
The 2 Embassies in Africa
USS Deyo (oh wait, we stopped that attack before they had a chance to hit us)
All the hostages taken in Beirut
USS Cole
There are a few more I could list, but you should get the point by now...

Either you have the memory recall of a goldfish, or you are a teenager whose history teachers have failed....with the exception of the USS Deyo, I will excuse you from knowing about that one because it was never publicized.

So, as I said, over 30 years of attacks/attempted attacks by Muslim extremists.

You missed one.

USS Liberty.

A false-flag attack perpetrated by none-other-than "our friends" Israel.

Oh, btw, did I mention it was a false-flag operation? Meaning that Israel attacked us on the assumption that the US would think that the Arabs did it.

Hmmm...I wonder how many more false-flag operations Israel has perpetrated in it's existence?

[edit on 3/16/2009 by Griff]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
We attacked Afghanistan because they were sheltering OBL,

And yet, OBL is STILL not wanted for 9/11?

we attacked Iraq, because of its continued support of terrorists.

For someone with a limited amount of memory, you should not chastize others for theirs.

We went to Iraq because they had Weapons of Mass Destruction....remember?

IF you remember what the President said in any of his speeches the two weeks after 9/11, you would realize he said that if you supported terrorists that meant to do us harm....we were coming after you.

Hmm...yet the known supporters for 9/11 (Saudi Arabia) is still our friend? And even the Prince gets a kiss on the lips from our President.

He never once said we were limiting the war on terrorism to taking care of those behind 9/11.

I wonder why?

I will refrain from pointing out that the intelligence agencies of at least three different countries to this day, insist that the Iraqi government met with Al Qaeda reps on several different occasions and that the Iraqi government provided diplomatic credentials for Al Qaeda terrorists.

And I know that Saddam being Secular, Al-Qaeda hated him too.

Because your hatred runs so deep you will never accept the facts.

Right back at ya.

[edit on 16/3/2009 by Sauron]

reply to post by Griff


AH yes, another world heard from.

And yet, OBL is STILL not wanted for 9/11?

LOL. This one always makes me chuckle. First, he is already wanted for terrorist acts committed against the United States. Second, if he is ever formally arraigned in a US Court, pretty sure thats when you would see charges involving 9/11. Third, the US military doesnt give a rats behind about criminal charges. Although this is always a nice way to divert a discussion.

For someone with a limited amount of memory, you should not chastize others for theirs

Hate to break this to you, I still have plenty of memory in the ol brain pan. However, if you want to get technical about it, we went into Iraq because of Saddam's support of terrorism and the concern that he would give WMDs to terrorist groups.

Hmm...yet the known supporters for 9/11 (Saudi Arabia) is still our friend? And even the Prince gets a kiss on the lips from our President.

The King of Saudi Arabia supported the 9/11 terrorists? When? How? Show some bonafide evidence. Oh wait, the King of Saudi Arabia is the one that ordered quite a few Saudis to be taken into custody for interrogation over possible Al Qaeda connections.

And I know that Saddam being Secular, Al-Qaeda hated him too.

Really? I guess thats why Abdul Yassin was a member of Saddam's fedayeen with officer rank. I guess thats why other Al Qaeda members had Iraq diplomatic passports. I guess thats why Mohammed Atta was at Salmon Pak to meet with Abu Nidal.......cause Al Qaeda hated Saddam Hussein.

Right back at ya.

Hmm...I post something, Wonderwoman jumps my case, so I return the favor to her...and then Griff decides to jump in.........

[edit on 16-3-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
LOL. This one always makes me chuckle. First, he is already wanted for terrorist acts committed against the United States.

So, the first couple months (9) of Mr. Bush's presidency, we didn't see fit to go into Afghanistan until 9/11? I would think 9/11 would the "catalist" that took us there. No?

Second, if he is ever formally arraigned in a US Court, pretty sure thats when you would see charges involving 9/11.

Really? I thought Shiek Shammalama-ding-dong was the"master-mind". How can there be 2 "master-minds"?

Third, the US military doesnt give a rats behind about criminal charges. Although this is always a nice way to divert a discussion.

So, why didn't the military just shoot Saddam then and say it was "self-defense"?

However, if you want to get technical about it, we went into Iraq because of Saddam's support of terrorism and the concern that he would give WMDs to terrorist groups.

Ah. So, it wasn't because he had them and was supposedly hiding them from the UN inspectors? We went to war because of what he "might" do?

You "might" shyte your pants someday. Does that mean I should shove a colostomy bag up your ass now then?

The King of Saudi Arabia supported the 9/11 terrorists? When? How? Show some bonafide evidence. Oh wait, the King of Saudi Arabia is the one that ordered quite a few Saudis to be taken into custody for interrogation over possible Al Qaeda connections.

The War in Afghanistan, which began on October 7, 2001 as the U.S. military operation Operation Enduring Freedom, was launched by the United States with the United Kingdom in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The stated purpose of the invasion was to capture Osama bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbor to al-Qaeda. The United States' Bush Doctrine stated that, as policy, it would not distinguish between al-Qaeda and nations that harbor them.

en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%93present)

The September 11, 2001 attacks fueled criticisms within the United States of
alleged Saudi involvement in terrorism or of Saudi laxity in acting against terrorist
groups. Of particular concern have been reports that funds may be flowing from
Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries to terrorist groups, largely under the
guise of charitable contributions. Critics of Saudi policies have cited a number of
reports that the Saudi government has permitted or encouraged fund raising in Saudi
Arabia by charitable Islamic groups and foundations linked to Osama bin Laden’s Al
Qaeda organization or like-minded entities.

"CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Order Code RL32499
Saudi Arabia: Terrorist Financing Issues"

www.fas.org...

Yes, Saudi Arabia is the jewel of the Arab world.

Really? I guess thats why Abdul Yassin was a member of Saddam's fedayeen with officer rank. I guess thats why other Al Qaeda members had Iraq diplomatic passports. I guess thats why Mohammed Atta was at Salmon Pak to meet with Abu Nidal.......cause Al Qaeda hated Saddam Hussein.

Can you site sources for this information? Or was it obtained through waterboarding?

Hmm...I post something, Wonderwoman jumps my case, so I return the favor to her...and then Griff decides to jump in.........

That's what public forum means.

[edit on 3/16/2009 by Griff]

Morning all,
I have to throw this in about one source sited by Griff,

Fars.org is owned by Rober Bricker,

Source

Although it appears (I have not looked over the entire site) to be on the up and up many of the documents I saw were all slanted against the Bush goverenment.

Also, reading through that linked docuement they do not present any real trail of money and are very carefull to use words like Allegation, Alleged, Possible, Belived.

These all point to this being a theory based on no hard evidence.

I would like to point out that the same can be said for any country (with regard to terrorist funding through private channels)

It was long known that the IRA recieved money from the US through fake charitable organizations. The same can be said for the Red Army Brigade, Action Directe and many many others.

Was the money sent from private funds done so knowingly? Possibly, but it would not appear that the government had a direct hand in it, even that paper only says that the Saudi Government should be faulted for not doing more to stop the private funding.

So, the first couple months (9) of Mr. Bush's presidency, we didn't see fit to go into Afghanistan until 9/11? I would think 9/11 would the "catalist" that took us there. No?

For the first seven months and twenty or so days, terrorism was still being dealt with as a law enforcement matter, not a military one....and you question MY memory?

Really? I thought Shiek Shammalama-ding-dong was the"master-mind". How can there be 2 "master-minds"?

Khaled Sheikh Mohammed was the "operations" officer. Osama is the "commanding" officer. Does that suffice as an explanation?

So, why didn't the military just shoot Saddam then and say it was "self-defense"?

I sure hope being a comedian isnt your day or night job.

Ah. So, it wasn't because he had them and was supposedly hiding them from the UN inspectors? We went to war because of what he "might" do?

First I get in trouble with the mods for posting "book length" answers...then I try the "cliff notes" for people like Griff and I confuse him appearently. Rather than list the several reasons why we went into Iraq, I will just go straight to the second question, and the answer is Yes. We were no longer going to risk him giving WMDs to terrorists.

You "might" shyte your pants someday. Does that mean I should shove a colostomy bag up your ass now then?

Hmm forum tough guy appearently.....Dont confuse your possible future health issues with terrorism and concerns over terrorism. That doesnt even rank as apples and oranges....

Can you site sources for this information? Or was it obtained through waterboarding?

I do not recall ABC, NBC, CNN using waterboarding..........of course with the memory recall shown by most....I understand why you wouldnt remember those stories.

www.ae911truth.org...

I suppose this group of over a thousand highly respected professionals are just a bunch of cooks, eh?

A quote fitting for the coincidence theorists-

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels

reply to post by C-JEAN


Hi again, good and nice persons.

Here is another "logic", to explain the WTC 1 & 2 non sens:

www.youtube.com...

Blue skies.

Originally posted by C-JEAN
reply to post by C-JEAN

 

Hi again, good and nice persons.

Here is another "logic", to explain the WTC 1 & 2 non sens:

www.youtube.com...

Blue skies.

That video is a joke, you are not talking about solid objects like the frame of a car or a bus...

And just to be clear it is more likely that the bus would move out of the way than the bug bounce off.

The bug being dropped in his video wants to remain in motion (Newton's First Law) The bus will resist the Bug's attempt to move it since it will not compact it will move out of the way (the path of least resistance) while the bug will try to maintain its downward path.

For the WTC the upper 17 floors wieghed X they impacted, not the whole building as the person attempts to claim, but each sucessive floor, one at a time, each one attempting to slow down the upper floors (the body in motion) these lower floors would move out of the way, as the two objects have the same area they floors would drop continuing in the same path along with the upper floors (as there is little chance of defelction) adding more mass and wieght to X after the first resisting floor the mass/wieght is now (X+Y) with te next floor it becomes (X+2Y) and so on.

Yes this is an over simplification but the math is still valid.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Achorwrath]

but science does tell us that the official story is physically impossible.

That statement is 100% false. Actually, the tower impacts have been studied a great length to find out how damage like that can be mitigated in future buildings. The math and science of structural engineering is so well understood that car crash tests can be accurately simulated with 3D computer models.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
For the first seven months and twenty or so days, terrorism was still being dealt with as a law enforcement matter, not a military one....and you question MY memory?

So, you are saying that 9/11 wasn't the catalyst to go to war in Afghanistan?

Please swamp, you're making a fool of yourself.

Khaled Sheikh Mohammed was the "operations" officer. Osama is the "commanding" officer. Does that suffice as an explanation?

Then why isn't he wanted for it?

I sure hope being a comedian isnt your day or night job.

Nice come back.

You are the one who said:

Third, the US military doesnt give a rats behind about criminal charges.

Maybe you should stop inhaling all those military jet fumes? Your memory is slipping.

First I get in trouble with the mods for posting "book length" answers...then I try the "cliff notes" for people like Griff and I confuse him appearently. Rather than list the several reasons why we went into Iraq, I will just go straight to the second question, and the answer is Yes. We were no longer going to risk him giving WMDs to terrorists.

So that whole thing with Colin Powel was just a charade then?

BTW, did we ever find Saddam's WMDs that we knew he had and was going to give to Osama?

And if you say he snuck them into Sudan or any other country, you are admitting that we failed in this mission of stopping him from giving them to terrorists. Correct?

Hmm forum tough guy appearently.....Dont confuse your possible future health issues with terrorism and concerns over terrorism. That doesnt even rank as apples and oranges....

Actually, I thought it was rather funny. Sorry to have hurt your feelings.

I do not recall ABC, NBC, CNN using waterboarding..........of course with the memory recall shown by most....I understand why you wouldnt remember those stories.

So, ABC, NBC and CNN went to Iraq and found documentation that this all happened? Or is it more like they got their information from the FBI who got their information from waterboarding Iraqi prisoners?

If it's the first, can you back it up with original documentation please?

[edit on 3/18/2009 by Griff]

Originally posted by fcsuper

but science does tell us that the official story is physically impossible.

Actually, the tower impacts have been studied a great length

True, and those who have truly studied have found that the official story is a physical impossibility.

Engineers say official story of WTC 911 collapse is physical impossible

www.agoracosmopolitan.com...

9/11 Truth: What Happened to Building 7

video.google.com...#

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by fcsuper

but science does tell us that the official story is physically impossible.

Actually, the tower impacts have been studied a great length

True, and those who have truly studied have found that the official story is a physical impossibility.

Engineers say official story of WTC 911 collapse is physical impossible

www.agoracosmopolitan.com...

9/11 Truth: What Happened to Building 7

video.google.com...#

Tiny problem with your link...
The first one is a story that says Enigneers in the title but then fails to list even a single engineer or engineering company to back up that title.

Next is this

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need...

MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.

Notice they do not say Primary Gravity supports, nor Lateral Sway Supports. They say Stone Facade and Steel Bracing.

if the building was so amazingly structually sound why did they need an addtional 375 Tons of steel welded into place?

We also know that WTC7 was built on a slab only meant to hold a 25 Story Building, and that the Slab was much smaller than the actual building ended up being.

To couner this they used load tranfering braces starting at the fifth floor that transfered the gravity and sway load from the outer cutain wall (mostly of glass) to the internal colums that actually sat on the foundation slab.

so what do we have now? We have a 47 story building on a slab meant for 25, a building too large for the foundation and no coninuous support for the outer curtain wall. sounds like a nice solid building to me..

Then there is the source. Alex Jones's website, The article the reference cannot be fond on there anymore.

for throws how still don't believe go read or see the Watchmen for throws ho how have now the end is so simpler yet riten in 1986 and 1987!!!!
It's scarey how simlere it is to the suguwashin the thery thats being inplyd

sorye it hard to say with out spoling the book but it it relvent to the duskshen

[edit on 24-3-2009 by jackell]