Originally posted by twitchy
"The Palisades seismic record shows that — as the collapses began — a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth." . . .

But what did create two extreme spikes on the seismic equipment were the circumstances which occurred BEFORE the towers collapsed (www.world-exposed.com...). Yes, you read that correctly – before they crashed to the ground. In fact, in the moments before the South Tower fell at 9:59:04 am, something happened to register a magnitude of 2.1 on Columbia’s seismic equipment. Likewise, moments before the North Tower was brought down, something registered a seismic spike on the magnitude of 2.3 on Columbia’s equipment.

The 'Wall Street Journal' article implicitly supports the official story, that Osama has broken with his family, by telling us, as if it were a fact, that Osama only "worked briefly in the [family] business." This is not true. In an article in preparation, Emperor's Clothes will show that Osama directed the family business in carrying out at least two large projects for the CIA, one in the 1980s and one in the late 1990s, building facilities to be used by terrorists.Moreover, the only pieces of evidence that Osama bin Laden broke with his family are statements by him, his family, and U.S. officials. Since these parties have an interest in convincing the public that the connection was broken, their statements are of scant value. Also, there is evidence to the contrary. In "Body of Secrets," the new book by National Security Agency expert James Bamford, the author cites freedom of information documents revealing that:"[National Security] Agency officials have sometimes played tapes of bin Laden talking to his mother to impress members of Congress and select visitors to the agency." (quoted in 'Baltimore Sun', 24 April 2001)And another article states:"Yossef Bodansky, director of the House Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, said "Osama maintains connections" with some of his nearly two dozen brothers. He would not elaborate." ('San Antonio Express-News,' 14 September 1998)

As a Public Television program reported in 1993:"Scott Armstrong: A $200 billion program that's basically put together and nobody's paying attention to it. It's-- it's the ultimate government off the books...
"Scott Armstrong: The Saudis have been the principal backers and financers of the largest armaments system that the world has ever seen, in any region of the world, that includes over $95 billion worth of weapons that they bought themselves, includes another $65 billion worth of military infrastructure and ports that they've put in. We've managed to create an interlocking system that has one master control base, five sub-control bases, any one of which is capable of operating the whole thing, that are in hardened bunkers, that are hard-wired, that is to say, against nuclear blast or anything else. They created nine major ports that weren't there before, dozens of airfields all over the kingdom. They have now hundreds of modern American fighter planes and the capability of adding hundreds more. The Saudis alone have spent $156 billion that I can document line by line, item by item, on weapons system and infrastructure to support this." (FRONTLINE Show #1112 Air Date: February 16, 1993 "The Arming of Saudi Arabia". Scott Armstrong is a top investigative reporter for the 'Washington Post'](For official PBS WebPage for the show, click here; for the transcript, click here)The contracts for building those bases, ports, and airfields went in part to Saudi construction companies. Osama's family company, Saudi Binladin Group (the name is spelled differently but it's the same family) is intimate with the Saudi royal family; moreover it is the biggest Saudi construction company (and also a giant in the telecommunications field). So as sure as death and taxes, Saudi Binladin Group got a nice chunk of that $200 billion. And while the bin Ladens were building those U.S. bases, who did Osama think was going to be using them? Martians?

Getting back to the matter of construction contracts, consider what happened after the Khobar Towers complex in Dhahran was bombed on June 25, 1996. Osama bin Laden was accused by the U.S. of masterminding that bombing, which killed 19 U.S. airmen and wounded about 500 others. Afterwards, a new 'super-secure' facility was erected:"The facility very likely is the most heavily guarded operational installation used by the US military. This, clearly, is what retired Army Gen. Wayne A. Downing had in mind when in 1996 he released a report criticizing security at Khobar Towers and recommending more extensive force protection measures. "… In a supreme irony, the complex was built by the giant contractor, Saudi Binladin Group -- owned by the same family that produced international terrorist Osama bin Laden, now an outcast in his homeland." ('Air Force Magazine,' February, 1999)'Irony' is not exactly the word I would use, but OK.

And now this report from the BBC that the Bush administration suppressed investigations into connections between members of the bin Laden family and possible terrorist groups.Doesn't all this point to a working relationship between U.S. covert forces and Mr. b. L?"WE ARE DEADLY ENEMIES, SO TAKE THESE 400 TRUCKS, O CURSED ONE!"Earlier I said I doubted the reality of the 'break' between bin Laden and the Saudi Royals. According to the book, "Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia,'' by Ahmed Rashid, who is the Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asian correspondent for the 'Far Eastern Economic Review': "Surprisingly, just a few weeks before the U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa, the book tells us...'In July 1998 Prince Turki had visited Kandahar and a few weeks later 400 new pick-up trucks arrived in Kandahar for the Taliban, still bearing their Dubai license plates.''' (Quoted in 'The creation called Osama,' by Shamsul Islam. Can be read at
emperors-clothes.com... They were all, I am told, Toyotas.

FAMILY FEUDS?One final point. Part of the official Osama story is that the elusive Mr. bin Laden broke with his family because of his extreme Fundamentalist religious-politics.Really?Let us consider a few pieces of information which might suggest we adopt a stance of extreme skepticism:1) "...when Osama bin Laden decided to join the non-Afghan fighters with the Mujaheddin, his family responded enthusiastically." ('Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,' 23 September 2001)2) The entire family is known for its fiercely conservative Islamist (Wahhabi) views: "His father is known in these areas as a man with deeply conservative religious and political views and for his profound distaste for non-Islamic influences that have penetrated some of the most remote corners of old Arabia." UPI, quoted at www.newsmax.com... 2) It is true that families have feuds. In the typical U.S. family, wars may happen. People fight; they make peace.But Osama does not come from a 'typical U.S. family.' He comes from an intensely conservative rural Yemeni clan. Such families don't have petty fights and stop talking to each other for ten years and then make up and it's no big deal: "Though he grew up in the Saudi Arabian city of Jiddah, about 700 miles away across the Arabian peninsula, those who know him say he retains the characteristics of the people of this remote Yemeni region: extremely clannish and intensely conservative in their adherence to strict forms of Islam." www.newsmax.com... 3) If such clans do feud, it can get violent. And certainly, it is hard to believe that Osama would be disowned by this sort of clan-family (as the official story claims he was) but nevertheless maintain cordial relations with family members. Consider this report:"[National Security] Agency officials have sometimes played tapes of bin Laden talking to his mother to impress members of Congress and select visitors to the agency." (quoted in 'Baltimore Sun', 24 April 2001)And this:"Bin Ladens building U.S. troops' housing By Sig Christenson; Express-News Staff Writer
"Bin Laden family members have said they are estranged from their brother, who turned against the Saudi government after joining Muslim fighters following the Soviet Union's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan.
"But Yossef Bodansky, director of the House Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, said 'sama maintains connections' with some of his nearly two dozen brothers. He would not elaborate." ('San Antonio Express-News,' 14 September 1998)And, finally, from 'Le Figaro':"While he was hospitalised [in the American Hospital in Dubai in July, 2001], bin Laden received visits from many members of his family as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis." (6)The article from the 'Times of India' follows.-- Jared Israel[Correction: As originally posted, this article included a longer quote from the 23 September 2001 'Pittsburgh Post-Gazette': "His father backed the Afghan struggle [meaning: the U.S.-supported terrorist war against the Afghan government] and helped fund it; when Osama bin Laden decided to join the non-Afghan fighters with the Mujaheddin, his family responded enthusiastically." Since Mohammed Awad bin Laden died in 1968, this is most likely a typographical error. It should most likely read, "His family."]

Since Saudi Arabia is one of the most secretive nations in the world, it is impossible to be sure that everyone in the Saudi establishment has completely cut off its ties with Osama Bin Laden, and there are good reasons to believe that many have not. Despite his present disgrace and loss of Saudi citizenship, Osama has much high-level support in Saudi Arabia, and many are waiting for him to return and reform the corrupt Saudi government on fundamentalist grounds. In Saudi Arabia, family connections are everything and the formal central power is extraordinarily weak. It is a mark of the influence of the bin Laden family that Osama's brother Mahrouz, who participated in the 1979 attack on the grand mosque in Mecca (an attack aimed at the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy), was the only one of 500 attackers who was not executed. (He works to this day in a family business in Medina)....

The Wahhabi Taliban in Afghanistan had the blessings of the Saudi royal family and of The Big Three--the bin Laden family, the al Ahmoudi family, and the Mahfouz family--the richest clans in that medieval kingdom. (Khalid bin Mahfouz is bin Laden’s brother-in-law). The desert oligarchs profited from world-wide investments as well as sleazy banking schemes such as the infamous Bank of Credit and Commerce International.


Times of India.' It reports that according to the BBC program, 'Newsnight,' the Bush administration told the FBI to back off from investigating the bin Laden family's terrorist connections before the attack on the World Trade Center. According to the publication, 'Le Figaro,' a CIA agent visited Osama bin Laden last July. 'Figaro' reports that this meeting took place while bin Laden was being treated in the American Hospital in Dubai, one of the United Arab Emirates.

Date: 11 Apr 2004 18:53:00
From: Tony Parkinson Subject: Bush Sr. met with Bin Laden's brother on 9/11
Bush Senior Met With Bin Laden's Brother on 9/11
Paul Joseph Watson
Comment: Despite studying September 11 for two years solid, one fact I only just discovered is that George W. Bush's father was meeting with Osama bin
Laden's brother, Shafig bin Laden, in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Washington, on the morning of 9/11. They were on Carlyle Group business just a few miles from where hijackers supposedly acting on behalf of Osama bin Laden would fly a plane into the Pentagon.
Recall that the chief financier of the so-called hijackers, Pakistan's Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with Bush administration officials the week before 9/11. He also met with Bob Graham and Porter Goss on the morning of the attacks, who would later go on to head the first 9/11 investigative committee.

Yes, I know about the plane crash. Hence why I wrote "The Late Salem." We are talking abouth the Bin Laden Group Ltd, not the family religious wacko. Most of the Bin Ladens have very heartily embraced the Western lifestyle which Osama abhors. ie, the cars, the jet-setting, the houses, etc. Why the hell would they want to throw it all away over a overzealous looney? They didn't, so they did not help him when he was kicked out of Saudi.

Bin Ladens Bail on Carlyle GroupFTW, Oct. 26, 2001, 1700 PDT - The New York Times is today reporting that, "The Saudi family of Osama bin Laden is severing its financial ties with the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm known for its connections to influential Washington political figures, executives who have been briefed on the decision said today." Some of those influential figures include George H.W. Bush and his son, our President.The Times story indicates that the decision by the bin Ladens was the result of "public controversy" about the familyÕs investments in the nationÕs 11th largest defense contractor. The Carlyle Group employs former President George Bush, who met with the bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia in 1998 and 2000. As a result of explosive increases in the US defense budget the Carlyle Group is facing enormous windfall profits. And there is still strong suspicion that, in spite of mainstream reports indicating otherwise, the family has not severed all ties with the alleged mastermind of the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center.One of the most detailed investigative reports on bin Laden and Bush business connections was published by FTW just weeks ago. We know that it has received worldwide attention and close scrutiny within the Bush Administration.

"Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion," Lerner-Lam said. "The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small." Last November, Lerner-Lam said: "During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage-but not causing significant ground shaking." Evidently, the energy source that shook the ground beneath the towers was many times more powerful than the total potential energy released by the falling mass of the towers. The question is: What was that energy source? While steel is often tested for evidence of explosions, despite numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in the towers, the engineers involved in the FEMA-sponsored building assessment did no such tests.

The gravitational potential energy associated with the collapse of each tower is at least 10 11 J. The energy propagated as seismic waves for M L 2.3 is about 10 6 to 107 J. Hence, only a very small portion of the potential energy was converted into seismic waves. Most of the energy went into deformation of buildings and the formation of rubble and dust.