profiting off of 9-11

[EchoNoise]

Sorry atomizer, but I just need to ask you something

Was there a big interest for you to spark this thread off? I actually don't mind reading all of this, but yeah. I haven't read even 50% of this thread (sorry!) but do you mention anything of Australian interest with 9/11 and the Iraq war?

I wouldn't mind getting some information about that, if you can find some that would be great

I hope I didn't say anything wrong!

[atomizer]

Was there a big interest for you to spark this thread off?

Yeah, sure. The interest is in trying to inform others that the official conspiracy theory is so full of gaping holes you could simultaneously drive drive a fleet of tanks through them. The way i try to disprove the official version is by offering a multitude of resources that debunk it (which you'll find a number of throughout this thread). I had been 100% sold on the official version after the attacks. Most people were, even many intelligence experts. They started asking questions sooner, while it took a lot of us much longer.

...but do you mention anything of Australian interest with 9/11 and the Iraq war?

I wouldn't mind getting some information about that, if you can find some that would be great

I'm not aware of any connection. If i find something i'll post back though.

[EchoNoise]

and to think you were spamming the boards

[underdone]

Obviously there are similarities to 9/11 in that example, but you'll also find that this example is similar to the Reichstag fire which put Hitler in power, led to a police state, reduction of freedoms and, eventually, the invasion of Poland.

While it does bear some similiraty, if this was the endgame for President Bush. Shouldn't he be attempting to make new laws that would allow him to go beyond the maximum of 8 years? I also found another intresting thing about this. The attacks happened on 9/11/01 and on 9/18/16 a joint resolution was passed by the United States Congress "authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001." However, the actual invasion of Iraq did not occur until 03/20/03 this hardly seems like a rushed war, since the war had been approved for just under 6 months before the actual invasion began. It is also worth noting the votes for the joint resolution.

The House Of Representatives: 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting

The Senate: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting

A year later on 10/16/02 the United States Congess passed the Iraq Resoltion aka "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." This authorized the actual iraq war. Here is a link to the factors cited by the resoltion to justify the actions. Iraq Resoltion. Once again the actual invasion did not begin until 3/20/03.

The House of Representative: 296-133

The Senate: 77-23

Before the invasion began, the United States sent many of our inspectors. Despite the inspectors historical inability to find most weapons. It shows that we did not jump into this war and made every effort to avoid it through peacful action.

Sources

Authorizatoin for use of military force

Iraq War

similar in principle to what would have taken place had Operation Northwoods been approved by Robert McNamara and which would have led to war with Cuba.

I will agree that what is on the Operation Northwood papers isa really bad idea. It was never put into action.

I know that the Trade Centers were desinged to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707-320 with a weight of 263,000 lbs and a flight speed of 180mph. 2 Boeing 767's crashed into the buildings, with one traveling at approx 490mph and the other at approx 590mph. Energy increases with the square of the speed so the 767's had kinetic energy more than 7 times the impact that they were designed to withstand. Like being hit with a plane that wieghed 1,841,000 lbs at 180mph. And since they hit in the middle it is almost certain that a portion of the core columns were damaged or destroyed. And all of these core colums do not have to be destroyed either through heat or damage from the plane crash to comprimise the buildings structural integrity.

According to the final NIST report, gross weight of the 767 that whacked WTC 1 was 283,600 (it was lightly loaded in terms of passengers, luggage and fuel (~10,000 gal. at impact)). I'm not sure about the stats for the WTC 2 plane. Still, this leaves the speed problem. Although i don't have an education nor extensive background in engineering, it appears that most things that are designed with a particular criteria in mind can usually surpass expetations. By how much depends, to a point, on what it is: Aircraft have to be kept light and the line between spec and real-world is probably thin. A building however is another story. I'm not really trying to suggest anything, just bringing up a point. However, i've found very conflicting reports of what aircraft velocity was used for the towers and have seen figures as high as 600 mph

Just to double check, you're saying that the plane that hit was 283,600lbs or some other weight measurement? I'm going to go with lbs for the rest of this, and assume equal weight on both planes for simplicity.

Desinged to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707-320 with a weight of 263,000 lbs and a flight speed of 180mph

Since the actual colision speed is disputed i'll go with the slower speed of 400mph. I said before that kinetic energy increases with the square of its speed. Source

This means, for example, that if you are traveling twice as fast, you must lose four times as much energy to stop.

The speed i'm using is a little over double the speed of the plane crash it was designed to sustain, with the same weight. So this means that at the given speed it would be hitting with 4 times as much energy. I think that it would be a miracle for any building to survive double its stated max. So, yes it did surpass expectations, at least 4 times that. The engineers behind the design should be congratulated on that alone.

You also mentioned some reports that the buildings could survive a hit from a Boing 707 at 700mph, however since the NIST states no evidence found to support this claim. This information should be left out due to it being unsupported.

Nearing the collapse, people are photographed standing in the hole where the plane hit and i can't see any fire worth mentioning behind them, though there is fire above them

I would like to see these pictures, preferably from multiple sources.

Films like TerrorStorm and Loose Change 2 have both allegedly hit the top 100 most watched videos on Google...

I saw this while i was looking through the videos on google. Its intresting to note that while there are hundreds of videos about a conspiracy behind 9/11 i was only able to find 1 or 2 videos on the other side of the story. I came to two possible conclusions from this.

1. Either there is so little support for their argument that they do not bother to try to argue it.

2. Or there is so much evidence to support their claim that they feel secure enought to not defend their side.

It is also intresting that google hosts these videos which are undoubtably taking large amounts of bandwidth. But, they choose not to mirror the actual sites for videos like "Loose Change."

...30 years from now when no one will care.

haha, yeah that's typical of what happens over time.

...you hear the sound of a rather significant "BANG" ~9 seconds before the collapse.

I'm going to assume that you were attributing the "BANG" to an explosive devise of some kind.

There are many other things that could've cause the "BANG" people heard. Buldings like that have electrical, gas, water and many other piplines running throughout the building, many of them under pressure. I think that it is attributable to a gas line breaking, leaking gas throughout a room and then being lit by the fire caused by the planes exploding. It has also been proved that the fire traveled down the elevator shafts which go all the way to the bottom of the building. This most likely caused large amounts of structural damage at the base of the building. The "BANG" in this case could be from a large structural member snaping. All of this is my speculation based on what i have seen. I would've cited sources but i was unable to find any beyond the multitude of videos on google.

My post got too long

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. [Rebuilding Americas Defences, Project for the New Anerican Century (PNAC), pg 50-51

Sorry, but i was unable read this. Adobe Acrobat was giving me issues.

I'm going to move on to some of the things that were said in you original post.

FACT: Jeb Bush, George's brother, ran security for the WTC and Dulles

I would like some clarification on how this is connected to the attacks.

FACT: NORAD scrambles ~100 intercepts/yr.. Average response time: 10 min. Yet NO JETS were scrambled until after the Pentagon attack on 9/11.

On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. Source

Bush sat on his behind in a school reading "My Pet Goat. Why? To not scare the children? Protocol called for him to be IMMEDIATELY EVACUATED by the Secret Service. Or was he somehow magically safe behind an invisible deflector shield at a publicly announced photo-op in a public school while "terrorists" were flying around blowing things up?

So, President Bush finisihing up what he was already doing is a bad thing?

FACT: NO STEEL BUILDING IN HISTORY HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE, or even a combination of structural damage AND fire. Don't believe it? Prove it wrong.

That is an impressive statistic, but just becaues it has never happened does not mean that it cannot happen.

FACT: Thermal imaging done by NASA several days after the collapses showed hot spots well in excess of 1,300 F. JP-8 jet fuel (nothing more than refined kerosene) burns at a maximum of 1,800 in optimal conditions with a constant supply. Estimated temp of fire inside the towers: 1,300 F. How could temps in excess of 1,300 F be recorded days after the collapse? AFTER thousands of gallons of water has been dispensed? Where did the molten piles of metal found under WTC 1, 2 and 7 come from if the fires were not nearly hot enough to melt steel?

Jet feul was not the only thing burning in the building that day, it was just what started it all. Estimated temperatures are just that, estimated. And even with thousands of gallons of water dispensed they are all very big buildings, it would take alot of water to completely cool them down to air temperature.

FACT: Steel melts at over 2,500 F and loses about 1/2 it's strength at 1,100 F. In the Windsor building fire in Madrid, which burned totally out of control for ~20 hours, the ALUMINUM DESKS did not melt, nor did the building collapse. One Meridian Plaza in Phili was totally consumed by fire for 18 hours. Never collapsed. Many more examples are available of fires in steel buildings that burned much longer and hotter without ever collapsing. Yet 3 buildings, for the first time in history, and on the SAME day, did exactly that.

The windsor building and Meridian Plaza may have both been in flames for impressive amounts of time. But they were not hit by airplanes going in excess of 400mph before the fires started. With the aluminum desks in the building, if the building did not collapse its clear that the whole building was not on fire and therefore desks that were not in the hotspots or places with and fire are likeley to survive.

FACT: The VAST majority A significant portion [18-OCT-06] of the jet fuel burned off OUTSIDE of the buildings in the fireballs we all saw. Experts agree the remaining fuel would've burned off in ~20 min.

Like i said before, the jet fuel did not just burn and go away, it lit other things on fire and caused damage while doing so.

FACT: Simple (like VERY simple) physics dictate that a building CANNOT FALL AT NEARLY FREE-FALL SPEED on it's own, yet all 3 buildings on 9/11 did exactly that.

FACT: Buildings DO NOT simply collapse into their own basements (demolition is something i have some experience with). If there is structural damage, they topple. How do 3 building3, with isolated pockets of fire, (WTC 1, 2 and 7) all collapse symmetrically into their own footprints? I have to wonder if i ever saw such a thing in a cartoon, much less in real-life.

It is also know that a building that large has never been demolished (correct form of word demolition?).

FACT: If the fires were SO hot, why is there photographs of people standing in the gaping holes left by the planes after the initial fire subsided? Why was the smoke black, indicating a fire starving for oxygen?

Parts of the fire were incredibly hot, not all of it.

Too long once again

FACT: Almost every one of the 700+ (over 1,000 according to Cheney) "terrorists" arrested in connection to 9/11 was quietly released.

FACT: The DOJ admitted that the identity of several of the "terrorists" is in doubt.

Both of these are due the imperfection of intellingence. Expecting them to capture the right people every time is asking too much from an intelligence agency.

FACT: ~9 of the "terrorists" have been reported by generally reputable resources such as The Chicago Tribune, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The BBC and The LA Times, to be alive and well in other countries. Atta's father claimed to receive a call from him on Sep. 12, and that is probably the least creditable report. Some of them are working in the airline industry. Of course these reports were ignored by the 9/11 "omission commission".

I think that they keyword in this whole thing is "generally reputable" Newspapers and TV news shows are known for their biased reporting.

FACT: There is NO MENTION of 9/11 on the FBI web page for Usama bin Laden. When questioned about why, the FBI's chief of publicity said the reason is because the FBI HAS NO HARD EVIDENCE CONNECTING BIN LADEN TO 9/11. What is this war based on again?

This goes back to the faulty intelligence. The war was started based on the intelligence at hand. However even though Osama Bin Laden's connections have been disproved at this point. What about all of the other terrorists that have been captured with ties to terrorist organizations?

FACT: There was an explosion in the BASEMENT that set off the sprinkler system and killed/burned workers SECONDS BEFORE THE FIRST PLANE EVER HIT. There are dozens of witnesses to support this. Explosions in the lower levels may have been caused by jet fuel which spilled down the freight elevators. [18-OCT-06]

These eyewitness reports can easily be attributed to memory bias and post traumatic stress disorder.

Memory Bias

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

Well, that's all for now

[atomizer]

WOW! A lot of good questions and observations

/* reminder to self: the next time you start a 9/11 topic, try using 5 facts instead of 105! */

While it does bear some similarity, if this was the endgame for President Bush. Shouldn't he be attempting to make new laws that would allow him to go beyond the maximum of 8 years?

At this point i'm totally unsure as to what role Bush may have played in this. I think the scope is much broader than him, or perhaps even the administration in general. That's not something i feel very comfortable in debating at this point however. My only comment would be to 'think bigger'.

I also found another interesting thing about this. The attacks happened on 9/11/01 and on 9/18/16 [06 i assume?] a joint resolution was passed by the United States Congress "authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001." However, the actual invasion of Iraq did not occur until 03/20/03 this hardly seems like a rushed war, since the war had been approved for just under 6 months before the actual invasion began...

Not sure what you're getting at. I would think if the official story version were true, we would want to get troops on the ground ASAP. If it were not true, i don't know.

...Before the invasion began, the United States sent many of our inspectors. Despite the inspectors historical inability to find most weapons. It shows that we did not jump into this war and made every effort to avoid it through peacful action.

To me that seems like a contradiction; if the inspectors couldn't find the WMD's, and we invaded anyway, how is that peacful? I would further reinforce by stating we still have not found any WMD's, in spite of the fact we were told by many in the white house that they knew for a fact that Iraq possesed WMD's.

I will agree that what is on the Operation Northwood papers isa really bad idea. It was never put into action.

No, it was not and i hope i stated that earlier because my intension is not to mislead anyone. I cited Northwoods because it's a well documented example of a fals flag OP that made it all the way to the top before being killed.

I know that the Trade Centers were desinged to withstand an impact from a Boeing 707-320 with a weight of 263,000 lbs and a flight speed of 180mph. 2 Boeing 767's crashed into the buildings, with one traveling at approx 490mph and the other at approx 590mph. Energy increases with the square of the speed so the 767's had kinetic energy more than 7 times the impact that they were designed to withstand. Like being hit with a plane that wieghed 1,841,000 lbs at 180mph. And since they hit in the middle it is almost certain that a portion of the core columns were damaged or destroyed.

One plane hit pretty centered, the other was off center. I can point to a study done by MIT that shows almost all of the energy of the impacts was absorbed by the exterios walls with nothing left to seriously damage the core, however i can also point to studies that indicate otherwise. Although a great number of flaws can be pointed out in any of the NIST, FEMA and 9/11 commission reports, even NIST claims that only a few of the core columns were severed and a few more damaged.

And all of these core colums do not have to be destroyed either through heat or damage from the plane crash to comprimise the buildings structural integrity.

Absolutly, but this raises several questions... Attached is a graphic as in the final NIST report. You'll see they claim that 6 columns were severed and 3 others heavily damaged (this is for WTC 1). Even if this is true, the buildings could have easily withstood the damage. So now the fire: Whoops! Big problem here because the NIST reports, after switching reasons as to why the building collapsed throught the versions they released, still rely heavily on the fire to support their conclusion. In one of the reports, and i forget which, they state flat out that, had much of the "insulation" [fire proofing] not been dislodged, the towers would have remained standing. So then they "prove" that fire proofing was all knocked off of the core columns over several floors (9 i think). Problem is, they offer no evidence to back their claim. Sorry -- yes they do -- they construct a "model", if you can call it that, shoot it with a shotgun and say -- see! told ya so! Was some of the fire proofing knocked off? Sure! On ALL the core columns? Doubtful. On the back sides of the columns that got hit? Possibly. On 9 floors? I'll vote NO. NIST can not offer any convincing evidence to support claims which they rely on heavily to support their conclusion. I'm only skating on the surface here, as much of the rest of the report can be debunked with science and common sense. This docu sums up a fair amount of the inconsistancies in the NIST reports: A New Standard for Deception by Kevin Ryan

Other problems in the NIST reports are the tempatures: Out of all the structial steel they tested, they claim that only 8 pieces (5 in WTC 1 and 3 in WTC 2) exceeded 600 C (at 600 C steel loses ~50% of it's strength). This includes ALL the structural steel. Of the core columns, their tests show that none exceeded 250 C (steel loses no strength at that temp). Had the mayor not shipped 97% of the steel to Asia and scrap yards we'd know more, but, that's the way it goes.

So, again, they are forced into a box to "prove" their theory. They construct models and "test" them. Since the models can't reproduce the results they desire, the increase burn times (90 minutes), tempatures and oxegen supply. When they STILL can't get the models to fail, they turn to computer models and, wouldn't you know it, after some "tweaking", the floors fail

The FEMA and 9/11 commission reports are even less creditable. This goes on and on, but i'd recomened watching the above docu for a decent intro. Also see "Responding to NIST's Official "Questions and Answers" here: http://st911.org/.

to be continued...

[#rootworm]

i didn't begin to seriously doubt the official 9/11 story until after the London bombings. the London bombings were such an obvious black-ops project that it forced many people to ask many questions. questions which lead to revelations about the history of black-ops concealed as terrorism.

"The Project for the New American Century" is a good first start to any research. they calculated in one of their outlines that it would take "an event the size of Pearl Harbor" to create enough support for the middle east wars their group wanted. just the member list of PNAC alone creates a ton of questions even before you look at the aims of the group.

[atomizer]

@underdone

continued...

Just to double check, you're saying that the plane that hit was 283,600lbs or some other weight measurement?

Boeing 767-200ER, 283,600 -- PG 20, NIST final.

Since the actual collision speed is disputed i'll go with the slower speed of 400mph. I said before that kinetic energy increases with the square of its speed. This means, for example, that if you are traveling twice as fast, you must lose four times as much energy to stop. The speed i'm using is a little over double the speed of the plane crash it was designed to sustain, with the same weight. So this means that at the given speed it would be hitting with 4 times as much energy. I think that it would be a miracle for any building to survive double its stated max. So, yes it did surpass expectations, at least 4 times that. The engineers behind the design should be congratulated on that alone.

You also mentioned some reports that the buildings could survive a hit from a Boeing 707 at 700mph, however since the NIST states no evidence found to support this claim. This information should be left out due to it being unsupported.

600 mph. If i said 700, that was a typo on my part. And yes, that is NOT confirmed. However, since i think NIST is playing dirty pool here, i'm mentioning these claims (along with the fact they're not confirmed of course). The funny thing is, much of the documentation NIST needed to solidify their claims was "missing", such as the impact data, UL steel test data, etc.. They claim some of this was stored in the towers and was destroyed. I'll reluctantly bite, but i won't swallow.

re: people standing in plane impact areas -- I would like to see these pictures, preferably from multiple sources.

woman in hole

woman in hole 2

woman and man in hole

In the last one, if you look close, you'll see a man with no shirt in jeans standing with his hands behind his back on the opposite side of the hole as the woman.

I think they are used in an official report as well, perhaps FEMA.

UPDATE: I just found another cam angle in video. Now please understand that i DO NOT agree with some of the idiotic theories this nut attempts to imply -- like a helicopter flying by blew up the towers :/. FF to about the 02:15 mark and you'll see a person standing in the hole: 911 EyeWitness Preview of Hoboken ..

re: TerrorStorm, Loose Change -- I saw this while i was looking through the videos on google. Its interesting to note that while there are hundreds of videos about a conspiracy behind 9/11 i was only able to find 1 or 2 videos on the other side of the story. I came to two possible conclusions from this.

1. Either there is so little support for their argument that they do not bother to try to argue it.

2. Or there is so much evidence to support their claim that they feel secure enough to not defend their side.

3. The government doesn't usually debunk this sort of stuff publicly, much less upload videos to YouTube/Google I would submit that as a likely reason as well. Guess this would also be a good time to mention the official conspiracy theory is just that; a theory. No one has been charged bin Laden, although the US bypassed many chances over the years to capture him, has never been caught. Also the authenticity of the video of "bin Laden" the government released in which he claims responsibility is highly disputed, even by those that met him.

re: 30 years from now when no one will care -- haha, yeah that's typical of what happens over time.

Tragically, yeah it is. Unfortunately this is such a crucial matter we cannot wait that long. I am absolutely certain that 9/11 was a false flag OP to facilitate the pursuit of a political agenda. If the peak oil theory is correct, all the pieces fit together very nicely. Meanwhile, people are dying and unethical corporations are cashing in.

re: you hear the sound of a rather significant "BANG" ~9 seconds before the collapse. -- I'm going to assume that you were attributing the "BANG" to an explosive devise of some kind.

I do, yes. There's a lot of testimony that supports this as well (see the resources in the first post). As to what was used, i support no theories other than thermite/thermate at this point because this theory is pretty well supported. See: Alex Jones Interviews Steven Jones

There are many other things that could've cause the "BANG" people heard. Buildings like that have electrical, gas, water and many other pipelines running throughout the building, many of them under pressure. I think that it is attributable to a gas line breaking, leaking gas throughout a room and then being lit by the fire caused by the planes exploding. It has also been proved that the fire traveled down the elevator shafts which go all the way to the bottom of the building. This most likely caused large amounts of structural damage at the base of the building. The "BANG" in this case could be from a large structural member snapping. All of this is my speculation based on what i have seen. I would've cited sources but i was unable to find any beyond the multitude of videos on google.

If you can find evidence of gas lines, please post that (i can't so far). I am under the understanding that all the kitchens were electric. As for fuel traveling down the elevator shafts, yeah, that appears to be a possibility. I had thought there was NO direct path between the sub levels and the upper floors, but i think i am wrong. As far as fuel igniting in the sub levels and causing a large amount of structural damage, i don't see that at all. Upstairs we had a solid object impacting the towers + fuel + explosion and yet, even by NIST's admissions, not all that much damage. In the sub levels, i think there would've been less fuel + explosion only, plus this is where the core columns were the strongest (~36 in. x ~16 in. box tubing with 4 in. thick walls and anchored into solid bedrock). I'd take a guess you could probably fill the entire lower 6 floors with gas fumes and not phase those columns.

re: -- Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. [Rebuilding Americas Defenses, Project for the New American Century (PNAC), pg 50-51

Sorry, but i was unable read this. Adobe Acrobat was giving me issues.

Foxit Reader -- free, portable, no installation, works like a champ.

re: FACT: Jeb Bush, George's brother, ran security for the WTC and Dulles -- I would like some clarification on how this is connected to the attacks.

I assign a relevance factor/credibility level to everything i study. By it self, the above means very little, however when you combine all the "strange coincidence" and timing of events, they are worth a lot more. If you choose to investigate further, you'll find the same. More on this in a bit...

re: NORAD -- On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes.

No, but a phone would. In over an hour and a half, not one plane was intercepted. Now, about that lack of fighters...

[this is a cut 'n paste of a post i made earlier]

What the government insinuates is that a plane with no transponder is somehow "invisible". This is plain fiction as this completely ignores what radar is. Transponder or not, the target is still visible to radar. How do you think radar detects weather? A transponder is nothing more than an identity tag. I don't need to see your birth certificate to see you, it just gives me more information. The FAA was not at fault on 9/11, NORAD was. Blame was shifted to the FAA so NORAD wouldn't have to explain the details as to why they screwed up. And actually, i don't think they screwed up. NORAD didn't respond because of all the exercises that they were involved in.

I cannot stress the importance of understanding what happened with NORAD enough. This is a key area that is studied by a lot of experts, and for good reason. Basically there's 2 lines of thinking: NORAD was ordered to stand-down / NORAD was confused. And then there's the official version(s): FAA incompetence and whatever other garbage they've manufactured by now. The FAA was certainly NOT incompetent. They are responsible for many thousands of flights every single day and that do a pretty bang-up job. Furthermore, on 9/11 the FAA did what had never before been done in aviation history: they safely brought down over 4,500 aircraft and did it quickly and efficiently. But then, all of sudden, they all become a bunch of idiots?

Blame was placed on the FAA to shift it away from NORAD.

A common tactic used in a false-flag events is to run simulations, exercises, or war games that are similar to the event you have planned. Again, this will sound very strange until you research it, so hold on to your seat... You want to blow up your train station so you can blame it on "terrorists" to rally your people to support a war they don't want to fight. What do you do? You schedule a training exercise that simulates the same event, in the same place, at the same time, except instead of an empty briefcase stuffed with newspaper, you substitute a real bomb. (Careful observers may note a certain similarity to a recent event).

On and prior to 9/11, the military and NORAD and the FAA (i think) were running all kinds of training exercises (Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian, Northern Vigilance, Global Guardian). Instead of having as many planes as they [NORAD] should have to cover the north east US, a lot of planes were sent south and north, as far as Canada, to fight imaginary Russians. One of those operations, and i forget which, was a simulated attack on the WTC and, i'm pretty sure, the Pentagon. Part of the exercises included inserting false radar blips onto the radar screens of NORAD. Now all of a sudden the "switch is flipped" and it's no longer an exercise. This created MASS confusion because NORAD had up to 22 unidentified targets running around and not enough planes to scramble. They simply didn't know which planes were the real threat. This allowed the real planes to reach their targets which they NEVER would've been able to do otherwise. This is all well documented. Some people claim that this actually helped shorten the response time, but this is absolutely false. It only added a massive amount of confusion.

to be continued...

Edited October 20, 2006 by atomizer

[atomizer]

@underdone

continued...

re: The Pet Goat -- So, President Bush finishing up what he was already doing is a bad thing?

When the country is under terrorist attack? I certainly think so. Also, protocol was not followed. He was at a publicly announced photo-op while terrorists where flying around blowing stuff up. How in the world could he be safe at that location? Yet the SS does not escort him out. Why?

re: FACT: NO STEEL BUILDING IN HISTORY HAS EVER COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE -- That is an impressive statistic, but just because it has never happened does not mean that it cannot happen.

Granted. This is only one piece of evidence however -- one which is relevant and which must be considered because a history has been established. We've been knocking up towers for more than 100 years and most of them have sustained fires, many major fires which have lasted a lot longer than the WTC towers and WTC 7 fires, yet none have collapsed. Of course none have been as badly damaged, though the Empire State tower was hit with a bomber at one time. However, there is little evidence in the NIST reports, backed up by assumptions, that suggests that the towers would not sustain this damage. Again, the NIST report relies heavily on a lot of fire proofing being dislodged -- an assumption which they utterly fail to support with any creditable evidence.

Jet fuel was not the only thing burning in the building that day, it was just what started it all. Estimated temperatures are just that, estimated. And even with thousands of gallons of water dispensed they are all very big buildings, it would take allot of water to completely cool them down to air temperature.

We know that jet fuel (refined kerosene with some additives) can only burn at a max. temp. of 1800 F under absolutely ideal conditions. slicing off ~30% of that seems to be a fairly well accepted figure for a fire such as in the WTC towers and WTC 7. Furthermore there has been a history established from other building fires. Office furniture, wood, computers, carpets, etc., do not burn as hot as jet fuel, therefore only the fuel could support higher temperatures. So we have fuel, burning around 1300 F maybe, for 48 minutes, unevenly, throughout several floors. A lot of that fuel spit right out the windows. The rest, most experts agree, would've been consumed in minutes (~20). So now we're back to office furniture. However, even if that scenario is not true and we assume the fuel burned at 1800 F for 58 min., would that have been enough time to heat the steel to the point of failure? I'll vote a big fat NO on that one for a few reasons which i'll detail if you want me to, however i suggest watching the vid linked to earlier, as well as other resources in the first post.

re: free-fall collapse speeds -- It is also know that a building that large has never been demolished (correct form of word demolition?).

Neither the height, width nor weight of a building would excuse it from physics. There is a lot of data collected by collages and scientists which clearly demonstrate the collapse speeds were not possible. The other thing to point out here is the concrete: The majority of the concrete was pulverized into fine dust. This simply does not happen, ever, even in normal demolitions, much less to 3 buildings in one day. Look closely at any of collapse videos and you'll see a LOT of dust and debris shooting out in sort of a mushroom over the collapse point. You'll notice that a great deal of that dust is very light in color. Some of that is drywall, but the rest is concrete -- concrete floors which haven't even had a chance to be crushed to dust by the floors above. Now some may suppose that the weight of the concrete crushed it self, but again, watch that dust very carefully and you'll see that's not the case. Of course this is backed very well by 2 facts; 1) there is almost no concrete chunks near the collapses and 2) the dust which spread out over a massive area was loaded with concrete. In any "pancake" collapse i've ever witnessed or seen photographs of, even when induced by explosives, you are left with a pile of "pancakes", or floors. I don't recall the volume of concrete for both towers, but i think it was over 400,000 cu. yards and it was 3000 psi wire reinforced. It could not have become dust unless other forces were involved. Keep in mind the same is true for WTC 7.

re: terrorists released -- Both of these are due the imperfection of intelligence. Expecting them to capture the right people every time is asking too much from an intelligence agency.

It would seem expecting them to catch one is asking too much. This is another thing i find funny: Within hours after the towers were struck, they "knew" who was responsible. Shortly after that they had a list of 19 hijackers. Where are they now? How could they possibly know who was responsible, much less in the short time they did? bin Laden never claimed responsibility until -- wasn't it years later? Or months? And those tapes and video are very sketchy.

This brings up another point: Who coined the term al-Qadea? According to the research i've done, al-Quadia was coined by the government. I don't think there's any record of it being used prior to 9/11 by bin Laden. Also, the CIA clearly indicated that there was little threat, if any, of terrorist attacks until the head of the CIA was replaced (i forget his name). With the new guy in charge, all of a sudden there's a "terrorist network". None of this is proof of anything, but it is suspicious. I don't think there is a terrorist network on the scale as claimed by government. If there were, shouldn't we have a lot of them in custody by now? Almost all of the 700+ "terrorists" that were arrested in connection with 9/11 have been quietly released.

re: un-dead terrorists --I think that they keyword in this whole thing is "generally reputable" Newspapers and TV news shows are known for their biased reporting.

You got that one right! Do some poking around and see how much of the mass media is owned by so few people. It's scary.

re: no 9/11 on FBI bin Laden page -- This goes back to the faulty intelligence. The war was started based on the intelligence at hand. However even though Osama Bin Laden's connections have been disproved at this point. What about all of the other terrorists that have been captured with ties to terrorist organizations?

I think that "faulty intel" is far closer to "manufactured intel". Sounds nearly impossible to believe, i know, but if you do the research you'll see what i mean. And if bin Laden can't be connected, and the war was based on that, why are we still over there? As for the terrorists that have been captured, where are they? Who was tried/convicted?

re: basement explosions -- These eyewitness reports can easily be attributed to memory bias and post traumatic stress disorder.

Watch the William Rodriguez vid (linked to in first post). Dozens of people have testified to this -- well, not just basement, but explosions in general:

"When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, ... I saw low-level flashes ... I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down ... You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw."

- NYFD Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

“It was like a professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."

- NYC Paramedic Daniel Rivera

"It was as if as if they had detonated ... as if they had planned to take down a building, boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom "

- NYFD Captain Dennis Tardio

"I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building."

- NYFD Firefighter Louie Cacchioli

“There was just an explosion in the south tower. It seemed like on television when they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”

- NYFD Firefighter Richard Banaciski

"It almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight"

- NYFD Firefighter Thomas Turilli

"Heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower . . . There were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down"

- NYFD Firefighter Craig Carlsen

"It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . . We originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down"

- NYFD Firefighter Edward Cachia

"Somewhere around the middle . . . there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode ... With each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building"

- NYFD Captain Karin Deshore

"A debate began to rage because . . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade"

- NYFD Firefighter Christopher Fenyo

i didn't begin to seriously doubt the official 9/11 story until after the London bombings. the London bombings were such an obvious black-ops project that it forced many people to ask many questions. questions which lead to revelations about the history of black-ops concealed as terrorism.

"The Project for the New American Century" is a good first start to any research. they calculated in one of their outlines that it would take "an event the size of Pearl Harbor" to create enough support for the middle east wars their group wanted. just the member list of PNAC alone creates a ton of questions even before you look at the aims of the group.

You ain't seen nothin yet

Keep digging. Go through the resources i listed in the first post.

[atomizer]

CIA closes down unit that was hunting Bin Laden

The CIA has closed down a secret unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials said Monday, the NEW YORK TIMES reports Tuesday.

Full story here

UNCOVERED: The Whole Truth

UNCOVERED: The Whole Truth -- This is an important documentary containing statements from several former CIA, Foreign Service, Military and other government personnel who explain the lie behind the invasion of Iraq.

Edited October 20, 2006 by atomizer

[underdone]

I also found another interesting thing about this. The attacks happened on 9/11/01 and on 9/18/16 [06 i assume?] a joint resolution was passed by the United States Congress "authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001." However, the actual invasion of Iraq did not occur until 03/20/03 this hardly seems like a rushed war, since the war had been approved for just under 6 months before the actual invasion began...

Not sure what you're getting at. I would think if the official story version were true, we would want to get troops on the ground ASAP. If it were not true, i don't know.

Wow, I sure managed to misype alot in that part.

First, it was supposed to be 9/18/06 not 9/18/06. My point here was that if this was a war for oil (which has been proposed) shouldn't the attack have started immediately after after approval from congress was achieved?

I also mistyped another part

since the war had been approved for just under 6 months before the actual invasion began...

Its supposed to be 18 months instead of 6

To me that seems like a contradiction; if the inspectors couldn't find the WMD's, and we invaded anyway, how is that peacful?

The problem with even sending inspectors is that the country has to agree to them coming in, and unless this has changed since then, the countries government is informed of when the inspectors will be coming. So, even though WMD's were not found i think its very likely that they were hidden before the inspectors arrived.

No, it was not and i hope i stated that earlier because my intension is not to mislead anyone. I cited Northwoods because it's a well documented example of a fals flag OP that made it all the way to the top before being killed.

Are there and documented false flaf OPs that did get put into action by the US?

When they STILL can't get the models to fail, they turn to computer models and, wouldn't you know it, after some "tweaking", the floors fail

I think it makes sense to move to a computer model when attempting to simulate a building of that size. There's no way they could physically test a strucure that large effectively. As far as them tweaking the settings a little bit, well there's not much to prove that they did or didn't do so.

I went to the http://st911.org website you mentioned. I'd like to mention a couple of intresting things i saw.

First was a link to this website. Confessions of a 911 hitman This article is by far one of the most far fetched i've ever seen. There is no prove provided of this person's identity. It also makes refrenses to other conspiracy theories, like the one that Hoover **** was destroyed by demolitions. The second was a the second video they had about half way down.

10 reasons the hijackers are fake by Jim Fetzer

I'm going to list his top ten here.

10. "Their names do not appear on any passenger manifest." This one i'm not too sure about, before this i have not heard the passenger manifests mentioned. Either way he does not mention a source other than himself.

9. "None of them were subject to any autopsy." This one seems pretty obvious to me, when you crash a plane into a building at speeds in excess of 600 mph there's not going to be much left of the cockpit. Let alone enough of a human body to perform and autopsy.

8. "Five to Seven at least have turned up living in the middle east, and have been interviewed by the BBC and the Guardian in the UK." This goes back to how scewed media can be, and since the media is his only source its authenticity its doubtful.

7. "A special FBI agent has explained that the FBI knew the names of all of the hijackers due to a piece of luggage the FBI discovered."

6. "The FBI has not revised its list" He does not make a clear mention of what list he is talking about, only that "maybe the FBI should revise it" Part of his claim is that his bag was left there and he immediately traveled from Oregon to his flight some distance away. He once again does not have a source for knowing that the hijacker made this impossibly fast trip to the airport. And he also refrences his previous point #8 to back this up, so he's building a claim on an unproved claim.

5. "They could not have flown the planes" The hijacker's inability to bring a cessna off the ground does not them unable to fly a commercial airliner. The hardest parts of flying a plane is getting it off the ground and landing it, crashing it into a large building would be comparatively easy. Also, what is to stop them from forcing the pilots of the aircraft to fly it for them.

4. Cell phones could not have been used at the altitudes and speeds these planes were flying. He does refrence an experment with this one. This experiment said that when a plane is above 2000 feet that phone calls are almsot impossible. However these planes did not spend their whole flight above 2000 feet. The WTC height was 1,368ft and the pentagon was definatley not that tall. So it seems to me that yes, phone calls are a definate possibility. I've seen people making calls when planes are taking off and landing, maybe not the best idea to do that but that's not the point

3. "During the trial of the alledged 20th hijackers, a tape was played which included the passengers discussing possibly breaking down the cabin door with the drink cart." He claims that because this was from the cabin recorder that it is impossible to hear any of the passengers. However he fails to account for the airplanes crew.

2. "The last words of the hijackers on the plane was in arabic "Ala Ackbar" (sorry if its spelled wrong) this means "God is Great". The lasts words of a devout muslim is supposed to "There is one God Ala and Muhammed is his prophet."" There is only one problem with this, devout Muslims do not believe in violence. However some terrorists organizations follow a distorted versoin of the Koran. If they have changed parts of it what is to stop them from changing what their last words are supposed to be?

1.Point 1."Mussawi (misspelled?) was not required to turn himself in." Even though a person has no obiligation to turn themselves in they have the right to do so on their own.

Point 2. "An FBI agent who testified to be following Mussawi said that he suspected a upcoming plot and that he had told his superiors that he was supicious of this 70 times" The FBI cannot make moves on an agents suspicions, they have to move on proof. Otherwise we would have alot of time wasted capturing innocent people. He also makes no mention of the FBI agents previous records. Since we do not have a name little can be assumed about what he said.

Point 3. He fails to mention his third point.

These two things alone make me question this whole site.

The funny thing is, much of the documentation NIST needed to solidify their claims was "missing", such as the impact data, UL steel test data, etc.. They claim some of this was stored in the towers and was destroyed. I'll reluctantly bite, but i won't swallow.

It's a distinct possibilty, the World Trade Centers were huge buildings with who knows how many important documents inside.

woman in hole

woman in hole 2

woman and man in hole

This pictures are incredibly fuzzy, the only i thought i was probably was the first one when it was zoomed in. But even then these pictures had to have been taken at quite a distance especially with the angle they are at.

UPDATE: I just found another cam angle in video. Now please understand that i DO NOT agree with some of the idiotic theories this nut attempts to imply -- like a helicopter flying by blew up the towers :/. FF to about the 02:15 mark and you'll see a person standing in the hole: 911 EyeWitness Preview of Hoboken ..

Yeah, those guys offer some pretty insane theories. With the video, its intresting that they show a still picture where the person i pretty clear, but then it shows a video of the same point immediately afterward and i see no evidence of a person standing there. Edited October 22, 2006 by underdone

[underdone]

3. The government doesn't usually debunk this sort of stuff publicly, much less upload videos to YouTube/Google smile.gif

I agree with that, i was talking more about the supproters outside of the government.

Transponder or not, the target is still visible to radar. How do you think radar detects weather? A transponder is nothing more than an identity tag. I don't need to see your birth certificate to see you, it just gives me more information.

I agree that it is an identity tag of sorts, but from what i understand about transponsers. Is that when one is turned off it looks like any other blip on their radar making it very hard to find one plane.

When the country is under terrorist attack? I certainly think so. Also, protocol was not followed. He was at a publicly announced photo-op while terrorists where flying around blowing stuff up. How in the world could he be safe at that location? Yet the SS does not escort him out. Why?

I'm not completely sure of the timeline of these events, but i agree that the protocol was for him to be escorted out. But, when only one plane had hit i know that i did not think this was a terrorist attack or otherwise. Just that it was an accident of somekind.

3. The government doesn't usually debunk this sort of stuff publicly, much less upload videos to YouTube/Google smile.gif

I agree with that, i was talking more about the supproters outside of the government.

Transponder or not, the target is still visible to radar. How do you think radar detects weather? A transponder is nothing more than an identity tag. I don't need to see your birth certificate to see you, it just gives me more information.

I agree that it is an identity tag of sorts, but from what i understand about transponsers. Is that when one is turned off it looks like any other blip on their radar making it very hard to find one plane.

When the country is under terrorist attack? I certainly think so. Also, protocol was not followed. He was at a publicly announced photo-op while terrorists where flying around blowing stuff up. How in the world could he be safe at that location? Yet the SS does not escort him out. Why?

I'm not completely sure of the timeline of these events, but i agree that the protocol was for him to be escorted out. But, when only one plane had hit i know that i did not think this was a terrorist attack or otherwise. Just that it was an accident of somekind.

Granted. This is only one piece of evidence however -- one which is relevant and which must be considered because a history has been established. We've been knocking up towers for more than 100 years and most of them have sustained fires, many major fires which have lasted a lot longer than the WTC towers and WTC 7 fires, yet none have collapsed. Of course none have been as badly damaged, though the Empire State tower was hit with a bomber at one time.

Neither the height, width nor weight of a building would excuse it from physics. There is a lot of data collected by collages and scientists which clearly demonstrate the collapse speeds were not possible. The other thing to point out here is the concrete: The majority of the concrete was pulverized into fine dust. This simply does not happen, ever, even in normal demolitions, much less to 3 buildings in one day.

Yes, we have been demolishing buildings for a very long time. But like i said before one this size has never been demolished making it very hard to predict what would happen.

Shortly after that they had a list of 19 hijackers. Where are they now?

I'm pretty sure that if they hijacked a plane and then crashed it that they would be dead.

bin Laden never claimed responsibility until -- wasn't it years later? Or months? And those tapes and video are very sketchy.

I agree that the videos looked pretty sketchy, but both sides of this have some pretty sketchy videos and pictures.

I think that "faulty intel" is far closer to "manufactured intel". Sounds nearly impossible to believe, i know, but if you do the research you'll see what i mean. And if bin Laden can't be connected, and the war was based on that, why are we still over there? As for the terrorists that have been captured, where are they? Who was tried/convicted?

At this website 9/11 Five Years Later there is a rather large list of confirmed terrorists that have been captured. Among other things that a related to the so called "War on Terror". Now, i know this is the the whitehouse's website, but if you google the names of the people mentioned there are many sources for what they speak of.

Watch the William Rodriguez vid (linked to in first post). Dozens of people have testified to this -- well, not just basement, but explosions in general:

Like i have said before what you remember is dependent on your surroundings. I would like to point to an article by Elizabeth Loftus which talks about memory and the limits of memory. Elizabeth Loftus

No, but a phone would. In over an hour and a half, not one plane was intercepted.

I really wish i remembered where this was from, but i distinctly remember a phone call being how the message was finally transmitted.

I was unable to find where you said this, and if you did not my apologies.

It has been said that once NORAD knew about the threat that they should've been able to intercept the planes very quickly at speeds abot MACH 1. Previous to 9/11 fighter jets were not allowed to travel at mach speeds over civilian areas which makes their travel time alot greater.

And finally i'm wordering what you're proposing the meaning behind that PDF you posted and the picture you posted at the end are."

edit: I have now discovered its a really bad idea to directly edit posts this large.

[atomizer]

My point here was that if this was a war for oil (which has been proposed) shouldn't the attack have started immediately after after approval from congress was achieved?

I don't see where a delay would support either side of the argument. If the war is about -- let's say CONTROL, more than oil, as i am asserting it is, there is no need to rush. However i'm not presenting that as evidence of anything. The fact is, i don't know why the delay and i assume it has to do with final preparations.

So, even though WMD's were not found i think its very likely that they were hidden before the inspectors arrived.

If they had them, why didn't they use them? And why have we STILL not found them? The only people that new they had them were in the white house. This is one of the biggest hoaxes that's the easiest to disprove. The inspectors found virtually nothing. The CIA had been saying for years that Iraq posed no threat. There are no aerial photographs of any WMD manufacturing plants that have any evidence backing them as such, other than white house staff saying "see? those are WMD plants". Then we have white house staff claiming that some of the stuff found was WMD's, but the problem is that the chemicals had a shelf life of a couple months and were already years old. When the white house could find no labs, all of sudden they come up with "mobile labs" and show an "artist rendition" of what a "mobile lab" looks like -- no photographs though. Of course the inspectors did find some stuff, including crates marked with US labels because it was stuff we sold them long ago. The media doesn't like to show you those pictures though. They are in one of the videos i linked to earlier.

Now we have the problem of many thousands of troops getting sick after desert storm (and the same thing is happening now). Some say this is evidence of chemical weapons. Well, it is, but the US is the one that used the weapons! We shot depleted uranium rounds all over the place. I won't link to photographs here, but there are thousands of children being born that are totally screwed up and this is happening at an unprecedented rate -- missing arms, one eye, no legs, arms sticking out of their heads, massive tumors, missing organs, etc.. I've seen all kinds of photographs of Iraqi children playing on vehicles that were taken out with depleted uranium rounds. Our troops did the same thing because they were not, and are still not aware of the danger. Iraq is littered with depleted uranium. Everybody's happy though because we gained a critical foothold in the ME, defense contractors made a fortune, oil companies are making record profits, we got rid of a bunch of toxic waste and the civilians -- no one cares about them. Our "precession" bombing was anything but and Iraq will be paying the price for a long, long time.

I think it makes sense to move to a computer model when attempting to simulate a building of that size. There's no way they could physically test a structure that large effectively. As far as them tweaking the settings a little bit, well there's not much to prove that they did or didn't do so.

The point is, they made what they call accurate models of part of the buildings. If they are accurate, then they should react in a similar way to the real thing when subjected to similar forces. They did not. Not even close. You don't have to reconstruct 110 floors to find out what a single floor joist does when subjected to "X" heat for "X" period of time. Their model could not reproduce their theory until they increased heat, burn time and oxygen feed and even then it still failed to reproduce the results they wanted. Even a guy from Underwrites Laboratories (UL) wrote them a letter to tell them how screwed up their tests were and was promptly fired. [source]

First was a link to this website. Confessions of a 911 hitman This article is by far one of the most far fetched i've ever seen.

If you look at the bottom, you'll see it is a work of fiction

10. "Their names do not appear on any passenger manifest." This one i'm not too sure about, before this i have not heard the passenger manifests mentioned. Either way he does not mention a source other than himself.

http://www.geocities.com/mknemesis/passengers.html -- not a reputable resource. However, it shouldn't be too hard to verify this. This information is all over the place.

9. "None of them were subject to any autopsy." This one seems pretty obvious to me, when you crash a plane into a building at speeds in excess of 600 mph there's not going to be much left of the cockpit. Let alone enough of a human body to perform and autopsy.

Lots of bodies were identified, but no "terrorists" that i'm aware of.

8. "Five to Seven at least have turned up living in the middle east, and have been interviewed by the BBC and the Guardian in the UK." This goes back to how screwed media can be, and since the media is his only source its authenticity its doubtful.

http://cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essayjarrah

September 16-23, 2001: People with Hijacker Names and Identifying Details Are Still Alive

Reports appear in many newspapers suggesting that some of the people the US says were 9/11 hijackers are actually still alive:

bullet Hamza Alghamdi: No media outlet has claimed that Hamza Alghamdi is still alive, but his family says the FBI photo “has no resemblance to him at all.” [Washington Post, 9/25/2001]bullet Saeed Alghamdi is alive and flying airplanes in Tunisia. [Los Angeles Times, 9/21/2001; Daily Telegraph, 9/23/2001; BBC, 9/23/2001] He says he studied flight training in a Florida flight schools for parts of the years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. [Arab News, 9/18/2001] The Daily Telegraph notes, “The FBI had published [saeed Alghamdi’s] personal details but with a photograph of somebody else, presumably a hijacker who had ‘stolen’ his identity. CNN, however, showed a picture of the real Mr. Alghamdi.” [Daily Telegraph, 9/23/2001] If this account is true, as of mid-2004 the FBI is still using the wrong photograph of Alghamdi.

bullet Salem Alhazmi is alive and working at a petrochemical plant in Yanbou, Saudi Arabia. [Los Angeles Times, 9/21/2001; Daily Telegraph, 9/23/2001] He says his passport was stolen by a pickpocket in Cairo three years ago and that pictures and details such as date of birth are of him. [Guardian, 9/21/2001; Washington Post, 9/20/2001; Saudi Gazette, 9/29/2002]

bullet Ahmed Alnami is alive and working as an administrative supervisor with Saudi Arabian Airlines in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. [Los Angeles Times, 9/21/2001] He had never lost his passport and found it “very worrying” that his identity appeared to have been stolen. [Daily Telegraph, 9/23/2001] However, there is another “Ahmed Alnami” who is ten years younger, and appears to be dead, according to his father. [ABC News, 3/15/2002] Ahmed Alnami’s family says his FBI picture is correct. [Washington Post, 9/25/2001]

bullet Abdulaziz Alomari is alive and working as a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines [New York Times, 9/16/2001; Independent, 9/17/2001; BBC, 9/23/2001] He claims that his passport was stolen in 1995 while he was living in Denver, Colorado. [Los Angeles Times, 9/21/2001] “They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. I am here. I am alive.” [Daily Telegraph, 9/23/2001; London Times, 9/20/2001]

bullet Mohand Alshehri: The Saudi government has claimed that Mohand Alshehri is alive and that he was not in the US on 9/11, but no more details are known. [Associated Press, 9/29/2001]

bullet The brothers Waleed M. Alshehri and Wail Alshehri are alive. A Saudi spokesman said, “This is a respectable family. I know his sons, and they’re both alive.” The father is a diplomat who has been stationed in the US and Bombay, India. [Los Angeles Times, 9/21/2001; Arab News, 9/19/2001] There is a second pair of Saudi brothers named Wail and Waleed M. who may have been the real hijackers. Their father says they have been missing since December 2000. [ABC News, 3/15/2002; Arab News, 9/17/2001] The still-living Waleed M. Alshehri is a pilot with Saudi Airlines, studying in Morocco. [Los Angeles Times, 9/21/2001; Associated Press, 9/22/2001] He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Dayton Beach in the United States. [bBC, 9/23/2001; Daily Trust (Abuja), 9/24/2001] He was interviewed by US officials in Morocco, and cleared of all charges against him (though apparently the FBI is still using his picture). [Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, 9/21/2001] The still living Waleed Alshehri is also apparently a pilot. [Los Angeles Times, 9/21/2001] He claims that he saw his picture on CNN and recognized it from when he studied flying in Florida. But he also says that he has no brother named Wail. [As-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), 9/22/2001]

bullet Mohamed Atta’s father says he spoke to his son on the phone on September 12, 2001. [New York Times, 9/19/2001; Chicago Tribune, 9/20/2001]

bullet Khalid Almihdhar: On September 19, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. distributes a “special alert” to its member banks asking for information about the attackers. The list includes “Al-Midhar, Khalid. Alive.” The Justice Department later calls this a “typo.” [Associated Press, 9/20/2001; Cox News Service, 10/21/2001] The BBC says, “There are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Almihdhar, may also be alive.” [bBC, 9/23/2001] The Guardian says Almihdhar is believed to be alive, but investigators are looking into three possibilities. Either his name was stolen for a hijacker alias, or he allowed his name to be used so that US officials would think he died, or he died in the crash. [Guardian, 9/21/2001]

bullet Majed Moqed was last seen by a friend in Saudi Arabia in 2000. This friend claims the FBI picture does not look like Moqed. [Arab News, 9/22/2001] The Saudi government insists that five of the Saudis mentioned are still alive. [New York Times, 9/21/2001] On September 20, FBI Director Mueller says, “We have several others that are still in question. The investigation is ongoing, and I am not certain as to several of the others.” [Newsday, 9/21/2001] On September 27, after all of these revelations mentioned above are revealed in the media, FBI Director Mueller states, “We are fairly certain of a number of them.” [south Florida Sun-Sentinel, 9/28/2001] On September 20, the London Times reported, “Five of the hijackers were using stolen identities, and investigators are studying the possibility that the entire suicide squad consisted of impostors.” [London Times, 9/20/2001] The mainstream media briefly doubted some of the hijackers’ identities. For instance, a story in the Observer on September 23 put the names of hijackers like Saeed Alghamdi in quotation marks. [Observer, 9/23/2001] However, the story will die down after the initial reports, and it is hardly noticed when Mueller states on November 2, 2001, “We at this point definitely know the 19 hijackers who were responsible,” and claims that the FBI is sticking with the names and photos released in late September. [Associated Press, 11/3/2002]

source: 9/11 timeline

7. "A special FBI agent has explained that the FBI knew the names of all of the hijackers due to a piece of luggage the FBI discovered."

Problem is, the identity of several are in doubt and the story keeps changing. Then there's the "indestructible passports". Wish i had one of these babies!:

CNN - it's him!

whoops! it's not him!

You'll find plenty more floating around.

re: people standing in plane holes -- This pictures are incredibly fuzzy, the only i thought i was probably was the first one when it was zoomed in. But even then these pictures had to have been taken at quite a distance especially with the angle they are at.

Sure they're fuzzy. They were resized, cropped and compressed for the web and obviously they would have to be taken from far away since the towers were so high. I linked to 2 camera angles, as you requested. I'm sure you'll find more if you look, including in one of the FEMA reports.

[atomizer]

re:transponders -- I agree that it is an identity tag of sorts, but from what i understand about transponders. Is that when one is turned off it looks like any other blip on their radar making it very hard to find one plane.

I don't know the answer to this question, but i wonder how may planes were running around without transponders that day? I'd bet very few, if any. Furthermore, you have multiple sources of radar including NORAD, the FAA and the Pentagon, plus satellite tracking i think.

re: the pet goat -- I'm not completely sure of the time line of these events, but i agree that the protocol was for him to be escorted out. But, when only one plane had hit i know that i did not think this was a terrorist attack or otherwise. Just that it was an accident of some kind.

You can check the 9/11 time line to be sure, particularly this section.

The id*** sat on his behind until well after the second attack. Let me rephrase that: The Commander in Chief, responsible for taking immediate action to protect the United States of America, did NOTHING. Obviously there is no way he could possibly be safe where he was, much less could the children be safe anywhere near him, yet he STAYS there. The SS doesn't usher him out, as they did with Cheney. He doesn't make any decisions. He doesn't do squat. This is why i think there is a possibility that if the stuttering moron were involved, it may not have been deeply. From the look on his monkey face, he appeared to be completely bewildered. Got to give it to him though, he was the very first, and only person on earth, to have watched the first attack live on TV in a room where there was no TV. He gets a 10 for that one.

re: government support/supporters -- I agree with that, i was talking more about the supporters outside of the government.

If you mean supporters of the official version, there are quite a few. They just happen to ignore details that don't support their story. The problem with supporting the official version is that you don't have a lot of hard evidence to back you (and i'm not saying YOU specifically, i mean anyone). However there are mounds of evidence compiled by eyewitnesses, scientists, experts in their fields, video, photographs, news articles, etc., etc. that poke so many holes in the official version that it can be used to build a screen door. The 9/11 commission report is a joke, the NIST reports keep changing reasons for the collapses and fail to address crucial evidence and the FEMA reports are worse. None seriously address WTC 7. None address the piles of molten metal. None address eyewitness testimony that mentions demolition charges. All of this, and much more, is addressed by links i've already provided.

Yes, we have been demolishing buildings for a very long time. But like i said before one this size has never been demolished making it very hard to predict what would happen.

Still, this does not excuse any structure from physics. These 3 buildings fell at nearly free-fall speed. There was very little resistance below the collapse points in WTC 1 and 2 which came apart from the top down. WTC 7 came apart from the bottom up and more closely represents a classic demolition. All of the fell symmetrically into their own basements. Buildings like 7 were demolished before and there is a better history established. What history has shown is that at no time has a building collapsed from fire or fire and damage, and certinly has no steel building ever fell symmetrically in its own basement at free-fall speed.

re: where's the terrorists now? -- I'm pretty sure that if they hijacked a plane and then crashed it that they would be dead.

Sorry, i mean the 1000+ "terrorists" (according to Cheney) that were arrested in connection to 9/11. Where are they? How many were charged? How many have been released? To my knowledge all but ~6 have been quietly released. The FBI doesn't have enough evidence to put "9/11" on bin Ladens page.

At this website 9/11 Five Years Later there is a rather large list of confirmed terrorists that have been captured. Among other things that a related to the so called "War on Terror". Now, i know this is the the white house's website, but if you google the names of the people mentioned there are many sources for what they speak of.

I just glanced at that, but i didn't see any that were convicted for connections to 9/11.

re: William Rodriguez vid -- Like i have said before what you remember is dependent on your surroundings. I would like to point to an article by Elizabeth Loftus which talks about memory and the limits of memory. Elizabeth Loftus

Yes, but there are dozens of these accounts, not just one. NIST (pretty sure) was forced to release the testimony i quoted earlier. It's on audio that people were being ordered to evacuate the base of one of the towers because of a bomb.

It has been said that once NORAD knew about the threat that they should've been able to intercept the planes very quickly at speeds about MACH 1. Previous to 9/11 fighter jets were not allowed to travel at mach speeds over civilian areas which makes their travel time allot greater.

I would think that in a state of emergency, they would be able to adapt. They also had over 1.5 hours to intercept the last plane. They didn't intercept because i don't think they knew what was happening because of the exercises mentioned earlier.

And finally i'm wondering what you're proposing the meaning behind that PDF you posted and the picture you posted at the end are."

The PDF copy of the PNAC document (Rebuilding Americas Defenses)? The relevance is the line that is highlighted. That document, which you can read in its entirety, deals with how to rebuild the military and calls for massive amounts of money to be spent, then states that this may not be possible without something like a new Pearl Harbor. Well we got our new Pearl Harbor.

edit: I have now discovered its a really bad idea to directly edit posts this large.

Yeah We should try to focus on fewer items at a shot i think.

Also, i think i was rather "edgy" here. I don't mean to take anything out on you personally, it's just that some of this stuff makes my hair stand on end It takes a long time to properly reply to these posts because i have to locate the resources to back up my statements. I'm getting lazy. I think about every point you've brought up is well addressed by many other resources, but you have to do 2 things if you want to find them: 1) be willing to let the chips fall where they may and and start with a clean slate and 2) go and find this stuff.

I swallowed the official version for a long time, but then i found reason to question it. So off i went poking around and many of the resources i found were garbage (there were no planes/it was aliens/a global hawk did it/it was a hologram/yada yada yada). That crap was interesting at first, but it got boring fast. So i started to read the official reports (NIST, FEMA, 9/11 Commission) and found that a LOT of creditable people were poking a LOT serious holes in them. I started researching events both before and after 9/11. It didn't take long until the pieces came together and i formed the opinion that 9/11 was a false flag operation to facilitate the pursuit of a political agenda. Some folks will never be willing to accept that possibility and therefore you can throw all the evidence and proof at them you want and they'll simply ignore it. Further complicating this mess is that it's a complex event and there is no one, tidy package that proves anything. It's only when you look at all of what's available that the answers become clear.

[atomizer]

re: the woman photographed in the hole was identified by her husband as Edna Cintron. More photographs and 2 videos here:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_woman.html

Video #2 of woman -- this is the best vid

[atomizer]

Only patriotic Americans need watch...

Unconstitutional - The War on Our Civil Liberties

Iraq:The hidden story

Edited October 24, 2006 by atomizer