Next we have


Don't know how you come up with this craziness
The facts
Starting in 1979 the US gave funds to bin Laden to help Afghan resistance fighters, repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. This funding ended in 1984
al-Qeada wasn't formed until 1989 which is 5 years after the USA stopped funding the Afghan Resistance
1991 Bin Laden is expelled from Saudi Arabia due to his anti-government activities.
1996 The United States indicts bin Laden on charges of training the people involved in the 1993 attack that killed 18 U.S. servicemen in Somalia.
1998 The United States indicts bin Laden on charges of masterminding the attacks on U.S. embassies

Now tell me how you connect the dots to claim al-Qaeda was founded, funded, and trained by our government.


Or here is another example of misinformation you want to provide as fact.

Prior to 9-11 Norad was only focused on the 150 miles which make up the Air Defence Identification Zone encircling North America. Its job was to help assess, within two minutes, if each of the 7,000 incoming aircraft every day is friend or foe.
Post 9-11 Norad began monitoring all flights above the US.

A short list of changes involving NORAD since 9-11
1) Norad now monitors 40,000 daily flights, adding domestic flights to the 7,000 international flights it formerly tracked.
2) New computers in Norad headquarters Command Centre identify every internal North American flight.
3) Now 100 fighter jets stand on constant alert as opposed to 14 in North America prior to Sept. 11.
4) A dozen Norad mobile radars have been moved across the U.S. to expand the ability to monitor home skies
5) Prior to 9-11 only the Presendt or the Canadian Prime minister could athorize a downing of a commercial flight. Now Air Force generals have been authorized to shoot down hijacked commercial jets threatening U.S. cities without 1st consulting the president.

More later

i love this guy....

no

no
yes... do the research.

i dont get what you're trying to say... i do keep an open mind. i would not have GOTTEN where i was without an open mind. 2 years ago my paradigm was "yea i <3 george bush we gotta get that fuckin bastard saddam and his WMDs!" and at that time a lot of ppl (mostly europeans) told me i was a robot programmed to repeat everything the news spits out... so trust me ive been on both sides before, i know what it's like to always think the media's right and shit. but then i opened my mind a bit and started looking @ the other side i was like whoa shit... and everything started to make sense.


how do they misquote it?
bits and pieces add up. if u have thousands of bits and pieces u have a damn good heap of evidence. crime scene investigators take only bits and pieces.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#w199i
there's a shitload of w199i resources... the reason you can't find W199i on the gov websites is because it's a classified document. the ONLY reason we know about this is because of a whistleblower named jon o'neill (i think), who tragically lost his life shortly after resigning from the CIA, on september 11th 2001. here's something from a book about W199i, i believe it describes what the numbers mean: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/W199I.gif "the designation '199' means 'national security matter'"

Not impressed that the only sites you can link to about this phantom exectutive order are two propaganda site. LOL

You say it's an executive order but can't link to it because it's clasified?
Sorry to burst your bubble but executive orders are not classified.

Not much reason to reply to whatever you say next.
After all you admit to belivieing the world is controled by the super secret group Illuminati.
Your more of a nut than I 1st thought

I'm seriously begining to think that Mr. Exclusive here is one of those guys that beats off to foot cream commercials and finds errors in phone books.

hah... if u look at that 1st propaganda site i gave you, you'll notice it links to about 10-15 different articles from all around including BBC and others...

and i guess they did good on john o'neil's death, because now everyone thinks W199i is made up... (but then again so were the WMDs aluminum tubes centerfuges and bullshit said to be in Iraq... so i guess it evens out eh? :/)... i feel bad that the person who came out with the info about this died on 9/11 :/

http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV

watch that. it's a clip from a PBS documentary. that's larry silverstein ADMITTING that building 7 was destroyed. larry silverstein was the landlord of the WTC at the time. o wait... that's a conspiracy theory too? the landlord of the WTC admitting that building 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition charges on a PBS DOCUMENTARY?

the term pull is in strict reference to pull man power from building seven, no man power was assigned to be inside operations so why say pull? answer just because there was no inside operations, outside opps ad inc comand was set up. notable man power that could be used. no ff opps were put in place and no FF attempts were made the building burned till it was unstable from falling debris and extreme heat took the tensile strength away from the steel. its a fact.

that's the most ridiculous thing i've heard.
read the context... do research about controlled demolitions, "Pull it" means take the building down with demolition charges! look at the context, he wouldnt have said "they made that decision to pull then we watched the towers collapse" if it was pull power he wouldnt have made it SOUND like pulling it resulted in the collapse. cmon...

the incident command was established at all sites where a structure fire was involved. three towers, three incident commands. there were people trapped at two of the incidents and the third was a secured empty structure. man power was diverted from building # seven. FDNY had to to secure all man power since this was a mass casulity incident. there sop called for mutial aid to be called on a county then a state wide basis. which was done. we put on stand-by and were packed to leave. man power was state wide. the decision was made by ICT CMD to let building seven burn. with out any fire fighting done the temp in the building went beyond the thresh-hold the steel could with hold. the building stood for hours and hours. the sprinklers and gas lines ruptured providing intense heat. the building fell. they all knew that. to demolish a building with explosives takes weeks of prep do. removing and drilling in main support's. dont be foolish

oh, 8 hours big woop... did you SEE those fires??? they were miniscule at best... all i gotta say to the claim about the fires eventually getting hot enough to weaken the steel is this:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/13/spain.block.fire/
u see that fire burned for 17.5 hours, less technologically advanced building, THE WHOLE UPPER HALF ENGULFED WITH WHITE FLAMES, THE 2ND HOTTEST.

now look at these pics of the fires @ building 7:
http://members.aol.com/erichuf/eh_wtc16.jpg
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/fig_5_19a.jpg

now compare the two fires with a little common sense and ANY person with common sense will say "wow that first fire burned for TWICE as long and was a RAGING INFERNO WITH WHITE FLAMES, was a less technologically advanced building, and it didnt collapse while the second one had a few small fires here and there that were quite cool (red and yellow) and it DID collapse..." then the person with common sense would innevitably ask the question "y?"

You are a fucking idiot. Are those buildings build like the WTC? Did a 180 ton jet fly into any of those? Are you an expert on the fires that went on in the building? YOU DONT KNOW SHIT. Your comparing apples to oranges. You know you seriously need to remove your head from your ass.

You said so your self that it takes weeks and time to prepare a building to be taken down with demolition charges. They didn't just magically prep the building during all the fires. THINK IDIOT THINK!

Also in the video THERE is no mention of any demolition charges being used. Don't try to make something out of nothing. Just cause you think or assume that's what he ment doesn't mean anything.

Here's a the problem. You found all this non sense on the net and you decided to believe it. It's pretty obvious that you didn't even bother looking anything up. So now you think your a profenstional on all that shit just cause you managed to read pages full some made up shit? Guess what? You don't know anything. I don't know why but you decided to come here and repost all that shit from your links that you posted. So you have all this crap here and you can't back most of it up. Wow that's some good work there Detective Dipshit.

A PLANE DIDNT HIT BUILDING 7, DIPSHIT! i mentioned this already, ive looked up everything NUMEROUS times...it's not like i just look at these pages and believe everything i hear. there's lots of 9/11 theories i DONT believe. and also, i KNOW buildings have to be prepped to be demo'd, that's the whole point of PRIOR KNOWLEDGE. the importance in larry silverstein's admission is that it proves they not only had prior knowledge but were involved. now if larry DIDNT mean take down the buildings with controlled demolition charges he would've said something like "they made that decision to pull it but shortly after the building collapsed" not "and then we watched it collapse"... he could've at least said "then we saw it collapse"... would've sound more like it wasn't a controlled demolition. if ANYBODY is that thickheaded that they can't see that the leaseholder of WTC himself admitted a building was taken down with controlled demolitions then hell, god have mercy on his soul and may he some day wake up.

I havnt done much research on this topic, but I believe that the crux of your argument SHOULD be possible motives for the government to "fabricate" the attacks (is this even what you are trying to prove, or just that their is inconsistency with what the media has told us.)


Im not quite sure what you mean by "profit." Please explain. War with Afghanistan?, Iraq?, Terrorists?

This may be true. But if you think that the government in any way will condone the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans just to gain a political international foothold, then you are not an American. You gotta keep it in perspective.

Why does the government want to control us? I believe that their are enough intelligent people to know that we shouldnt rise up in anarchy. Think about it, deaths of many to gain a small control over the people. Cmon now, this doesnt make much sense.

You also must remember that at the end of the day, politicians are people. They have dedicated their whole loves to the American cause, and I really dont think they would compromise the US in any detrimental way.

Ahh no, the fire itself was extremely weak, the lack of flames and intense black smoke would point to the fire being at about 250 degree's Celcius.

The tower would of not collapsed if RDX explosives were not place in them, simple as that.

And the concrete would not turn to dust, it would crack and break but not pulverise, there is not enough energy to do so.

The steel from the building WOULD NOT be ripped into shreads, this is absolutely ridiculous, something with great force did this, not the building falling down.

9/11 Was An Inside Job...get over it...

A paragraph one refers to the WTC as it is stated.

The rest refers to the video and building 7.

I think you have confused yourself enough.

I consider myself a conspiracy theory "buff". The reason I don't buy into the 911 conspiracy theories are two-fold.
1. A conspiracy works best when few people are involved. You need a big lie that not many people can dipute. Countless people have been involved in the attack that took place on 9/11. Many people have disagreed witht the government actions that have taken place. Nobody actually involved said it didn't occur the way it was shown to have occured. I have personal anecdotes from a close friend who saw the plane hit the pentagon. He was working security in the area at the time. He clearly saw the plane hit. End of story there. He gained nothing by lying to me as he cried the next day on the phone while we talked.
2. I don't remember what my second point was. All I know is that at best I'll believe that the Penn. plane was shot down. I can buy into the government telling us the people on board were heroes, when in actuality they shot the plane down to avoid another great tragedy. But to believe that there was a concerted effort by our government to create a reason to invade middle eastern countries, a reason that caused thousands of deaths, is absurd.
Lyndon Johnson had JFK killed.
GW Bush did not kill thousands for an Iraqi war.

alright what about building 7... do u believe their theory of "pull it" like pull power or somethin like that or the controlled demolition lingo for "pulling" down a building? cause dont forget the context, he made it sound like whatever "pulling" the building meant was related to it collapsing, because they made that decision to "pull" and then they watched the building collapse. in his words. not to mention the building fell .5 of a second slower than a complete freefall in a vacuum... which is insane considering air resistance and everything.

Benny Hinn -- The quote from Rumsfeld proves absolutely nothing, not to mention there is no evidence the plane was shot down.
ScarFace -- Now the airplane that crashed in Pennsilvania was not shot down. Just look the crash site. If an airplane was shot in mid air the explose alone would have scattered the pieces around in a couple of mile radius. Now did you see parts and piece of the plane scattered around nicely everywhere? Neither did I.
blk96gt -- You heard eye witness reports huh. From where? Did you talk to these people first hand? Or was this taken from one of those dumbass sites you go to? Again, please show me where you get this info from. Don't say, teh intraw3b d00d, no shit shirlock, give me a specific url that doesn't require me to click through a bunch of shit to find it.

Link
Here are the facts;
1. The debris was scattered over an 8 mile radius
2. The debris was blown into tiny pieces
3. Witnesses in the area reported to hear a loud explosion whilst the plane was still in the air, and seeing military jets

None of this could occur, obviously, if the plane just crashed as stated. Here is an eye witness account of the plane getting shot down (audio). Link

One fact that most people do not know is that these buildings were over engineered to withstand major storms, and yes, even large hits from major airliners.
Link
They were built with 47 enormous interior steel columns, together with 236 huge exterior columns, that were bolted and welded together with steel plates. Further there were steel trusses that criss-crossed which meshed over other exterior steel columns, plus there was diagonal bracing and steel rods connecting the trusses. There were also corrugated panes with poured concrete on every floor and all of this was anchored by a very deep and heavy foundation, overall roughly 200,000 lbs.
Link
The buildings were architecturally designed to absorb energy and a sway in storms, and according to witnesses who were in the building, relatively near to where the planes made contact, the towers briefly swayed for seconds as intended, other witnesses say that the noise and blast were significant but the tremor felt at the point of contact was minimal.
A subcontractor for UL wrote a recent letter to the Feds, stating that he was involved in the testing of the World Trade Center steel, and that it would have withstood the fires, "The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." Kevin Ryan.
Link

It must also be remembered that large amounts of the jet fuel exploded outside of the building, the exterior columns were exposed to the air on three sides and naturally would dissolve heat at a fast rate, and the beams and columns were coated with fire proof materials.

The official story is that the buildings came down at point of contact because the intensity of the fires caused the trusses to push out the columns, yet when viewed the hole created in the North Tower by the plane, there are only relatively small fires, and the heat cannot be excessive because you can see people standing out and staring out the opening. How did this person survive an 800ºC inferno?

The top section of the South Tower began to tilt at approximately 9:59 am at this moment, suddenly a large amount of grey dust puffed out the building, the 35 stories of the top section continued to tip to 23 degrees past vertical.
At this point the upper segment was hanging over the edge approximately at 65 degrees.
In frame by frame pictures one can see the mushroom of grey cloud enveloping the building. As this is happening one can also see debris being blown away from the building with an obvious powerful blast.

Then as the top section disappeared the whole 1350 foot tower came down in an incredible (estimated) speed of 10.4 seconds. The tower was then nothing but total pulverized remains.

Government story is that this building experienced a compression or ‘pancake’ demolitions caused from weaken trusses and weight from above.
At first this explanation sounds plausible. However common sense would indicate that the centre of gravity of the top section was not centered over the lower section. (Refer back to the link about the construction of the towers)

Thus if there was a compression of the building, it would not be uniform because the center of gravity was considerably off center.
Secondly, the severed top section that was tilting very much over the edge would fall somewhat independently. This is just common science and basic physics.
Third this section would fall at a faster rate than the anchored lower section because it would not meet the residence of the non damaged lower sections of the tower.
Fourth, the top and lower sections would break into pieces – they would not pulverize.
None of these four things happened!


When Rome was still a functioning republic Roman judges would always ask the question: Cui Bono? Or Who Benefits?
When we ask ourselves this simple question we see:
a) The arms dealers are selling hundreds of billions of dollars in new weaponry. Cui Bono?

The “elite” who own the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have created over $1 Trillion in new loans, in the last year alone. Cui Bono?

c) Aerial Sharon and his group of hard liner political Zionist are jumping for joy because they have been pushing the U.S for years to aggressively attack Arab nations.
When Aerial Sharon said: “I don’t care what the American people think, I own the Congress!” this should create concern for all Americans, as he is probably correct. Cui Bono?

d) The multi-national oil corporations have taken control of the rich Caspian oil fields and now have the eyes set on Iraq, followed by Iran etc… Cui Bono?

e) The “elite” have always known that the freedom loving, god conscious people of the U.S were always going to be there biggest problem. With 9/11 many Americans have become so afraid and so confused that they are willing to turn over their rights for “promised security”. People have become enslaved by this bogus control mechanism.


When the victim’s families are part of a nation wide movement which seeks to re-open the case of 9/11 but Bush & Co. have not given them any relief or answers, are they disgracing themselves?
Fact is 47% of people in New York feel there is a 9/11 cover-up and many upon many feel 9/11 should be re-opened. Oddly enough the administration is refusing to open the case, why? I’m not sure, all the victims’ families want are some simple answers, but their not getting them.
So in future refrain from narrow perspective statements, thanks.
A 7 billion dollar legal suit has been brought against Bush and other governmental administrators by 400 hundred families who lost relatives on 9/11. Link The suit is claiming that Bush allowed the terrorist attacks to occur.


The winning team? Siding with the terrorists? *sigh* again I ask are the families who are still looking for answers and who feel that the administration knew of the attacks are they terrorists …………… ? To be honest you don’t know what your talking about, you think you do but you don’t, go ahead and reply with something absurd like this post, but the fact is the PNAC documents predict future wars in the Middle East, saying such things as not allowing any other nation within these regions to build up, and securing the vast natural resources which exist there.
I believe it says ‘revolution in these areas should take a long time, unless there is a sudden crisis of epidemic proportions, like a new pearl harbour’ Oddly enough these same people who wrote the PNAC document, which are now serving in the administration have called 9/11 ‘The New Pearl Harbour’.
What they have done via their friends in the media is to manipulate your vulnerable emotions, and successfully tied Iraq and 9/11 together and have convinced the US people that Saddam is just as bad as Osama Bin Laden.
And that’s exactly where you fall, I’m sure you listen closely to Bush & Co. about how to preserve America’s freedom. But like I said you don’t understand that this war has been in planning since the early 1990’s and 9/11 offers the perfect pretext.


Read what I posted above with regards to WTC capacity to withstand such unexpected circumstances.
Just a note you may want to record the times in which the WTC’s fell. It will give you a very compelling answer.


Lol, ok ………….. let me put it this way to you. Take a note of who is represented in the Council of Foreign Relations, go learn about the major world banks and which families control and operate them. Maybe then you may understand something, let me put it this way, when you own the big banks, the media, governments essentially you have more power to dictate world affairs.
Again go research about the Bilderberg group and why all corporatist of the world attend this annual conference.
As soon as the 9/11 events began unfolding the so called experts immediately showed up on TV, and guess what? Most of them are part of the Council of Foreign Relations or C.F.R.
Link
The C.F.R is the primary political organization of the “elite” in the United States and is described by former Senator and presidential candidate Barry Goldwater as:
“An offshoot of a British secret society whose purpose is to destroy the sovereignty of the United States and create a One World Government”

In 1979 the C.I.A initiated a massive program of covert military aid to indigenous Islamic tribes in Afghanistan and Islamic volunteers from other nations who were in opposition to the Soviet military invasion of that country.
The Soviets had formed a coalition with several Afghani tribes from the North of that country (the Northern Alliance). The tribe that was supported by the C.I.A was called the Mujahadeen, Ronald Reagan termed them as ‘freedom fighters’ of central Asia, elements within the Mujahadeen later branched off to become Al’Qaeda, and again with full C.I.A support and funding.

The leader of Al’Qaeda is Osama Bin Laden, who had been educated in Europe. Osama Bin Laden’s father was Sheikh Mohammad Bin Laden who founded and built Bin Laden Brothers Construction Company. It was later renamed to the ‘Saudi Bin Laden Group’. It should also be noted that from the early 1980’s Osama Bin Laden was a C.I.A asset, who’s Western cover name was Tim Osman. Link

The Bin Laden family is one of the wealthiest in Saudi Arabia, and has built dozens of American military bases in the Middle East. The Bin Laden family is closely connected with the ruling Sheiks of Saudi Arabia, and have strong political connections around the world. The beauty about their relationship is that whenever a U.S embassy gets bombed it’s this very same company which builds them a new one.
Link

The Bin Laden family and the Bush family have been friends and business partners for many years. In 1977 George Bush Jr. started Arbusto Energy Co. in Midlen Texas. One of his first and major investors was Saleen Bin Laden who at that time had become the president of the Saudi Bin Laden Group. Saleen happened to be the older brother of Osama Bin Laden.
Another interesting connection is Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz. Mahfouz is one of the richest men in the world and also a major investor in Arbusto and was a business partner with George Bush Jr. He was also Operational Director of the corrupt B.C.C.I between 1986 and 1990 Link
According to C.I.A director James Woolsey in testimony to the US senate in 1998, Mahfouz was a major contributor to Osama and Al’Qaeda, oh one more connection for you is; Mahfouz’s sister is Osama’s wife, what a big happy family.

Al’Qaeda was involved in the bombings of the U.S Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 which killed 224 people. Al’Qaeda was also responsible for the suicide bombing of the U.S.S Cole which killed 25 American sailors in 2000.

Yemen and Sudan offered to extradite Osama Bin Laden after the bombings of the embassies and the U.S.S Cole. However secretary of state Madeline Albright (who was appointed by Bill Clinton) refused to take Osama Bin Laden.
Link
Link

John O’Neil was a deputy director of the F.B.I and resigned his post in disgust because of interference from both the Clinton and Bush administration in the investigation of Al’Qaeda.
John O’Neil: “The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S oil corporate interests.”
After stating this Mr. O’Neil had the misfortune to be hired as the Director of Security of the World Trade Center, starting his first day on the job on………. September 11th 2001, he was killed on that day.
Link

The United States government spends $40,000,000,000 of the U.S citizens tax money on the F.B.I, N.S.A, and C.I.A. These same organisations helped finance and create Al’Qaeda, and have been monitoring closely, the Taliban, Al’Qaeda, and Osama Bin Laden for the past decade.
Yet all these government agencies with all their money, all their technology, all their superiority flatly state that they had no prior knowledge that such an attack would occur. This is all you need to know about that statement – utter and complete nonsense.
After the attacks these same government agencies were rewarded with significant increases in funding and were lauded by the U.S administration and the press, this is completely disgusting.



No it’s not, as mentioned it is to demolish. Why pull?
The World Trade Center land lease was sold to Mr. Larry Silverstein for $100 million just a short time prior to the attacks. He put a very large insurance premium on the complex even though the buildings were experiencing a higher than normal vacancies and had significant asbestos problems, strange behaviour to say the least.
This man is now trying to get double the amount of his insurance coverage – $7.1 billion, which is not a bad return for something that was so “unexpected”.
How much did he actually benefit? In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of World Trade Center 7.

Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in World Trade Center 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million!
Speaking about following the money it was said several times after the weeks of 9/11 that there was large international deposits of gold bullion that were deposited in a huge vault in the basement of the World Trade Centers. Gold is a very heavy element and though it could melt it would not be pulverized.
It has also been said that there was large digital deposits credited to the banks within the World Trade Center, hmm where did that gold go? Nobody seems to be saying anything. Say it with me – Bank Robbery. Link

Here's the problem. You found all this non sense on the net and you decided to believe it. It's pretty obvious that you didn't even bother looking anything up. So now you think your a profenstional on all that shit just cause you managed to read pages full some made up shit? Guess what? You don't know anything. I don't know why but you decided to come here and repost all that shit from your links that you posted. So you have all this crap here and you can't back most of it up. Wow that's some good work there Detective Dipshit.
ScarFace

More ignorance on your part, If you would even read up on who and what people are pushing for 9/11 to be re-opened you would realise that;
A – they know what their talking about
B – they don’t gain anything from “brainwashing” people to believe 9/11 was allowed to happen

Look what the government has gained, they now got to pass the Patriot Act as a result and again if you would do a little more research you would see that 9/11 has been orchestrated and the wars in the Middle East have nothing to do with “freedom preservation”. God how can people be so dumb! Get a clue then read something, geez to think that a couple of guys in a cave were able to orchestrate such an attack purely based on hatred of freedom (whilst it is evident that the government benefited a lot more as a result of the attack) is absurd. But hey the media is not about credibility anymore.

I will be back soon ………………

Well you certainly hold the record for the longest first post. Congrats!
No go into the Intruduce Yourself forum and.... introduce yourself.

Alot of people will say why would he kill all those people for a war in Iraq.
There is a bigger agenda, and Iraq is just another piece, that's not me talking that's the PNAC document and Dick Cheney | Donald Rumsfeld etc ... talking.

wow i could have saved you all the trouble of posting that. Real Deal has a smilie for that jibberish. you didnt say anything. anything at all! this is so amazing that now i see why drug companys make billions! mind altering drugs will be in ur cup tonight! holly shit....

ok, you people are so far off the mark its not funny. you are looking for something to believe in and cannot see past your own blindness to see truth. im not blinded by paranoia or some sort of mental defiect. im not calling you names dont get me wrong. i really truly feel sorry for you. you inflict this upon your kids and family, and i know how much it must hurt them to hear you be this way. i truly hold the gov. mental health system for that.

you can believe what you want, thats ur right. building seven burned down due to high heat and damage from towers 1 & 2. heat does not have to be super hot to take the integerity form steel. fire is a strange thing. did you know that all fire is white? our eyes render it as orange or blue or red depending on the burning conditions. its mesured by heat ussally. but i dont expect you to know that. and its not important. fuel does not burn, nor does it explode. gasoline its self will not burn. the vapor that rises from it burns.

im not going into detail, i know people that were there. i trust what they said they have no reason to lie. thats what happened. end of story. blah blah blah rattle on but in the end people like you deserve to be medicated and observed. the gov is watching you......

Here is a tip read the PNAC documents.

.. and I expected that type of answer, you asked evidence of the pane being shot down, I gave it to you.
Someone asked what would be the benefit of destroying WTC 7 I told you, etc ........ and all you say is you haven't proven anything.

Well that's enough, obviously you don't think 9/11 was an inside job, but for me to think that the US government was completely unaware of the attacks and had no prior knowledge is way too crazy for me to believe.
If you want I can give handful or articles where foreign leaders have gave the US reports of a possible attack.
What did the administration do? They fired anyone who tried to investigate the matter. If you don't believe me, please ask for links because their right in front of me.

Nevertheless I respect your opinions despite the fact that I don't agree with them, and I apologise if I had called you insulting names, it's just that I get frustrated because I have read the PNAC documents I know every move the US is going to do, and to be honest back in 2001 adfter 9/11 (and I'm being deadly serious) I told everyone that 'ok watch now they'll go into Iraq | Iran | Syria etc........' and heck 4 years later there doing this exact thing.
Either I'm a future teller or maybe just maybe after reading what this administration has written up years ago gives me an insight into what their agenda is regarding world politics.

Nevertheless keep it cool, and I'm sure we can find some common ground maybe not on this subject though.

Peace

i never said that. our gov had prior warning i have heard for as long as 10 years before that we would fall under attack. i hold our gov responsible for not doing more to prevent them. we should have been able to spot these scum when they were being watched in the east for terrorist connections. but to totally prevent an act or knew exactly when and when i dont believe and cant hold responsible.

Oh My god where to start.

How about Mr Exclusive.
What I've already debunked
al-CIAeda was founded, funded, and trained by our government
Unture.. al-Qaeda didn't form until 5 years after the USA stopped funding the Afghan resistance fighters to repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

the terrorists would have to find some way to get into the country unnoticed, train to be master pilots unnoticed, and find some way to defeat NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense). See NORAD is a system of radars throughout the country whose headquarters are in Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado. they track EVERY plane in the sky on radar. they KNOW if a plane goes off course, in which case they would send fighters within minutes to investigate.
Prior to 9-11 Norad was only focused on the 150 miles which make up the Air Defence Identification Zone encircling North America. Its job was to help assess, within two minutes, if each of the 7,000 incoming aircraft every day is friend or foe.
Post 9-11 Norad began monitoring all flights above the US.
In fact they didn't even turn their attention inward until after the 2nd tower was hit.
Also upon further reading I've found out Norad is notified of possible hijackings, which goes against your suggestion they would automaticlly now about it themselves.

=one more thing in the few months prior to 9/11, bush signed Executive Order W199i telling the FBI to "back off" the bin ladens.
Still waiting on a link to this that isn't a consparcy or propaganda site.
I will give you this much I wouln't doubt at all that Bush may of given them a directive to back off the bin Ladin family outside of Osama.
Here is an old post of mine detailing the difference between Osama and the bin Ladin family
http://www.mobclan.com/forums/upload/index...indpost&p=43031
And another post detailing what we knew about Osama concerning possible attacks.
http://www.mobclan.com/forums/upload/index...indpost&p=34810
This also contridicts the 1st point about Osama being a CIA assest

btw, the plane is 80 tons, not 165.
Futureman took care of this one rather nicely

And some new debunking
next we have the planes hit the towers. after only 56 (i think) minutes, the south tower magically collapses. we're told that the fire was so hot that it weakened the steel enough to cause the building to collapse. now, again, to this lie, i will turn to historical (and scientific) evidence. in 1970 (i think), there was a fire in the south tower that consumed floors 9-19 and burned for i think 19 hours. that was at the bottom of the tower. no collapse. just these past few days, a 32 story steel and concrete skyscraper in madrid spain was fully ENGULFED in flames for 17 hours, and that was days ago. no collapse. look this one up to see how major that fire was. the pictures say a thousand words. no steel-framed building had EVER collapsed due to fire in history, yet we have 3 on september 11th.
I've seen several of your propaganda sites which claim there has never been a collapse of a steel/concret structures do to fire. Then the sites would use this claim as proof that the WTC towers were blown up as part of some covert operation.
All I can say is WOW.
It took me all of 60 seconds to find a study on Building Collapses Due to Fire.
Google is your best friend for the real facts. do a search for "Building Collapses Due to Fire"
Looky looky and see what comes up as the 1st hit. A study of full and partial collapses of multi-story buildings do to fire.
The WTC towers make up a large part of the study but they are by no means the only building that ever collapsed do to fire.
http://www.haifire.com/presentations/Histo...apse_Survey.pdf

Or how about the suggested idea from other conspiracy sites which uses the fact tower 2 was hit second but collasped 1st as their support for the idea the building was broght down by explosive charges and not from damage from the fires or impact of the plane.
http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/artic...2052003_ns.html
When the twin towers were built in the early 1970s, fire insulation just 19 millimetres thick was sprayed onto the trusses.
The New York City building code stipulates that the insulation on steel structures should be at least 38 millimetres thick. However, the Port Authority's special legal status means it does not have to comply with the code.
Much more of the North tower had been updated to the required 38 millimetres of fire insulation than the south tower. This goes a long way to why the south tower collapsed 1st.


Are you having fun yet? I am.

first of all, as for the stand-down... i do NOT know who's making u think that the most powerful military of the most powerful most secure country in the world is stupid enough to let 4 planes wonder around for hours, and let 3 of the hit their targets... i have NO CLUE who's telling u that we're stupid enough to let that happen. especially when prior knowledge is a fact. we were warned by so many other countries, THAT'S NOT EVEN CONSPIRACY THEORIES, THAT'S MAINSTREAM NEWS! and it's ADMITTED that NORAD was running drills of hijacked jets being flown into WTC, pentagon, sears tower and other places. THEY ADMITTED THAT! THAT'S A FACT!

well if you would've went to a site i gave u, it gives links to a lot of news articles. but since u dont want to go to the news articles because they're linked from "propaganda" sites.

LINK <-- is BBC a conspiracy site as well?
LINK <-- hindustandtimes
LINK <-- more BBC
LINK
LINK <-- guardian.co.uk

need more?

you took everything out of context. first of all, i said no STEEL FRAMED BUILDING ever collapsed. and if you'll read your OWN RESOURCE that u showed me, ull notice that the ONLY steel framed buildings to fully collapse were the ones on 9/11. period. now, just remember my previous post... building 7 compared to the windsor building. windsor didnt collapse from a raging inferno that burned twice as long as building 7 did, yet building 7 DID collapse in a most unusaul straight down fashion...

i don't know WHERE the fuck you heard that crazy shit. noone that i have EVER talked to about 9/11 thinks that the fact the south tower collapsed first has anything to do with explosive charges. don't try to debunk an argument that never existed... at least one that i think is bullshit.

TONS

now your use of the word "propaganda"... don't forget propaganda has to have a motive. there has to be a reason for people using propaganda... and also propaganda is usually something that reaches the masses... like say, the news media... conspiracy sites dont usually reach the masses... and why would they be trying to make ppl believe that? there's no reason. like F911... that was propaganda. moore wanted to get ppl to vote for kerry. but what do conspiracy theorists gain from this? nothing.

if u were to say that no steel framed building has ever collapsed you would have to have indebth knowlege of NFPA records and county records and understand how heat and fire work in regards to reflective and radient heat properites. the special foam that was used in fire proofing the structure according to building codes was damaged by debris falling from the WTC towers to the point the steel was left exposed, lowering the heat resiestant properites of the steel. the fire didnt have to be hot to let the steel bent, it didnt have to melt. the damaged steel was being supported by the other steel trusses and was bearing a load byeond what the structure called for. the heat didnt need to be hot to let the steel bend. thats all it took of all the building to fall. the damage done to the footers and the foundation of all the buildings form the WTC attacks. not only that but whos to say the bombing a few years before didnt invite some stress cracks in main supports? but all aside we had a structure collapse, due to fire. a vet clinic, gas pipe ruptured and was a total loss. the foundation gave way due to construction and boom. if you are to say that no steel framed structure has ever fell to fire ill say you need a lesson in fire.

u just said there was an explosion. im talkin about building 7. no FALLING debris hit it... the debris cloud that spread out when the tower hit the ground hit it but that's all. now i dont know if uv seen the building 7 collapse or not, but if you look at the way it came down, there is a 1 in a billion chance that it would not tip... IT FELL INTO IT'S FOOTPRINT. that means it would've had be symmetrical stress done on all the steel supports, evenly so that when it did collapse in that fashion it wouldn't have tipped, ESPECIALLY since there was an uneven debris pile developing below... if you want, ill make u a diagram when i get back.

gad line rupture does not mean explosion. it means it broke causeing a 30 foot torch inside the building (same thing smaller scale) and it fell. you dont understand why it happened. take a walk to the local fire department and they will pop some tapes (training video) in for you to understand.

sorry for the misunderstanding... but still, think about it diesel, if a building were to fall VERTICALLY likie building 7 did, HOW? if it actually did collapse due to the miniscule fires that were in there it would've been SO uneven that it would've tilted and fell over after a few floors. think about that.

Hey exclusive
Maybe you should go back and check your links you posted about your phantom
as you called it Executive Order, turns out it wasn't.
It was an FBI Directive

Even better one of your own links describes it as them being told to back off the Binladin family in the USA.
http://prisonplanet.com/fbi_claims_bin_lad...frustrated.html

Go back and read my post about the difference between bin Ladin and the bin Ladin Family.

This is still in the debunked column for two reasons.
1) It wasn't an Executive order like your conspiracy sites try to make it out to be.
2) It didn't concern Osama but the bin Ladin Family

alright... ill give u guys that one for now...
but ur never gonna get the other ones...
http://thunderbay.indymedia.org/uploads/ou....explosions.mov
check that out, and watch it very slowly and very carefully

thats called a flash over. the tempature in the area reached a between 400 and 600 degrees (dont take the number exact, dont recall exact temp) and flashed. a flash over is when the temp reaches a certian degree the gasses that are produced in the fire ignite and eveything including you own skin become combustible and everything ignites at once. its extremely common and its a fire fighter's worst nightmare. thats what kill's us (them). if a room flashes everything is dead. rats people, everything burns. thats why ff have heat rooms to learn when to pull out and get to saftey. thats all it was. if you dont want to see that go to nfta.com and look around.

btw that shows how hot it was inside to disrupt the steel's intregerty.

coincidence that it happened at the as the 2nd plane hit? and on many different floors?

Dude give it up. Haven't you noticed yet that 99% of what you posted is just nonsense and speculations?

Stop wasting everyone's time.

it happened on all the areas that were involved in the fire. yeah it coincidence, it has to happen its part of a fire, with out FF operations it hapopened. thats why people were jumping to their death. they were being cooked alive. when ur being burnt to death, jumping is a lot better then burning.

So you will only concede me one point out of several that I've made?

Then how about few more.
i will turn to historical (and scientific) evidence. in 1970 (i think), there was a fire in the south tower that consumed floors 9-19 and burned for i think 19 hours. that was at the bottom of the tower. no collapse.
This goes in the misleading category for two reasons.
1) It doesn't factor in the damage caused by the aircraft or the initial explosion
2) The lower floors where built to a much higher design specification do to the load it was required to carry.

Penny
One fact that most people do not know is that these buildings were over engineered to withstand major storms, and yes, even large hits from major airliners.
In the misleading category again.
Double check the info supplied with your link
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/41790.php
The conclusion it draws is inaccurate do to the example he provides.
In his comparison of the the kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 and 767 he uses cruise speed for the velocity in both equations.
This is misleading do to the fact the scenario of an aircraft hitting the WTC involved a 707 lost in fog looking for the airport, which was the most common and foreseen reason an aircraft would hit a skyscraper. This would mean the plane would be traveling around 180 or probably slower which is a huge difference from estimated speeds of the two aircraft of 470 and 590 at impact.
The formula for kinetic energy is .5*mass*(speed squared)
Using the speed of a plane traveling at 180mph lost in fog and you get 1.7B foot-lbs compared to his estimate of 3.7B foot-lbs, pretty damn big difference wouldn't you agree?
BTW I actually think the whole point is moot because the towers obviously survived the impact otherwise they would of fallen right then. I'm only bringing this up to make the point, how misleading information was used to question why the towers collapsed. Pretty much every report and study concludes the collapse was caused by the resulting fire and not the actual impact.

Penny
Fact is 47% of people in New York feel there is a 9/11 cover-up and many upon many feel 9/11 should be re-opened.
Since you didn't say what poll this is from I can only guess it's from the Zogby Poll.
Lets take a closer look.
The poll was sponsered by 911truth.org
Care to take a look at the 100's of examples how it's easy to influence polls by the question asked?
Or how about the fact the poll only involved 808 random calls. Not what I would consider a very large poll.
Also absent is the timeline for the poll which was in the week leading up to the RNC, during this time there was a large anti-bush media blitz.
Care to review several examples of how the media can effect polls?

penny
A 7 billion dollar legal suit has been brought against Bush and other governmental administrators by 400 hundred families who lost relatives on 9/11. Link The suit is claiming that Bush allowed the terrorist attacks to occur.
Very misleading if not a straight out lie.
This is a class action suit which requires 3 people to intiate the suit.
Now look at the actual lawsuit
[URL=http://www.nancho.net/911/mariani.html]
http://www.nancho.net/911/mariani.html[/URL]
Ellen Mariani is listed as 2 of the 3, once as an individual and once as the Representative of her husband's estate. The 3rd plaintive is "and others similarly situated"
Where do you get 400 families filed this suit? If anyone else was even involved at the time it was filed they would be named under section 1.
If you read the actual suit doesn't it sound a little like media grandstanding?
If not why was the suit also accompanied by 3000 press releases?
The most important reason this goes in the misleading category is because it doesn't prove anything. Anyone can file a civil lawsuit for anything, bringing it up is completely pointless until a Judge rules if there evidence to support a trial.
All it really requires to file a suit is finding a lawyer willing to do it.
Now take a closer look at the lawyer in question Philip J. Berg.
From his own website
"Phil Berg was highly involved in challenging the 2000 presidential election, spending three intense weeks in Florida investigating voting irregularities. He had formally demanded the voluntary disbarment of three Supreme Court Justices (December 12, 2001 letter) due to their conflict of interests in that decision. He was in the process of filing formal legal complaints when September 11th happened and ended that effort."
Now you tell me doesn't that sound like a person with an ax to grind?

philip berg? if im not mistaking, that lawyer's name was Stanley Hilton, former advisor to Bob Dole and went to school with Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. Search online for Stanley Hilton. you'll find a lot about him, including a radio interview he did with Alex Jones.

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/091004hilton.mp3

listen to it.

o yea, and cruise speed for a jumbo jet is 180 MPH???????????????????????????? so you're telling me it's going to take me 16 hours and 40 mins to fly from PA to CA? you obviously know nothing about flying.

OMFG dude USE the 3 IQ points u clam to have...if ur a lets say in a car looking for a house how fast do you go while looking? the speed limit or slow? the senerio was the guy was looking for the air port so hes going slow....looking for a airport....

w/e the impacts werent even important. you guys still havent explained how a building with small fires scattered through it collapsed perfectly straight down as was the case with building 7, and how it didnt tip in any way shape or form

seriously i thought (according to the program, the same one as the clip u showed us) that was how if the structure was to fall it was to collapse. thats what the program said.

Not sure what your talking about but the Lawyers name is listed on the lawsuit.
"NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Ellen Mariani, on information, belief and established facts, by and through her counsel of record, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, and for her causes of action against all named and unnamed Defendants states the following:"
Linkage
http://www.nancho.net/911/mariani.html


Too Exclusive
o yea, and cruise speed for a jumbo jet is 180 MPH???????????????????????????? so you're telling me it's going to take me 16 hours and 40 mins to fly from PA to CA? you obviously know nothing about flying.
Don't be silly, go back and re-read my post about this.
I was only stating the website Penny linked to was misleading because the person used the cruise speed of a 707 (607 mph ) in his calculations when he should of used the speed of 160-180mph because the claim about the WTC towers being able to withstand a direct hit from an aircraft was based on the scenario of a plane lost in the fog while preparing to land. There was no other common sense reason why a plan would be that low except in a pre-landing or emergency situation, neither of which would the pilot be flying at cruise speed. He would be flying 20 or so miles faster than stall speed, i.e. closer to 180mph.
Also as I said the whole point was moot seeing as how the building didn't collaspe when the plane crashed into it, it was only used as another example of how sites like that bolster thier opinion with misleading information.

here's the transcript of the interview:

http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm

in the introduction:
"Keep in mind when reading this, that the man being interviewed is no two-bit internet conspiracy buff.

Stanley Hilton was a senior advisor to Sen Bob Dole ® and has personally known Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for decades. This courageous man has risked his professional reputation, and possibly his life, to get this information out to people."

Nothing more than simple media grandstanding.
From his interview he claims the order for the attack was personally signed by Bush and the hijackers where undercover FBI agents.
Yet from his lawsuit he claims they where Al-Qaede but the Bush administration chose to look the other way.
Can this guy not make up his mind?

On another note several of your conspiracy sites your so fond of, claim there were mock hijacking exercises that day or in the days leading up to it. As proof of this they commonly bring up a USA today article but never seem to link to it.
Well now I know why they didin't link to it
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-18-norad_x.htm
BTW this also again contridicts your 1st post about NORAD.
From the article
"Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries."

Or how about this also from the USA today article the conspiracy sites always claim as proof of the goverments knowledge of impending attacks.
"Maj. Gen. Craig McKinley, a NORAD official, told the 9/11 commission. No exercise matched the specific events of Sept. 11, NORAD said.
We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace," Gen. Ralph Eberhart, NORAD commander, told USA TODAY. "Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised."

While we are on this subject how about this from the Stanley Hilton interview you linked to. Both Alex Jones and Stanley Hilton talk about 35 drills over at least two months before September 11th. and 5 drills planned on 9-11.
They both talk about an AP article which dozens of conspiracy sites talk about.
Again the question is why can I not find a single site willing to link to this article they keep bringing up?


It's getting very hard not to find everything from the conspiracy sites that doesn't fit nicely in the misleading catagory.

hey Druid...run for president...ill vote for ya!

i dont get what u guys believe then... what about all the recent MAINSTREAM news reports about the numerous warnings from israel and other countries? you won't believe mainstream either... you'll only believe anything that supports the government had no prior knowledge...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/fema_clip.mp3

clip from dan rather from CBS... fema was in place the night before.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2...tcontroller.htm

and prior knowledge is a fact. i can't believe u guys dont realize that there is NO WAY that kind of attack could be planned, ppl trained in flight schools here, and the CIA (with it's extra funding from the OKC bombing in 95) didn't find it out.

a) I think you're seriously underestimating the occasional ineptitude of our intelligence agencies.
B) Money alone does not improve the quality of our intelligence.
c) It seems that your conspiracy mosaic comprises too many extremely questionable pieces. Most "legitimate" conspiracies hinge on one or two premises whose chances of possibility are not neglible. There's a difference.