Al_jazeera showing video of OBL/Al-Queda planning 9/11

[drp_69]

If you dispute an established fact (though some say theory), you have to have really compelling hard evidence. It takes time effort, and sometimes a lifetime, to overturn established beliefs. Currently I find it strange that 9/11 conspiracy believers, dismiss as ‘not true’ ‘irrelevant’ or ‘not reliable’ every single quote, link, or resource submitted to uphold an already established belief. Yet the 9/11 deniers expect the rest of us to accept and believe their quotes and links etc.

I have joined the Flat Earth Society.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

I found this really believable web site.

Who is going to join with me?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bleeding Red

On WTC 7:

Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, calls such claims "bad science". Barnett was a member of the World Trade Centre Building Performance Study, one of the government groups that investigated the towers' collapse. Reluctantly, he has familiarised himself with the scholars' claims - many of them have emailed him. Yes, it is unusual for a steel structure to collapse from fire, Barnett agrees. However, his group and others argue that the planes' impact weakened the structures and stripped off the fireproofing materials. That caused the top floors of both towers to collapse on to the floors below. "A big chunk of building falling down made the next floor fall down, and then they all came down like a deck of cards," Barnett says.


The collapse of WTC 7 was also unusual, he admits. However, firefighters do not usually let a fire rage unabated for seven hours as they did on the morning of September 11, because they had prioritised the rescue of victims. "The fact that you don't have evidence to support your theory doesn't mean that the other theory is true," Barnett says. "They just made it up out of the blue."



http://http://education.guardian.co....864657,00.html

This information contradicts the testimony of almost every person from NYFD who was in WTC7. I'm sorry I can't post a link, as the information was restricted during the 9/11 Commission investigation when they refused to take the testimony of the NYFD survivors. I do have the testimony of the 510 NYFD and EMS first responders and they paint a much different story than that told.

Also, WTC7 had minimal damage and had minor fires restricted to three floors. One of the corners sustained damage to the exterior that made it look worse than it really was. The central core of the structure was intact when the decision to evacuate was made. Shortly after the building came down upon itself. Pretty impressive for a building that sustained no damage to the load bearing central core.

Professor Barnett might be interested to know that there have only been three concrete and steel high rise buildings that have even experienced catestophic collapses like this. There was one other building, in Venezuela (IIRC) that experienced a collapse of several floors, but that was after a fire raged for over 48 hours. The fires in the WTC were no hot enough, nor burned long enough to cause the damage suggested, fireproofing or not. If the fires were as intense as suggested, anyone on thise floors would have been barbequed by the heat alone. Yet there were survivors filmed, waving through the holes the planes had made in the buildings, for 10-15 minutes before the collapse. Obviously, the fires were no where near as intense as suggested, and the damage no where near as advertised either. There were survivors on the floors where the planes hit, so that completely destroys the theory of heat being intense enough to do the damage suggested. On to WTC7, does anyone think that Petro Canada 1 would collapse if there were fires on three floors, even if they burned for two or three days? Because this is what you are expecting people to believe when you say this. As outrageous as some of the conspiracy theories are, some of what people are swallowing as "truth" is more outrageous.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I was not rebuking you but rather pushing you to actually respond to a legitimate counter to your position. If you are going to make the claims you are and request legitimate debate - you can't pick and choose which items to discuss and which to dismiss as "insults" when they aren't.

You wanted debate and BSS gave it to you. What's the problem?

Exactly, this whole process was reinacted on page three.

I'm ok with listening to conspiracy theories, but all you need to do is read through the posts to see that Looger dips and dives through different issues, is sarcastic when he's pinned into a corner and insults to turn attention away from flaws in arguements.

The point is folks, it's amazing how everyone is unbelievably passionate about their own view ... HOW THE HELL DOES ANYONE REALLY KNOW??? People read a few sites and they know everything in the world.

It doesn't mean never have an opinion, but use your ears as much as your mouth.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

This information contradicts the testimony of almost every person from NYFD who was in WTC7. I'm sorry I can't post a link, as the information was restricted during the 9/11 Commission investigation when they refused to take the testimony of the NYFD survivors. I do have the testimony of the 510 NYFD and EMS first responders and they paint a much different story than that told.

Also, WTC7 had minimal damage and had minor fires restricted to three floors. One of the corners sustained damage to the exterior that made it look worse than it really was. The central core of the structure was intact when the decision to evacuate was made. Shortly after the building came down upon itself. Pretty impressive for a building that sustained no damage to the load bearing central core.

Professor Barnett might be interested to know that there have only been three concrete and steel high rise buildings that have even experienced catestophic collapses like this. There was one other building, in Venezuela (IIRC) that experienced a collapse of several floors, but that was after a fire raged for over 48 hours. The fires in the WTC were no hot enough, nor burned long enough to cause the damage suggested, fireproofing or not. If the fires were as intense as suggested, anyone on thise floors would have been barbequed by the heat alone. Yet there were survivors filmed, waving through the holes the planes had made in the buildings, for 10-15 minutes before the collapse. Obviously, the fires were no where near as intense as suggested, and the damage no where near as advertised either. There were survivors on the floors where the planes hit, so that completely destroys the theory of heat being intense enough to do the damage suggested. On to WTC7, does anyone think that Petro Canada 1 would collapse if there were fires on three floors, even if they burned for two or three days? Because this is what you are expecting people to believe when you say this. As outrageous as some of the conspiracy theories are, some of what people are swallowing as "truth" is more outrageous.

Actually, knowing what I know about aviation jet fuel, as long as that fire was being burned by a large jet packed to the gills with aviation fuel it's not that hard to believe.

I don't think there has been a representative sample of buildings burned with thousands of gallons of aviation fuel to truely understand what happens to building under this kind of heat.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Exactly, this whole process was reinacted on page three.

I'm ok with listening to conspiracy theories, but all you need to do is read through the posts to see that Looger dips and dives through different issues, is sarcastic when he's pinned into a corner and insults to turn attention away from flaws in arguements.

The point is folks, it's amazing how everyone is unbelievably passionate about their own view ... HOW THE HELL DOES ANYONE REALLY KNOW??? People read a few sites and they know everything in the world.

It doesn't mean never have an opinion, but use your ears as much as your mouth.

ummm...

there's WHOLE PAGES of me responding to building 7.

what's most fascinating is that you're accusing me of doing the EXACT thing you're doing, which is attacking a poster and not a post.

i've responded here.

NICE TRY.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by drp_69

If you dispute an established fact (though some say theory), you have to have really compelling hard evidence. It takes time effort, and sometimes a lifetime, to overturn established beliefs. Currently I find it strange that 9/11 conspiracy believers, dismiss as ‘not true’ ‘irrelevant’ or ‘not reliable’ every single quote, link, or resource submitted to uphold an already established belief. Yet the 9/11 deniers expect the rest of us to accept and believe their quotes and links etc.

I have joined the Flat Earth Society.

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

I found this really believable web site.

Who is going to join with me?

ummm...

i've encouraged people to do their own research, Not anywhere have i posted 'believe it because i said so'.

ironically this is EXACTLY what people on the other side of the debate have been saying.

this is getting repetitive.

[HOZ]

Grassy knoll!!! Grassy Knoll!!!!!

Mother ship is coming! Mothership is coming!!!!!

[FlamingLonghorn]

All the conspiracies are just fine and dandy. Because it gets to a point of ridiculousness. When do the conspiracies stop? For instance, Mr. Alex Jones conspiracy theorist #1. He has all this great crap he reads on the radio and gets people to believe it. However, now the conspiracy grows even more because one of his old acquaintances says that he is part of the conspiracy and that he married his wife to get into bohemian grove and thats how he got video of it because he is a part of it through her father. Some other theorists say that Alex Jones is a tool of the CIA just like Bin Laden and offer evidence. So how far do we go? The truth is everyone on both sides do their "research" with bias minds and dismiss any evidence that the other side puts out as lies, distortions, and mistruths.

Oh btw in that same article in the french newspaper reporting the CIA met with Bin Laden, which there is absolutely no evidence to support it, but who needs evidence, it says that Bin Laden has Hep C and would die with in a couple years ago. Five years later... still going strong...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Sowa

All the conspiracies are just fine and dandy. Because it gets to a point of ridiculousness. When do the conspiracies stop? For instance, Mr. Alex Jones conspiracy theorist #1. He has all this great crap he reads on the radio and gets people to believe it. However, now the conspiracy grows even more because one of his old acquaintances says that he is part of the conspiracy and that he married his wife to get into bohemian grove and thats how he got video of it because he is a part of it through her father. Some other theorists say that Alex Jones is a tool of the CIA just like Bin Laden and offer evidence. So how far do we go? The truth is everyone on both sides do their "research" with bias minds and dismiss any evidence that the other side puts out as lies, distortions, and mistruths.

So because one conspiracy theory is over the top, all of them are over the top? Kind of short sighted. Considering the government itself proposed a conspiracy theory in their own right as an explanation to what transpired. The FBI has yet to find any significant evidence that the events were planned by al Qaeda, and its their job to sniff out these conspiracy theories. So what makes the government's consporacy theory any more valid than any other? Because it has been drilled into the public consciousnes for the past five years and because it has had a chance to resonate within the echo chamber that is public opinion and become part of the zeitgeist. That doesn't make it right. That just makes it public opinion.

Oh btw in that same article in the french newspaper reporting the CIA met with Bin Laden, which there is absolutely no evidence to support it, but who needs evidence, it says that Bin Laden has Hep C and would die with in a couple years ago. Five years later... still going strong...

Uh huh. And when was the last time we saw bin Laden? When as the last time we got tape or video that was confirmed to be bin Laden by both sides of the argument? 2002. The job is done. The spectre of him reappearing has become a very effective tool. Remember, it's all about fear and control. A public in fear of a mysterious enemy allows many agendas to be forwarded under cover.

[transplant99]

because one conspiracy theory is over the top, all of them are over the top?

Pretty much....yes.

Like your firm belief that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon. There are literally hunreds, if not into thousands, of people who saw a plane fly into that building. Yet the CT's continue to say it wasn't so. If not, how did the Gov't get all these people planted and involved. Everday folks from newspaper reporters to landscapers...all say the same thing. How is that possible if it DIDNT happen?

The FBI has yet to find any significant evidence that the events were planned by al Qaeda

You actually think the FBI has made public EVERYTHING they know about Al-Quedas involvement? Why in the hell would they do that?? What they know that their enemies dont know is known.....is a help to them.

Beyond that however...what about the repeated ADMISSION by OBL and others as to their involvement? Why wouldnt they have been involved since this has been their modus operandi for years and years. I guess they didnt bomd the embassies in Africa either huh? I guess they were wrong when they claimed responsibilty for the first WTC attack? When they attacked the nightclub in Bali? London Subways?

Its what they do.....yet when the biggest one of all is pulled off by them....then the CT's say "there aint no proof"!!!!

I suppose if you want to ignore every single indication that it was them, as well as their admission to it and the fact they had tried before....then i suppose some peoples brains could come to the conclusion they werent involved.

Its just mind-boggling to me.

[Flame On]

How about if a government conspires? Oh but that was over the top too.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Pretty much....yes.

Speaks volumes I guess. The again, you did buy every single reason the administration has put forward for going into Iraq, so critical thought is not high on your list of skills. How can anyone repeatedly fall for a line of BS as obvious as the garbage the White House has tried to peddle is beyond me.

Like your firm belief that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon. There are literally hunreds, if not into thousands, of people who saw a plane fly into that building. Yet the CT's continue to say it wasn't so. If not, how did the Gov't get all these people planted and involved. Everday folks from newspaper reporters to landscapers...all say the same thing. How is that possible if it DIDNT happen?

Thousands of people? Bull****. And the list goes both ways. Also, the testimony becomes sketchy because pretty well every person who has testified has admitted to watching the TV after the fact and hearing the "official story", so that poisons their testimony and what they think they saw. Stories are a little too uniform as well. Frankly, you should have 100 people observe something and get 100 different stories of the observation. The uniformity is indeed a strange thing for an investigation to come across. It would be interesting to know if the people in question would know the difference between a plane, a UAV or a crusie missle.

Also, why has the Pentagon NOT released the surveillence footage of that day? They could blow the whole conspiracy theory matter right out of the water by releasing the footage. Same with the siezed footage from the businesses around the Pentagon. What do they have to hide?

You actually think the FBI has made public EVERYTHING they know about Al-Quedas involvement? Why in the hell would they do that?? What they know that their enemies dont know is known.....is a help to them.

Who said anything about public? I do know many of the details released to state and local authorities and the FBI does NOT have anything to link the attack to al Qaeda.

Beyond that however...what about the repeated ADMISSION by OBL and others as to their involvement? Why wouldnt they have been involved since this has been their modus operandi for years and years. I guess they didnt bomd the embassies in Africa either huh? I guess they were wrong when they claimed responsibilty for the first WTC attack? When they attacked the nightclub in Bali? London Subways?

Where is this admission you are refering too?

And this is so beyond their M.O. it is not even funny. The only coordinated effort they were able to pull off at all was the African embassy bombings. The first WTC bombing was not actually done by al Qaeda. The group responsible for this was independent to al Qaeda at the time of their action. At that time al Qaeda was a small fry operation and was not considered capable of such attacks. It was Al Zawahri's coordination that made the 1993 attack come off, bin Laden's group didn't play much of a role. The Bali bombing was not directly linked to al Qaeda either, bit to an Indonesian Islamist group, Jemaah Islamiya. The Western media has attempted to create links between this group and al Qaeda, but the fact of the matter is they operate completely independent to the wishes of al Qaeda and Usama bin Laden. The problem here is that the Western media, following on the lead by the Bush administration, hears Islamic and terrorism and immediately attributes their actions to al Qaeda. That's like trying to link the FLQ and the IRA under one Western terror mastermind, becayse they are both terror orgainzations and western based.

Its what they do.....yet when the biggest one of all is pulled off by them....then the CT's say "there aint no proof"!!!!

But there isn't any proof. With the embassy bombings there was proof. With the attack on the USS Cole, there was proof. Here, there is no proof. Trust me, the FBI would love to have some hard proof of the al Qaeda link and pin the attack on the orgainzation and the leadership, but they have none.

I suppose if you want to ignore every single indication that it was them, as well as their admission to it and the fact they had tried before....then i suppose some peoples brains could come to the conclusion they werent involved.

What indication would that be? A list of men that were supposedly involved, yet over half of them are still alive and carrying on their lives just as they were prior to 9/11? And again, where is this admission? al Qaeda made a release praising the attacks, but never admitted responsibility. Where is this admission?

[/quote]Its just mind-boggling to me.[/quote]

Obviously.

[transplant99]

I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for

Osama Bin Laden

Relaxing in green military jacket and white head-dress, Bin Laden claims to have known the attacks would take place five days in advance, and says the destruction of the twin towers exceeded his expectations.

They were overjoyed when the first plane hit the building, so I said to them: be patient

Osama Bin Laden

Bin Laden said that before the attacks on the World Trade Center, he and his men were estimating how many people would be killed.
"We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors," he said, gesturing with his hands to show a building and a plane flying into it. "I was the most optimistic of them all," he said.

"We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day," he said, chuckling

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for

Osama Bin Laden


They were overjoyed when the first plane hit the building, so I said to them: be patient

Osama Bin Laden

I do believe each of these quotes come from the video that has been proven to not be bin Laden. There is no intelligence, what so ever, that al Qaeda was directly involved. In fact, because the United States' case is so flimsy and so full of holes (50% of the hijackers are still alive and leading their lives in the Middle East) that there is no case to pursue. All of the "evidence" there reportedly is would not stand up in a court of law, which is why the FBI does not have that information associated with their list of chages against al Qaeda. As soon as they list something as a charge against someone, they have to have conclusive proof that the individual conspired to make the events take place. If the evidence does not support that charge, and they include that in the charges, the guy is going to walk. You keep saying about ignoring the obvious when considering 9/11, yet those that do believe the official story seem pretty good at ignoring the obvious as well.

[transplant99]

Sure...if you say so.

Wondering then...has Al-Queda ever done anything in regards to attacks?

Or is it all some covert government group with an agenda?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Sure...if you say so.

Wondering then...has Al-Queda ever done anything in regards to attacks?

Or is it all some covert government group with an agenda?

Aww Tranny, you going to take your ball home and pout? You sure sound that way.

As I mentioned in a couple of posts, al Qaeda is directly linked to several attacks and have admitted to doing them. They admitted to doing them right after the attacks too. They readily make claim of their actions when they do something. But not the 9/11 attack. Why not? Why would they not immediately lay claim to the attack as they had done in the past? They didn't follow that M.O. that you spoke of earlier. They never laid claim to the spoils, so to speak. Doesn't make sense. Add in the FBI has been unable to find any links to the terror network and bin Laden and you have a serious problem to deal with. That's just that logic thing coming back to bite you in the ass again. The FBI can't find any link, al Qaeda never claimed to have done the job, so now what? We just put our faith in the White House and believe what ever they say?

[Table 5]

i havent read through all the pages here, so maybe this has been covered, but is this a new Looger that takes part in these conversations? The Looger i know promised to stay away from CP a couple months ago....and the Looger I know is a man of his word.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Table 5

i havent read through all the pages here, so maybe this has been covered, but is this a new Looger that takes part in these conversations? The Looger i know promised to stay away from CP a couple months ago....and the Looger I know is a man of his word.

was going to stay away, but you and azure kept talking aboot me.

so here i am,

enjoy.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Looger

was going to stay away, but you and azure kept talking aboot me.

so here i am,

enjoy.

We did?

Maybe you could bring up the threads me and Table 5 started, or were involved in, where we talked about you 'while' you were gone.

[transplant99]

My ball and go home and pout?

Yeah....good one there champ.

Oh and its up to you CT's to prove that something else happened. Like, if it wasn't Al-Qaeda that flew those planes into the building...who was it?

Let me guess...it never really happened at all. It was guided missiles dressed up to look like jumbo jets no doubt.

"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry, Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands," bin Laden said, referring to the president and his Democratic opponent. "Any state that does not mess with our security, has naturally guaranteed its own security."

Admitting for the first time that he ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, bin Laden said he did so because of injustices against the Lebanese and Palestinians by Israel and the United States.
In what appeared to be conciliatory language, bin Laden said he wanted to explain why he ordered the airline hijackings that hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon so Americans would know how to act to prevent another attack.

"To the American people, my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another Manhattan," he said. "I tell you: Security is an important element of human life and free people do not give up their security."

"We fought you because we are free ... and want to regain freedom for our nation. As you undermine our security we undermine yours," bin Laden said.

He said he was first inspired to attack the United States by the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon in which towers and buildings in Beirut were destroyed in the siege of the capital.
"While I was looking at these destroyed towers in Lebanon, it sparked in my mind that the tyrant should be punished with the same and that we should destroy towers in America, so that it tastes what we taste and would be deterred from killing our children and women," he said.
"God knows that it had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon, this came to my mind," he said.

"It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the American armed forces would leave 50,000 of his citizens in the two towers to face these horrors alone," he said, referring to the number of people who worked at the World Trade Center.
"It appeared to him [Bush] that a little girl's talk about her goat and its butting was more important than the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers. That gave us three times the required time to carry out the operations, thank God," he said.

In planning the attacks, bin Laden said he told Mohammed Atta, one of the hijackers, that the strikes had to be carried out "within 20 minutes before Bush and his administration noticed."
Bin Laden compared the Bush administration to repressive Arab regimes "in that half of them are ruled by the military and the other half are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents."

"He wound up being impressed by the royal and military regimes and envied them for staying decades in their positions and embezzling the nation's money with no supervision," bin Laden said.
"He passed on tyranny and oppression to his son, and they called it the Patriot Act, under the pretext of fighting terror. Bush the father did well in placing his sons as governors and did not forget to pass on the expertise in fraud from the leaders of the (Mideast) region to Florida to use it in critical moments."

Wait...all this is fake though right? Because it doesnt fit the obfuscated theories of those who believe the most intricate and implausible cover up in World history?

Im going to go watch football now. If that's OK.