9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Stryder, Aug 3, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Please provide the source of that 1%/99% poll. I'm most interested in seeing said source's polling techniques. Seriously Kenny, leave the statistics to the statisticians


    If my quick look at the quality of university textbooks is any guide (a quick google search), they are certainly better then high school textbooks. Nevertheless, I am most interested in hearing how you came to your conclusion that all textbooks in respected universities only get there by consensus. And which universities do you deem to be respected (and why)?


    Transfer of momentum is "the process whereby momentum is transferred from one part of a body to another in accordance with the conservation of momentum principle."
    http://www.answers.com/topic/transfer-of-momentum

    Let's see what a physicist has to say on the conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics, in regards to the 9/11 WTC collapses:
    ***************************************
    The rapid fall of the Towers and WTC7 has been analyzed by several engineers/scientists (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). The roof of WTC 7 (students and I are observing the southwest corner) falls to earth in less than 6.6 seconds, while an object dropped from the roof would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. This follows from t = (2H/g)1/2. Likewise, the Towers fall very rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which provide free-fall references (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum — one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case — somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans.

    How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of momentum and the fall times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses (Harris, 2000).
    ***************************************
    http://physics911.net/stevenjones
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Each of these articles is more stupid than the last.

    Only in the minds of the gullible and ill-informed.
    It is no secret how the teams were put together. The members and their qualifications are available for anyone wanting to see.

    This stupid claim again. As we have seen through this thread there are examples of fires causing steel structures to collapse it is hardly a completely different case because they were investigating tall buildings. People like Abolhassan Astaneh have plenty of experience in cases similar enough to WTC. The implication that there shouldn't have been any, or many, experts is absurd, as is the implication that it is suspicious that they were able to find qualified people.

    Apparently everything is suspicious....
    Yes yes everyone is scared they are going to lose their jobs. . This event happened seven years ago. In seven years people retire or leave the profession. The consensus among structural engineers is still in line with the official investigation. For how many more years are we still going to be hearing that the most qualified people won't question the official story because they are worried about losing their jobs? Are we really expected to believe that all of the vast majority who support the official story are more interested in their paypacket than standing up to their supposedly murderous nation.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Here's some information that most people probably don't know about these highly qualified individuals. I put in 2 comments in [].
    **************************************
    The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites


    ...Here are the top ten reasons why nano-thermites, and nano-thermite coatings, should have come to mind quickly for the NIST WTC investigators.

    1. NIST was working with LLNL to test and characterize these sol-gel nano- thermites, at least as early as 1999 (Tillitson et al 1999).

    2. Forman Williams, the lead engineer on NIST’s advisory committee, and the most prominent engineering expert for Popular Mechanics, is an expert on the deflagration of energetic materials and the “ignition of porous energetic materials” (Margolis and Williams 1996, Telengator et al 1998, Margolis and Williams 1999). Nano-thermites are porous energetic materials. Additionally, Williams’ research partner, Stephen Margolis, has presented at conferences where nano-energetics are the focus (Gordon 1999). Some of Williams’ other colleagues at the University of California San Diego, like David J. Benson, are also experts on nano-thermite materials (Choi et al 2005, Jordan et al 2007).

    3. Science Applications International (SAIC) is the DOD and Homeland Security contractor that supplied the largest contingent of non-governmental investigators to the NIST WTC investigation. SAIC has extensive links to nano-thermites, developing and judging nano-thermite research proposals for the military and other military contractors, and developing and formulating nano-thermites directly (Army 2008, DOD 2007). SAIC’s subsidiary Applied Ordnance Technology has done research on the ignition of nanothermites with lasers (Howard et al 2005).

    In an interesting coincidence, SAIC was the firm that investigated the 1993 WTC bombing, boasting that -- “After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, our blast analyses produced tangible results that helped identify those responsible (SAIC 2004).” [There is evidence that the 1993 bombing was also an inside job] And the coincidences with this company don’t stop there, as SAIC was responsible for evaluating the WTC for terrorism risks in 1986 as well (CRHC 2008). SAIC is also linked to the late 1990s security upgrades at the WTC, the Rudy Giuliani administration, and the anthrax incidents after 9/11, through former employees Jerome Hauer and Steven Hatfill.

    4. Arden Bement, the metallurgist and expert on fuels and materials who was nominated as director of NIST by President George W. Bush in October 2001, was former deputy secretary of defense, former director of DARPA’s office of materials science, and former executive at TRW.

    Of course, DOD and DARPA are both leaders in the production and use of nano-thermites (Amptiac 2002, DOD 2005). And military and aerospace contractor TRW has had a long collaboration with NASA laboratories in the development of energetic materials that are components of advanced propellants, like nano-gelled explosive materials (NASA 2001). TRW Aeronautics also made fireproof composites and high performance elastomer formulations, and worked with NASA to make energetic aerogels.

    Additionally, Bement was a professor at Purdue and MIT. Purdue has a thriving program for nano-thermites (Son 2008). And interestingly, at MIT’s Institute for Soldier Nanotechnology, we find Martin Z. Bazant, son of notable “conspiracy debunker” Zdenek P. Bazant (MIT 2008), who does research on granular flows, and the electrochemical interactions of silicon. Zdenek P. Bazant is interested in nanocomposites as well (Northwestern 2008), and how they relate to naval warfare (ONR 2008). MIT was represented at nano-energetics conferences as early as 1998 (Gordon 1998).

    Bement was also a director at both Battelle and the Lord Corporation. Battelle (where the anthrax was made) is an organization of “experts in fundamental technologies from the five National Laboratories we manage or co-manage for the US DOE.” Battelle advertises their specialization in nanocomposite coatings (Battelle 2008). The Lord Corporation also makes high-tech coatings for military applications (Lord 2008). In 1999, Lord Corp was working with the Army and NASA on “advanced polymer composites, advanced metals, and multifunctional materials” (Army 1999).

    5. Hratch Semerjian, long-time director of NIST’s chemical division, was promoted to acting director of NIST in November 2004, and took over the WTC investigation until the completion of the report on the towers. Semerjian is closely linked to former NIST employee Michael Zachariah, perhaps the world’s most prominent expert on nano-thermites (Zachariah 2008). In fact, Semerjian and Zachariah co-authored ten papers that focus on nano-particles made of silica, ceramics and refractory particles. Zachariah was a major player in the Defense University Research Initiative on Nanotechnology (DURINT), a groundbreaking research effort for nano-thermites.

    6. NIST has a long-standing partnership with NASA for the development of new nano-thermites and other nano-technological materials. In fact, Michael Zachariah coordinates this partnership (CNMM 2008).

    7. In 2003, two years before the NIST WTC report was issued, the University of Maryland College Park (UMCP) and NIST signed a memorandum of understanding to develop nano-technologies like nano-thermites (NIST 2003). Together, NIST and UMCP have done much work on nano-thermites (NM2 2008).

    8. NIST has their own Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST 2008). Additionally, NIST’s Reactive Flows Group did research on nanostructured materials and high temperature reactions in the mid-nineties (NRFG 1996).

    9. Richard Gann, who did the final editing of the NIST WTC report, managed a project called “Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology Program”, both before and after 9/11. Andrzej Miziolek, another of the world’s leading experts on nano-thermites (Amptiac 2002), is the author of “Defense Applications of Nanomaterials”, and also worked on Richard Gann’s fire suppression project (Gann 2002). Gann’s project was sponsored by DOD’s Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP), an organization that sponsored a number of LLNL’s nano-thermite projects (Simpson 2002, Gash et al 2003).

    10. As part of the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer, NIST partners with the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Indian Head (NSWC-IH) on Chemical Science and Technology (FLCTT 2008). NSWC-IH is probably the most prominent US center for nano-thermite technology (NSWC 2008). In 1999, Jan Puszynski, a scientist working for the DURINT program, helped NSWC-IH design a pilot plant to produce nano-size aluminum powder. It was reported that “At that time, this was [the] only reliable source of aluminum nanopowders in the United States” (SDSMT 2001), however, private companies like Argonide and Technanogy were also known to have such capabilities.

    Among an interesting group of contractors that NSWC-IH hired in 1999 were SAIC, Applied Ordnance, Battelle, Booz Allen Hamilton, Mantech, Titan, Pacific Scientific Energetic (see below), and R Stresau Laboratories for “demolition materials” (NSWC 2000).

    A tragic coincidence [or was it?] left William Caswell, an employee of NSWC-IH, dead on the plane said to have hit the Pentagon (Flight 77). He had for many years worked on “deep-black” projects at NSWC-IH (Leaf 2007).
    **************************************
    www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    no, absolutely not. people keep chunks of the berlin wall, and various things like that.

    Samples were sent to Doctor Jones because he asked for them.

    Are you suggesting that NIST, the EPA, USGS, RJ Lee no longer have their own samples?

    has been answered several times. its all in the video clips i provided, surely you've watched them by now? why don't you tackle the rest of post 1532 instead of getting stuck on speculative side issues.
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2056139&postcount=1532

    Are you serious?

    There is nothing suspicious in the absence of a chain of custody for a sample collected by a member of the public. would you expect someone picking up a sample of the berlin wall as it is being torn down to follow chain of custody procedures, sealing the sample in a bag and getting 2 wtinnesses to sign and date the bag, then lodging the bagged sample with a laywer or whatever the procedure is...you know, just in case we need it in a future trial to demonstrate the wall was illegally blown up. clearly it would be absurd to expect that.

    What you're really saying is that you don't believe the samples are genuine so they must have been "spiked", but corroboration can be obtained from independent samples that other agencies have in their possession. with regard to the molten iron microspheres we have corroboration from USGS, and RJ Lee. these spheres exist in their samples too, therefore the samples Jones has were not spiked. Also interesting in the USGS samples were molten Molybdenum which has a much higher melting temperature than even iron.
    http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

    Approximate Minimum Temperatures Required, Process and material °C °F

    To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel 1,000 1,832
    To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation) 1,450 2,652
    To melt iron (spherule formation) 1,538 2,800
    To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation) 1,565 2,849
    To vaporize lead 1,740 3,164
    To melt molybdenum (spherule formation) 2,623 4,753
    To vaporize aluminosilicates 2,760 5,000
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2008
  8. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    They may have had doubts about their government but decided not to push the envelope. If they -knew- that it was their government, however, it would probably be a different story. I believe more are now coming to that conclusion, if the number of people disagreeing with the official story these days is any indication. In any case, there is no consensus, even amoung the rarified structural engineers. I quickly found one who disagreed with the official story on the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth page. This is what he had to say in his personal 9/11 statement:
    ******************************************
    Buildings collapsed all by "controlled demolition" methods. Fire and impact were insignificant in all three buildings. Impossible for the three to collapse at free-fall speed. Laws of physiscs were not suspended on 9/11, unless proven otherwise.
    ******************************************
    http://www.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=995879

    And while they might not be structural engineers, you may want to look at what these individuals have to say:
    **********************************
    Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11 “Impossible”, “A Bunch of Hogwash”, “Total B.S.”, “Ludicrous”, “A Well-Organized Cover-up”, “A White-Washed Farce”
    **********************************
    Jan. 14, 2008, http://patriotsquestion911.com/Article Military Officers Challenge 911.pdf


    **********************************
    Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11 "Flawed", "Absurd", "Totally Inadequate", "a Cover-up"
    **********************************
    Jan. 5, 2008, http://patriotsquestion911.com/Article State Dept 911.pdf


    **********************************
    Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation – Official Account of 9/11 "Impossible", "Hogwash", "Fatally Flawed"
    **********************************
    Dec. 13, 2007, http://patriotsquestion911.com/Article Federal Engineers and Scientists.pdf


    **********************************
    Eight Senior Republican Administration Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 – "Not Possible", "a Whitewash", "False"
    **********************************
    Dec. 4, 2007,


    **********************************
    Seven CIA Veterans Challenge 9/11 Commission Report – Official Account of 9/11 a "Joke" and a "Cover-up"
    **********************************
    Sep. 23, 2007, http://patriotsquestion911.com/Article CIA Veterans Challenge 911.pdf


    "You can fool some of the people all of the time,
    and all of the people some of the time,
    but you can't fool all of the people all of the time"

    -Abraham Lincoln
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2008
  9. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
  10. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
  11. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
  12. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    What does "almost certainly" mean? (see post 1626)

    :scratchin:
     
  13. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    almost

    certainly
     
  15. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Are you serious?

    In the pdf that you linked to is where i got the quote. The youtube link is one of the many EYE:bugeye:witnesses.

    READ THIS
     
  16. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I linked to many PDFs; I glanced over a few, but since for me it's preaching to the choir (since I, like them, believe that the official story is a farce), I felt no need to go further.
     
  17. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    But this doesn't mean that such men would be complicit in the murder of 3000 Americans. You will recall that Iran-Contra was a weapons trade to get Americans out of Iran. Clearly this is not the same as mass murder, and in a way even proceeded with some kind of decent intention, if their method was misguided.

    Yet, his testimony is consistent with the facts as they stand; namely, that 19 islamic terrorists drove airplanes into the WTC.

    The problem, however, has moved beyond that. Who took the samples? When? For what purpose were they collected? Even if NIST were genuinely refusing to examine them - and I have seen no evidence that they are - I can see clearly why; nothing is known of the background of these samples. Frankly, they seem ripe for 'salting' to suit a particular hypothesis.

    You are, much to your detriment, not in any position to question my honesty. I have - with you and everyone else on the forum - dealt with nothing but honesty, even if that honesty is scornful. I have addressed your points again and again, yet you refuse to examine mine. At what point should the bolts have failed in the WTC due to temperature? From where do Dr. Jones' mysterious samples originate? Does not heated steel lose structural strength? Again and again I lay facts before you, and you step around them. Meanwhile, I confront your points head-on, turning them back on you as often as reducing their merit to zero by direct logic. So: please do not speak to me again on the subject of my supposed dishonesty.

    You have not given evidence of this. If you expect this kind of response, why, why do you bring it on yourself? By "look beyond the essay" you mean "ignore the facts and try to embrace the spirit of 9/11 Troof". So why not just say this, then, instead of hiding your arguments in subterfuge? This is the worst form of special pleading: preaching to some second-party intepretation of humanity, as if their warped interpretation of reality should evoke some sentimental response. Argument by pseudosensitivity?? Is this the final stop on the derailed 9/11 Troof Train? Save your angular sense of humanitarianism. It is misaimed, and meaningless. The fool's writings serve as the justification of his own preconceptions: the testimony of the experts only proves that "academic credentials don’t necessarily make a person more capable, or more likely, to tell the truth".

    Utter fucking poppycock. What evidence have I that a pre-pubescent gang of wannabe-Marxist latte-sipping Johnny-come-lately-to-communism children have any more claim to intellectual honesty because they support his little pseudorevolutionary tripe?

    The author's desperate emotional attachment to his beliefs - and there is no doubt that these are what they are - leads him to trample all over your own previous arguments that there are loads and loads of engineers who could have been consulted: "Exactly how they could find so many experts on the fire-induced collapse of tall buildings is not immediately clear, considering such an event had never happened before." Then he's off with some specious argument about how the civil lads only fart with the approval of the domestic authority.

    In short, your source can be summed up in a single word: supposition. Supposition about the intents of the detractors of Holy Mother Controlled Demolition.

    Horseshit. You think I'm getting paid to type this stuff up?

    Well, actually, you might.

    Best regards,

    Geoff
     
  18. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    So she kept not a piece of the wall of the WTC, but a bag of dust.

    Right.

    Very well. Illustrate this. He does not mention this in the sources you have provided with respect to this claim.

    ...I have no idea where you're going with this.

    The origin of the samples - and its verification - is the most important issue in this discussion of mysterious powdered 'samples'. It necessarily preceeds all the intellectual discussion following the analysis. You are honestly telling me that we should just accept Jones' claims - or those of his anonymous sources - prima facie, and completely uncritically, with respect to this most serious issue?? Are you insane? How do I know where he got them from? How do I know where they were collected from? How do you know any of this? How do you know they weren't just salted with the endproducts of a thermite burn and stuffed in the mail to gullible old Dr. Jones? How do you know he didn't do it? The samples are, from a scientific perspective, unrooted. They have no clear origin save what Steven Jones tells us - a man, I add, not known for his cogent theories on some issues and with a deeply vested interest in resolving 9/11 to his own personal satisfaction.

    More serious than a heart attack. There is no way to prove where any of the sample came from. Jones got it from an anonymous source. Neither I nor you can say where it came from - and if you have a moment's honesty, you'll also have to admit that you can't prove it either.

    But unfortunately, for such material to be considered legal evidence, it would have to be treated exactly so. Consider for a moment: let's say I have a controversial theory about some horrifying event. But, the theory isn't going so well - numerous people have come out against it, and there's a variety of articles illustrating why my theory won't work. For whatever reason, I am critically invested in this theory. Would it not behoove me to simply add a dash of the appropriate chemical endproducts to a Jiffy bag full of what I claim is WTC dust, and then presto! voila! my theory is supported once more.

    Not "must have", but "may have".

    We? Is that you, Kevin?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Anyway: thankyou. An argument based on independent samples. Two things: the USGS survey your paper cited lists several elements found in glass fragments:

    And I note from your previous post that Jones is meant to have found:

    I'm no engineer, but can not three of these elements originate from the glass then? That leaves iron and oxygen. As for the iron, you might want to note a very simple explanation for the iron from this site. It can be boiled down to the frustrated caps statement by the author:

    What can I say? :shrug:

    Best regards,

    Geoff
     
  19. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785

    They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I'm sure they could argue (in secret) that america 'needed' 9/11 to occur in order to 'get tough on terrorism'.



    You may want to check this link out. I remember someone challenged it, but I don't remember that challenge being substantive.
    ****************************************
    Tracking the 19 Hijackers
    What are they up to now?
    At least 9 of them survived 9/11...
    ****************************************
    http://www.welfarestate.com/911/


    Not it hasn't. You are ever so curious as to the only samples that were checked for thermite, and yet you seem to have no curiosity as to why NIST itself didn't check for thermite.


    It's common knowledge that they have no interest in speaking to Steven Jones.


    What are you trying to say Geoff? That NIST destroyed all its own samples and therefore can no longer test them? If that were the case, don't you think you should be just a -little- concerned about that?


    Right. That's why I'm responding to your umpteenth post wherein I not only examine your points, but respond to them.
     
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Speculation.

    Then you remember incorrectly, as I've already said. The BBC themselves (who started the story) retracted the story. In other words, it's bollocks. Could you make note of this point?

    Scott, if NIST is "in on it", why couldn't they just say "yeah, we checked it and guess what? No thermite." By the by, where is your evidence that they didn't, exactly? I remember someone posted on it, but I don't remember that post being substantive.

    So the bigger issue is where the samples come from. Which is where? Who sent them? Why? When were they collected? How many hands have they passed through? Why did someone collect a bag of dust as a (as Headspin feels) souvenir?

    Then it should be a commonly found thing on the internet.

    ??? Er, where exactly do you read that? What if they have tested for thermite but simply not told you? This entire story hinges on one guy - Steven Jones. I'd like to see some proof they haven't tested for thermite.

    Really? Like the time you examined the second time I had to reiterate that the identities of the 9/11 hijackers were not in question? Or how about the interminable posts on the structural loss of strength in steel at high temperature? The fact that thermite doesn't burn sideways? That nanothermite merely assists reactions rather than precipitating its own reactions? The identity of the mysterious person who sent Steve the samples? The strength of bolts connecting steel girders vis-a-vis fire resistance? The supposed combination of explosions and thermite at the WTC? The variable colour of aluminum depending on temperature (that it's not silver at all temps)? Self-oxidizing reactions involving steel and iron? The chemical composition of glass? You mean those points?

    Best regards,

    Geoff
     
  21. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I'm sure they could argue it. I'm not sure they did though.


    I have little faith in the BBC when it comes to 9/11; I have heard that they said WTC 7 had collapsed before it actually did. Apparently the major media outlets weren't as coordinated in their announcements as they would have liked to have been. In any case, while the BBC may have been one link within the link I stated above, there are many other links to news sources there.


    I'm guessing they might fear that word would get out that the tests were faked.


    Read it and weep:
    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (It's in response to question number 12).
     
  22. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I don't have your answers, but I have noticed something about your investigating technique.

    Let's make an analogy.

    Let's say NIST is the government paid detective. Mr. NIST does a poor investigation. Steven Jones finds many flaws and asks for any samples from ground zero. NIST doesn't provide anything, but a woman had kept some (for reasons unknown; spooky) and gives it to him. He finds evidence of thermate.

    You believe that this woman may have not gotten her sample from the ground zero. Alright, fine. I have no conclusive evidence that she did. Why she would fake it, I have no idea, but I'm sure you can come up with some theory or other. But the glaring hole in this whole story is this:
    Mr. NIST is the one who should have done a good job investigating the steel. It's only -because- of Mr. NIST's failure that this secondary investigation had to take place. But it doesn't stop there. The fundamental issue remaining is:
    After all this fuss about the sample being positive for thermate, why oh why is Mr. NIST still sitting there silently? Even if he had -destroyed- all the steel that could have shed light on this (to my knowledge it hasn't, but I'll grant it a possibility), they could atleast say so, with an appropriate amount of regret at their decision to do so.

    But to just sit there silently leads me to believe that what they're -really- hoping for is that the whole issue will be buried. And the only reason I think they'd want to do that is to bury the truth.
     
  23. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    You go right on reiterating. The link I have posted tells another story. Perhaps I should post an excerpt to show you that the BBC is not all there is to it. Here's the first story:
    **********************************************
    1 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/specials/attacked/A38270-2001Sep15.html

    Washington Post - 9/16/01 - 2nd Witness Arrested; 25 Held for Questioning
    Two of 19 suspects named by the FBI, Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi, have the same names as men listed at a housing facility for foreign military trainees at Pensacola. Two others, Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Alnami, have names similar to individuals listed in public records as using the same address inside the base. In addition, a man named Saeed Alghamdi graduated from the Defense Language Institute at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, while men with the same names as two other hijackers, Mohamed Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari, appear as graduates of the U.S. International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala., and the Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, respectively.

    order Mohamed Atta and the Venice Flying Circus, the real story of the Hijackers
    **********************************************
    http://www.welfarestate.com/911/
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page