Questions getting bigger

[Jay]

Alright, alright...he has hair...not like I do, but hair nontheless...

 

[Ocean Breeze]

From Communism to Terrorism
by Jacob G. Hornberger, June 13, 2005

A front-page article in the June 10, 2005, issue of the Los Angeles Times
reported another disturbing feature about the 9/11 attacks:

A chilling new detail of U.S. intelligence failures emerged Thursday,
when the Justice Department disclosed that about 20 months before the Sept.
11 attacks, a CIA official had blocked a memo intended to alert the FBI that
two known Al Qaeda operatives had entered the country.... If the FBI had
received the official communique from the CIA’s special Osama bin Laden unit
when it was ready for transmittal in January 2000, its agents likely could
have tracked down the men, according to U.S. intelligence officials familiar
with a newly declassified report of the Justice Department’s inspector
general.... But the report’s conclusion that an agent had written a memo
specifically designed for transmittal to the FBI to alert the bureau to the
men’s presence — and that a supervisor deliberately had prevented it from
being sent — is new.

So, let’s see what we have here:

1. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the federal government no
longer had an official enemy to justify the big government expenditures of
the warfare state, including the Pentagon’s military enormous budget. For a
time, illegal drugs and an “unsafe world” became new official enemies.

2. Throughout the 1990s, the federal government began stirring up hornets’
nests abroad, especially in the Middle East, despite repeated warnings that
an interventionist and pro-empire foreign policy would ultimately result in
“blowback” terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

3. Through massive incompetence and even conscious indifference, both the
CIA and the FBI failed to prevent the attacks on 9/11, which should cause
any reasonable observer to ask: What good are these “intelligence-gathering”
agencies anyway?

4. The 9/11 attacks were then blamed on hatred for America’s “freedom and
values” rather than on U.S. foreign policy and used to justify the federal
government’s “war on terrorism.”

5. The “war on terrorism” was used to justify a huge federal assault on the
civil liberties of the American people, primarily through the so-called USA
PATRIOT Act, along with “patriotic” suggestions to support the “war on
terrorism” by withholding criticism of the federal government.

6. The “war on terrorism” was used to justify a bombing campaign in
Afghanistan that killed thousands of innocent people, thereby inciting even
more anger and hatred against the United States, while resulting in the
non-capture of the principal suspect in the 9/11 attacks — Osama bin Laden.
Also, the “regime change” achieved in Afghanistan succeeded in converting
that country into a opium-producing narco-state whose exorbitant drug-war
profits are financing terrorist activity against the United States, thereby
justifying even more stringent U.S. efforts (and higher budgets) to fight
both the “war on drugs” and the “war on terrorism.”

7. The “war on terrorism” was then used to incite massive fear within the
American people about Saddam Hussein’s WMD in order to garner support for an
invasion and occupation of Iraq, a country that had never attacked the
United States and that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

8. The war on Iraq, including the resulting horrific death and destruction
caused by the invasion and occupation, have given rise to even more anger
and hatred against the United States, which will likely result in even more
terrorism, which will lead to renewed efforts to win the “war on terrorism,”
along with more assaults on civil liberties and renewed calls to support the
government and the troops.

9. The never-ending “war on terrorism” and the indefinite occupation of Iraq
have given rise to perpetually growing big-government budgets for the
Pentagon, bigger even than when communism was the official threat during the
Cold War.

10. How many federal officials have been fired, punished, or disciplined for
any of this? It would seem that most, if not all, of them have had nothing
but praise, adoration, promotion, power, and ever-growing heaps of U.S.
taxpayer money heaped upon them.

Whatever else might be said about U.S. officials, you can’t say these people
are dumb. In fact, I’d say they are brilliant.

something to THINK about.

 

[Just the Facts]

So a team of CIA agents snuck into WTC7 on the night of September 10 and wired it to blow, and nobody noticed? ok.

The video in that swf file posted above is the best evidence I've seen yet that all this explosive charge nonsense is just that, nonsense. You can clearly see the top part of the tower break away and collapse where it was burning. An explosive charge would not have withstood that heat for so long before going off. The way it fell is completely consistant with the description here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/minutes/q_2907.html

And what exactly about the "pancake effect" is a lie? It's there in plain sight to see. Again, just refer to the swf file above. Funny how that presentation refutes itself. 8)

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Questions getting bigger

Alright, alright...he has hair...not like I do, but hair nontheless...

Not like you do eh? I've seen welcome mats with more hair than you have *gross*, but nevertheless

 

[I think not]

Alright. I'll give my final answer on this 9/11 garbage. I will speak of the WTC center since I was there that day.

On September 11th, I was having a cig with a cup of coffee with two other project managers on the roof of 30 West Broadway, this building is located directly across the street from WTC 7.

It was about 8:30 when we stepped out onto the roof from the penthouse office used as weekly meetings. The meetings would start at 9:00am.

We were talking when we saw a plane flying down Manhattan. The first thing we thought was it was out of control, how could it be we thought, flying so fast and so low over Manhattan. Sooner than we finished our thoughts, it crashed into the North Tower. To me it felt like it lasted hours, it was similar to watching a movie in slow motion.

After the initial shock, we ran downstairs to see if we can do anything to help, by the time we went downstairs and into the plaza of the WTC, the second plane had struck the South Tower.
Shortly after people started jumping out of the window. I was in such shock that I felt me feet were cemented onto the plaza.

As the NYPD and NYFD started to arrive, they started pushing us away from the towers and the plaza. After a few minutes we were approximately 150 feet away from the North Tower, watching people helplessly jump to their deaths.

I remember staring at the top of the North Tower, when it started to collapse, there was no explosions as there should be ina controlled demolition, I'm in construction and have seen controlled demolitions half a dozen times in New York City.

We started to run as the building collapsed behind us and the smoke and ash followed us until it completely engulfed all of us.
We found a restaurant and broke the door glass to get in, so we woudln't choke to death. We closed the seondary door behind us and stayed in the restaurant until most of the force of the dust was gone. We wrapped wet towels over our mouth and walked out. I started heading to a friends house not too far away. By the time I got there, the South Tower had collapsed.

I stayed at my friends house, cleaned myself up and started to head back to what was now referred to as Ground Zero.
I figured they would need help with electrical power, we were working at 30 West Broadway and had many generators on hand.

Unfortunately part of that building suffered damage and we didn't think it would be a smart idea to go in there. At this time WTC 7 was flaming on the lower floors from the debris that had fallen onto it.

Now why would debris cause a fire you say? Very simple. Electrical wires when exposed to friction cause arcing. Arcing is many thousands of volts and hundrerds if not thousands of degrees in heat. Theres your fire right there. Arcing causes fires and fires cause arcings.

Now for those of you who don't think a fire can cause a collapse, you're living in fantasy world. This is the primary reason Fire Departments must try and stop the spread of fire.

We were standing about 200 feet away from WTC7 when it collapsed that evening. If there had been any controlled demolition, I WOULD HAVE HEARD IT.

Now you all can believe what you want, if it gets you through the day. I wish I had never experienced this. I wish I was in a position to wonder how these towers collapsed as you all are.

Unfortunately, I can't be suspicious of events, I, and hundreds of people next to me witnessed. Quite honestly, I find it strange some of you think you know more about this than those who were there. And I also find it insulting that you think New Yorkers are going to buy anything that it told to them and those that live thousands of miles away, know better than we do.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

And I also find it insulting that you think New Yorkers are going to buy anything that it told to them and those that live thousands of miles away, know better than we do.

hmm. for starters, seems you kinda get "insulted" far too easily. ........which means that you might not be all that objective. Being there at the time it happened , would be inclined to make one even less objective and a lot more "emotional" about it. Time has past. Distance from the event is there....the dust has cleared and let's see what the real facts are......IF we are ever privy to know them.

No one is speaking as if they KNOW what happened or KNOW all the facts. Seems there are many unanwered questions about this........as otherwise these questions and theories would not be postulated.


As long as the USG is known to be a pathological lier and this is a FACT..... then one is hard pressed to believe ANYTHING it says.

Only the bushites would follow and believe everthing their 'gov't ' tells them.......as they continue to blindly traverse through new data and dismiss it with a narrow minded arrogance that is beyond comprehension.

Many simply WANT To believe as asking questions, is hard work and is also a tad threatening to them. Many simply would rather not know at all. Whatever they are told ........is just fine by them.

NO ONE KNOWS FOR CERTAIN......and this is the only truth in this situation .......as in many others that the USG is involved in.

 

[I think not]

hmm. for starters, seems you kinda get "insulted" far too easily. ........which means that you might not be all that objective.

I get insulted when ignorance reigns.

Being there at the time it happened , would be inclined to make one even less objective and a lot more "emotional" about it. Time has past. Distance from the event is there....the dust has cleared and let's see what the real facts are......IF we are ever privy to know them.

"Emotions" have nothing to do with explosions Ocean. When you make the claim "let's see what the REAL facts are". It is you that dwells on your pre-conceptions and is not being objective.

No one is speaking as if they KNOW what happened or KNOW all the facts. Seems there are many unanwered questions about this........as otherwise these questions and theories would not be postulated.

There are no answered as to how the towers collapsed, that's in your narrow mind.

As long as the USG is known to be a pathological lier and this is a FACT..... then one is hard pressed to believe ANYTHING it says.

Read my signature and then preach to me what I think of the US(G)

Only the bushites would follow and believe everthing their 'gov't ' tells them.......as they continue to blindly traverse through new data and dismiss it with a narrow minded arrogance that is beyond comprehension.

I'd rather be a Bushite than a narrow minded analyst

Many simply WANT To believe as asking questions, is hard work and is also a tad threatening to them. Many simply would rather not know at all. Whatever they are told ........is just fine by them.

NO ONE KNOWS FOR CERTAIN......and this is the only truth in this situation .......as in many others that the USG is involved in.

YOU don't know for certain Ocean, if only to feed your prejudice. I KNOW how they fell. It seems to me you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the arse.

 

[mrmom2]

Sorry ITN I can't get over the fact that buildings designed to withstand multiple Jet liner strikes catches fire and drops in no time 8O If the fire was so intense as the white wash commission claims why are people seen standing in the holes?Why did they ship the wreckage off so fast Why are ao called highjackers showing up aliveWhy did a highjackers passport miracoulsy show up at ground zeroWhy won't they show the footage of the super piloted plane that hit the pentagon .There is way to many unanswerd questions .Why is there not one judge in the whole US that will hear a case about it .Who stood to gain? I can go on and on The liars could put this all to bed just by showing the footage of the plane that hit the pentagon why don't they?I don't know what happened that day but i do know your goverment is not being totally honest with your people about what happened why :? What is there to hide

 

[I think not]

Everything you asked me can be answered if you are able to watch this documentary:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Something more to think about...

John P. O'Neill
From SourceWatch


In August 2001, John P. O'Neill resigned from his post over George W. Bush's policy on terrorism and Osama bin Laden. Specifically, O'Neill's department was told to "back off" their bin Laden and al Qaeda investigations while the Bush administration negotiated with the Taliban. O'Neill became the security chief of the World Trade Center - where he died during the events of 9/11.

O'Neill was the FBI's Chief of International Terrorism Operations; and Assistant Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism and National Security. In the 8 October 2002 testimony of former Director Louis J. Feech, O'Neill "was FBI's counterterrorism chief who helped forge what became the excellent and unprescedented FBI-CIA relationship in counter-terrorism".

"All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden's organization can be found in Saudi Arabia," John O'Neill, the FBI's former top bin Laden investigator, said shortly before his death in the World Trade Center. O'Neill explicitly referred to interference from US policymakers concerned about U.S.-Saudi relations. He "complained that the F.B.I. was not free to act in international terror investigations because the State Department kept interfering," according to a New York Times account of O' Neill's interview with French journalist Jean-Charles Brisard shortly before his death. O'Neill "explains the failure in one word: oil."

Richard A. Clarke writes on page 14 in Against All Enemies. Inside America's War on Terror (March 2004) that John O'Neill was his "closest friend in the Bureau and a man determined to destroy al Qaeda until the Bureau had driven him out because he was too obsessed with al Qaeda and didn't mind breaking crockery in his drive to get Usama bin Laden. O'Neill did not fit the narrow little mold that Director Louis Freeh wanted for his agents. He was too aggressive, thought outside the box. O'Neill's struggle with Freeh was a case study in why the FBI could not do the homeland protection mission. So, O'Neill retired from the FBI and had just become director of security for the World Trade Center complex the week before."

Most of the victims of the September 11 attack seemed tragically random -- they were just going to work. Not John O'Neill. Until last August [2001], he'd been the FBI's top expert on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, a lead investigator of the USS Cole and African embassy bombings. Leaving the Bureau in frustration, he'd taken a job he thought of as retirement: World Trade Center security chief. But when he died it became clear: His own life contained as many mysteries as his enemy's. -- Robert Kolker, New York Metro.com

an abridged chronology taken from "The Counter Terrorist" by Lawrence Wright for The New Yorker Issue of 2002-01-14 (8000 words) subtitled "John O'Neill was an F.B.I. agent with an obsession: the growing threat of Al Qaeda.":

O'Neill was worried that terrorists had established a beachhead in America. In a June, 1997, speech in Chicago, he warned, "Almost all of the groups today, if they chose to, have the ability to strike us here in the United States." He was particularly concerned that, as the millennium approached, Al Qaeda would seize the moment to dramatize its war with America.

The Jordanians in December 1999 discovered an Al Qaeda training manual on CD-ROM.

What followed was, according to Richard A. Clarke, the most comprehensive investigation ever conducted before September 11th. O'Neill's job was to supervise the operation in New York.

After the millennium roundup, O'Neill suspected that Al Qaeda had sleeper cells buried in America. "He started pulling the strings in Jordan and in Canada, and in the end they all led back to the United States," Clarke said. "There was a general disbelief in the F.B.I. that Al Qaeda had much of a presence here. It just hadn't sunk through to the organization, beyond O'Neill and Dale Watson"--the assistant director of the counter-terrorism division.

Clarke's discussions with O'Neill and Watson over the next few months led to a strategic plan called the Millennium After-Action Review, which specified a number of policy changes designed to root out Al Qaeda cells in the United States.

In Yemen for investigation of the [12 October 2000] USS Cole bombing, Michael Sheehan, who was the State Department's coördinator for counter-terrorism at the time, made clear to Barbara Bodinein, the American Ambassador to Yemen, "in a cable under [then Secretary of State] Madeleine Albright's signature saying that there were three guiding principles," Sheehan said. "The highest priorities were the immediate safety of American personnel and the investigation of the attack. No. 3 was maintaining a relationship with the government of Yemen-- but only to support those objectives."

After two months in Yemen, O'Neill came home feeling that he was fighting the counter-terrorism battle without support from his own government. He had made some progress in gaining access to evidence, but so far the investigation had been a failure. Concerned about continuing threats against the remaining F.B.I. investigators, he tried to return in January of 2001. Bodine denied his application to reënter the country. She refuses to discuss that decision. "Too much is being made of John O'Neill's being in Yemen or not," she told me. "John O'Neill did not discover Al Qaeda. He did not discover Osama bin Laden. So the idea that John or his people or the F.B.I. were somehow barred from doing their job is insulting to the U.S. government, which was working on Al Qaeda before John ever showed up. This is all my embassy did for ten months. The fact that not every single thing John O'Neill asked for was appropriate or possible does not mean that we did not support the investigation."

In March, 2001, Richard Clarke asked the national-security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, for a job change; he wanted to concentrate on computer security. "I was told, 'You've got to recommend somebody similar to be your replacement,' " Clarke recalled. "I said, 'Well, there's only one person who would fit that bill.' " For months, Clarke tried to persuade O'Neill to become a candidate as his successor.

In July 2001, O'Neill decided to retire the following month from the FBI and take the job of chief of security for the World Trade Center.

Meanwhile, intelligence had been streaming in concerning a likely Al Qaeda attack. "It all came together in the third week in June," Clarke said. "The C.I.A.'s view was that a major terrorist attack was coming in the next several weeks." On July 5th, Clarke summoned all the domestic security agencies--the Federal Aviation Administration, the Coast Guard, Customs, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the F.B.I.--and told them to increase their security in light of an impending attack.

When O'Neill told ABC's Isham of his decision to work at the Trade Center, Isham had said jokingly, "At least they're not going to bomb it again." O'Neill had replied, "They'll probably try to finish the job." On the day he started at the Trade Center--August 23rd--the C.I.A. sent a cable to the F.B.I. saying that two suspected Al Qaeda terrorists were already in the country. The bureau tried to track them down, but the addresses they had given when they entered the country proved to be false, and the men were never located.

 

[mrmom2]

I saw it and I've also seen and heard other engineers debunk it
Engineers Iv'e nothing but contempt for them They always think they know how to do everything and 9 times out of 10 they don't know what there talking about at least in my industry :wink:

 

[I think not]

I'm not sure how engineers debunk the properties of metal.

 

[mrmom2]

Oops metalurgists and engineers I still hate them though they always think they know a better way to do things and I'm telling you they just complicate everything to the max

 

[I think not]

Is embracing science a convenience when it suits their pre-conceptions? Shouldn't it apply across the board?

I'm speaking in general here mrmom, not you specifically.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

It seems not all support Thomas Eagar's theory of the building collapses

I Think Not,

Now, I know that you were there, and you saw many things that I'm sure you wish you hadn't, but of the things that you did see that day, can you honestly tell us that the official story is exactly the way it happened?

I agree that there are many falsehoods being circulated concerning the events of 911, but there are many unanswered questions as well...and I recognize that some of those falsehoods were an attempt to answer one or more of those questions...

You've confounded me with your obstinance...I've posted the 9/11 timeline for you to peruse. A timeline constructed from documentary evidence and backpage articles from mainstream news sources. Yet you are quite willing to dismiss it out of hand. I would think that persuing the truth of 911 would be the best way to honour those that have suffered most...

So tell me ITN, what would it take to convince you that there is more to this tale than the official version of the story?

 

[I think not]

There are so many question you and others pose Vanni. How can you expect me to tackle them all?

I don't think that is fair to do. I don't believe I have answers to all the questions, I don't think anyone does.

I don't think it is logical to suggest the towers were under controlled demolition. I was there and I saw. If you want to tackle one issue at a time, I'd be happy to. When I'm thrown into a pit with snakes, I can't handle them all.

The question on this thread has been raised regarding WTC7. The site I posted for mrmom approaches it from science, not politics.

Can you show me a link that states the the science behind the collapse is a myth? Let's start with this:

Let's just go there first and say yes or no, to this metal theory.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/metal.html

 

[Scape]

We were standing about 200 feet away from WTC7 when it collapsed that evening. If there had been any controlled demolition, I WOULD HAVE HEARD IT.

Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City.

Seismic Evidence Points to Underground Explosions Causing WTC Collapse

In Depth Video Analysis

The point here is that the impact and the explosion were at different times. What give this away is the seismic readings. There is a 2nd shockwave after the planes hit. It is these explosions, not the fires, that caused the towers to collapse.

You did not hear it, but it was seismicly recorded.

 

[I think not]

We were standing about 200 feet away from WTC7 when it collapsed that evening. If there had been any controlled demolition, I WOULD HAVE HEARD IT.

Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City.

Seismic Evidence Points to Underground Explosions Causing WTC Collapse

In Depth Video Analysis

The point here is that the impact and the explosion were at different times. What give this away is the seismic readings. There is a 2nd shockwave after the planes hit. It is these explosions, not the fires, that caused the towers to collapse.

You did not hear it, but it was seismicly recorded.

If there were explosions below the towers, they would not have started to collapse from above.

 

[jimmoyer]

Hey ITN, you are a very patient fellow.

They shouldn't take you at a shallow level.

I've seen how you have parried the issues, balanced the weight of matters and it's been a pleasure to see it.

Responding to me could hurt you in your path because there is much rush to judgement, but just wanted to let you know that you are far more than most people on this board realize.

And even those who don't realize it, I've also enjoyed.

I wanted to come somewhere beyond the boundaries of the United States to have a conversation and this is one of the better boards to do that.

I'm generally a conservative, but I argue with all of my conservative friends who call me a liberal, and then I argue with the liberals or what people would call liberals.

They all tell me that if you are on the middle of the road, you'll get run over.

They're right.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

I KNOW how they fell. It seems to me you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the arse

:lol: :lol: :lol:


ok.......so tell us. would be interested in YOUR version of the "truth".

Have heard many now.....

(and it kinda depends on who you talk to. :wink: