Does Anyone Still Believe the "Official 9-11" Story? (drug, health care)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=[B]Arus[/b];19151133 Please present a peer reviewed article by these "thousands of engineering professionals". You won't find a single one. Anyone can sign a petition; what matters is if anyone of those thousands actually did some research and wrote an article about their beliefs
Formally published in a peer-reviewed Chemical Physics journal, today:
“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen
The paper ends with this sentence: “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
In short, the paper explodes the official story that “no evidence” exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings.
What is high-tech explosive/pyrotechnic material in large quantities doing in the WTC dust? Who made tons of this stuff and why? Why have government investigators refused to look for explosive residues in the WTC aftermath?
These are central questions raised by this scientific study.
The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter (see Figures 20, 25 and 26).
The nine authors undertook an in-depth study of unusual red-gray chips found in the dust generated during the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. The article states: “The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 ˚C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.” The images and data plots deserve careful attention.
Some observations about the production of this paper:
1. First author is Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University in Denmark, an Associate Professor of Chemistry. He is an expert in nano-chemistry; current research activities and his photo can be found here: CMM – Centre for Molecular Movies
Molecular Structures on Short and Ultra Short Timescales
A Centre under the Danish National Research Foundation
The Centre for Molecular Movies was inaugurated 29th November 2005, at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen. The Centre is made possible through a five year grant from the Danish National Research Foundation (see e.g. www.dg.dk). We aim to obtain real time “pictures” of how atoms are moving while processes are taking place in molecules and solid materials, using ultrashort pulses of laser light and X-rays. The goal is to understand and in turn influence, at the atomic level, the structural transformations associated with such processes.
The Centre combines expertise form Risø National Laboratory, University of Copenhagen, and the Technical University of Denmark in structural investigation of matter by synchrotron X-ray based techniques, femtosecond laser spectroscopy, theoretical insight in femtosecond processes, and the ability to tailor materials, and design sample systems for optimal experimental conditions.”
We understand that the Dean of Prof. Harrit’s college, Niels O Andersen, appears as the first name on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Bentham Science journal where the paper was published.
3. Dr. Farrer is featured in an article on page 11 of the BYU Frontiers magazine, Spring 2005: “Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, lab director for TEM” (TEM stands for Transmission Electron Microscopy). The article notes: “The electron microscopes in the TEM lab combine to give BYU capabilities that are virtually unique… rivaling anything built worldwide.” The article is entitled: “Rare and Powerful Microscopes Unlock Nano Secrets,” which is certainly true as regards the discoveries of the present paper.
4. Kudos to BYU for permitting Drs. Farrer and Jones and physics student Daniel Farnsworth to do the research described in the paper and for conducting internal reviews of the paper. Dr. Farrer was formerly first author on this paper. But after internal review of the paper, BYU administrators evidently disallowed him from being first author on ANY paper related to 9/11 research (this appears to be their perogative, but perhaps they will explain). Nevertheless, the paper was approved for publication with Dr. Farrer’s name and affiliation listed and we congratulate BYU for this. We stand by Dr. Farrer and congratulate his careful scientific research represented in this paper.
5. Perhaps now there will finally be a review of the SCIENCE explored by Profs. Harrit and Jones and by Drs. Farrer and Legge and their colleagues, as repeatedly requested by these scientists. We challenge ANY university or established laboratory group to perform such a review. This paper will be a good place to start, along with two other peer-reviewed papers in established journals involving several of the same authors:
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley
The Open Civil Engineering Journal, pp.35-40, Vol 2 Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. Home Page...
Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials
Authors: Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones
The Environmentalist, August, 2008 SpringerLink - The Environmentalist, Volume 29, Number 1
7. Important features of the research have been independently corroborated by Mark Basile in New Hampshire and by physicist Frederic Henry-Courannier in France., proceeding from earlier scientific reports on these discoveries (e.g., by Prof. Jones speaking at a Physics Dept. Colloquium at Utah Valley University last year.) We understand that details will soon be forthcoming from these independent researchers.
The title is...Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains..
Jim Hoffman has written 3 new essays on this which can be found here....
3.A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario:
A Plausible Theory Explaining the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers Using Aluminothermic Incindiaries and Explosives with Wireless Detonation Means Hypothetical Blasting Scenario
Arus[/b];19151133 Please present a peer reviewed article by these "thousands of engineering professionals". You won't find a single one. Anyone can sign a petition; what matters is if anyone of those thousands actually did some research and wrote an article about their beliefs
Formally published in a peer-reviewed Chemical Physics journal, today:
“Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” by Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen
The paper ends with this sentence: “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
In short, the paper explodes the official story that “no evidence” exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings.
What is high-tech explosive/pyrotechnic material in large quantities doing in the WTC dust? Who made tons of this stuff and why? Why have government investigators refused to look for explosive residues in the WTC aftermath?
These are central questions raised by this scientific study.
The peer-review on this paper was grueling, with pages of comments by referees. The tough questions the reviewers raised led to months of further experiments. These studies added much to the paper, including observation and photographs of iron-aluminum rich spheres produced as the material is ignited in a Differential Scanning Calorimeter (see Figures 20, 25 and 26).
The nine authors undertook an in-depth study of unusual red-gray chips found in the dust generated during the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. The article states: “The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 ˚C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.” The images and data plots deserve careful attention.
Some observations about the production of this paper:
1. First author is Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University in Denmark, an Associate Professor of Chemistry. He is an expert in nano-chemistry; current research activities and his photo can be found here: CMM – Centre for Molecular Movies
Molecular Structures on Short and Ultra Short Timescales
A Centre under the Danish National Research Foundation
The Centre for Molecular Movies was inaugurated 29th November 2005, at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen. The Centre is made possible through a five year grant from the Danish National Research Foundation (see e.g. www.dg.dk). We aim to obtain real time “pictures” of how atoms are moving while processes are taking place in molecules and solid materials, using ultrashort pulses of laser light and X-rays. The goal is to understand and in turn influence, at the atomic level, the structural transformations associated with such processes.
The Centre combines expertise form Risø National Laboratory, University of Copenhagen, and the Technical University of Denmark in structural investigation of matter by synchrotron X-ray based techniques, femtosecond laser spectroscopy, theoretical insight in femtosecond processes, and the ability to tailor materials, and design sample systems for optimal experimental conditions.”
We understand that the Dean of Prof. Harrit’s college, Niels O Andersen, appears as the first name on the Editorial Advisory Board of the Bentham Science journal where the paper was published.
3. Dr. Farrer is featured in an article on page 11 of the BYU Frontiers magazine, Spring 2005: “Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, lab director for TEM” (TEM stands for Transmission Electron Microscopy). The article notes: “The electron microscopes in the TEM lab combine to give BYU capabilities that are virtually unique… rivaling anything built worldwide.” The article is entitled: “Rare and Powerful Microscopes Unlock Nano Secrets,” which is certainly true as regards the discoveries of the present paper.
4. Kudos to BYU for permitting Drs. Farrer and Jones and physics student Daniel Farnsworth to do the research described in the paper and for conducting internal reviews of the paper. Dr. Farrer was formerly first author on this paper. But after internal review of the paper, BYU administrators evidently disallowed him from being first author on ANY paper related to 9/11 research (this appears to be their perogative, but perhaps they will explain). Nevertheless, the paper was approved for publication with Dr. Farrer’s name and affiliation listed and we congratulate BYU for this. We stand by Dr. Farrer and congratulate his careful scientific research represented in this paper.
5. Perhaps now there will finally be a review of the SCIENCE explored by Profs. Harrit and Jones and by Drs. Farrer and Legge and their colleagues, as repeatedly requested by these scientists. We challenge ANY university or established laboratory group to perform such a review. This paper will be a good place to start, along with two other peer-reviewed papers in established journals involving several of the same authors:
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley
The Open Civil Engineering Journal, pp.35-40, Vol 2 Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. Home Page...
Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence for energetic materials
Authors: Kevin R. Ryan, James R. Gourley, and Steven E. Jones
The Environmentalist, August, 2008 SpringerLink - The Environmentalist, Volume 29, Number 1
7. Important features of the research have been independently corroborated by Mark Basile in New Hampshire and by physicist Frederic Henry-Courannier in France., proceeding from earlier scientific reports on these discoveries (e.g., by Prof. Jones speaking at a Physics Dept. Colloquium at Utah Valley University last year.) We understand that details will soon be forthcoming from these independent researchers.
The title is...Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains..
Jim Hoffman has written 3 new essays on this which can be found here....
3.A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario:
A Plausible Theory Explaining the Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers Using Aluminothermic Incindiaries and Explosives with Wireless Detonation Means Hypothetical Blasting Scenario
The problem with Bentham is that they are a vanity publisher. You can pretty much get anything published in their journals as long as you include a check with your submission.
Legitimate publications pay you for your work, not the other way around. The question therefore arises that if Dr. Harrit's work is so solid, why aren't legit science journals soliciting his papers for publication?
[quote=Arus;19160470]No they haven't. Please provide a peer reviewed study to show that they did.
and no, explosive residue or even parts were found. Seeing as I had friends die in those buildings that day, and one my family members was right outside of North Tower when AA 11 Crashed into the building, you have a lot of BS coming out of you.
Seeing as you didn't provide a link to support your claims, you're just regurgitating 6 year old debunked BS.
Anyone can sign a petition. What matters is the content and study they've put fort. NOT one single of thes so called professionals have put forth a peer reviewed study that supports any of their claims.
The link to the peer reviewed report has now been posted
explosive residue has in fact been found - nano thermite -research kevin ryan and Niels H. Harrit please take a look at the discussions
NIST have changed there version events 3 times ,why is this?
and if you take a look at the scientist in the post that i have submitted then you will see that quiet a few of NIST claims have been proven flawed [LEFT]NIST claims that the collapse of Building 7 is “The first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building”. We are actually being asked to believe the impossible – that WTC 7 was the only building in history to have defied all precedent and suffered a complete and almost instantaneous collapse from fire damage alone, despite this being an impossibility if one accepts the basic laws of physics as accurate. also NIST fails to mention the moltern and severe high temperatures metal found under the towers and building 7despite it being acknowledged in Appendix C of FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study shown in thermal imaging photos by NASA 25 days after the collapse ,under all 3 buildings.
They did not explain why and how the buildings collapsed and their investigation was deceptive and unscientific at every step
They reported findings that were in direct contradiction to their physical testing
They omitted or distorted many important facts:
Original design claims and John Skilling's analysis
Resistance from building structure below
WTC 1 antenna moving first
Pools of molten metal lingering for weeks
Numerous eyewitness testimonies about explosions
Sulfur residue on steel
if the official conspiracy theory put out by the 9/11 commission and NIST are found to be lying then this is even more of a crime than 9/11 itself and those responsible not only for 9/11 but for covering up evidence should be held accountable [LEFT]
[/LEFT] arus if this is true that youve had friends and family die in those buildings then i am truly sorry for your loss.
But mabe your emotions are overriding your logic and reason, if you really examine the evidence from all sides then you will see that a real indipendant investigation needs to be held . The 9/11 commission was not indipendant as it was headed by philip zelikow an advisor to the bush administration
at the end of the day i wish i was wrong and i was just a crank talking bs but when you really take a look at the evidence its clear that something very suspect happened on that day .
why not take a look at the 9/11 truth evidence and NIST report on building 7 before you repy to me
also can you expain that is if osama bin laden carried out these attacks why the FBI will not charge him on 9/11? very strange that theres not enougth evidence to put him in a court of law but enougth to go to war.
a conincidence perhaps that the very countries where these terrorist are supposedly hiding also have massive oil and natural gas reserves ,not to forget there geographical importance for military dominance in the middle east and the proposed oil pipe line through afganistan by american corporation unacol i believe is the company behind this ,then again i could be wrong and and 9/11 could have been caused by 19 muslim extreemist (not from afgan or iraq) who hate america and are able to fool the most powerful military force on the planet 4 times in one day and also fly a massive plane with large radar responses unnoticed and unchallenged into the supposedly safest city in the world (washington) kind of disturbing dont you think ?
afterthought- also take a look at the "plane" that hit the pentagon and the route and speed taken and what real expirienced airline pilots say about that and also the part of the pentagon that was hit - the accounting offices that were investigating the 2.3 trillion dollars that donald rumsfeld said could not be accounted for
another strange incident is that george bush carried on reading books with children at the school he was visiting for at least 20mins after they learned it was a "terrorist attack" - why did the secret sevice not get him out of there if these attacks were a suprise , how did they know that a plane wasnt heading for the president ,why was he not rushed to saftey immediatley by the very highly trained secret service, if it really was terrorist hijacking planes then it makes it all the more alarming that the president was allowed to carry on reading for 20 mins - “The President thought for a second or two about getting up and walking out of the room. But the drill was coming to a close and he didn’t want to alarm the children.” - as staying where he was and at least not evacuating the school was putting the childrens lives at risk wasnt it ?
or is it not more realistic given the actions of bush and his secret service that they knew president bush was in no danger
CAN YOU STOP COPY PASTA FROM TRUTHER SITES, BECAUSE YOU ARE COPYING THE FORMATTING FROM THOSE SITES MAKING YOUR POSTS UNREADABLE.
Use your own words, and please learn what paragraphs are.
Quote:
The link to the peer reviewed report has now been posted
explosive residue has in fact been found - nano thermite -research kevin ryan and Niels H. Harrit please take a look at the discussions
regarding the Bentham Open Journal paper:
Yeah the EDITOR of that journal quit because a paper by the crap Harritt was published.
When an editor quits a journal over the ethical publishing of non-reviewed papers, that says alot about that journal:
Harrit is a fraud and he knew that he couldn't publish is asinine paper in A REAL engineering journal (like the one run by the ASCE), so he paid to have his paper published in an SHAM journal.
Quote:
NIST have changed there version events 3 times ,why is this?
What three versions? There was only 2. WTC 1 and 2 and WTC 7 reports.
What you are confusing the PEER REVIEW process. You know the process where you have PEERS review your work and offer suggestions and opinions on the TESTS you have done to support your work. WHAT 9/11 truthers have never done.
NIST published a PRELIMINARY report in 2004, published part of that report to the WEB And invited DISCUSSION on their preliminary FINDINGS. ENGINEERS and architects around the world HAD THE opportunity to submit their comments to their review process.
NIST had over 400 scientists and engineers contribute to the WTC 1 and WTC 2 report, not including the additional 200+ comments and contributions from the peer review process.
and if you take a look at the scientist in the post that i have submitted then you will see that quiet a few of NIST claims have been proven flawed NIST claims that the collapse of Building 7 is “The first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building”.
Harrit is A FRAUD. His claims are bunk. As proven by the NIST report.
And the report actually said this: "This was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building(1) primarily due to fires"
(1) was a foot note which defined "tall building"
Quote:
"The term "tall building" is used by architects and structural engineers to indicate buildings that are taller than surrounding buildings, slender in their proportions, and/or require technologies such as wind bracing to carry loads, and are nominally taller than 15 to 20 stories. For fire protection engineers, the term "high-rise building" is used to indicate buildings that are nominally taller than 25m (75 ft), and from which external rescue from fires is not possible. Both terms apply to WTC 7."
Quote:
We are actually being asked to believe the impossible – that WTC 7 was the only building in history to have defied all precedent and suffered a complete and almost instantaneous collapse from fire damage alone, despite this being an impossibility if one accepts the basic laws of physics as accurate.
Truther memes in the paragraph above:
Instaneous collapse (it took over a minute for the full collapse of WTC 7) that isn't instant by any definition of instaneous
It didn't state "fires" alone. It said that it was due primarily due to fires. NIST goes on to explain how fires contributed greatly to the collapse and also took notice of the damage that the BUILDING took when WTC 1 collapsed on it.
Here is the WTC 7 report I SUGGEST THAT YOU READ IT because NOTHING of what HARITT wrote is what NIST CLAIMED:
IT's written so that Joe Schmoes can understand it.
Quote:
also NIST fails to mention the moltern and severe high temperatures metal found under the towers and building 7despite it being acknowledged in Appendix C of FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study shown in thermal imaging photos by NASA 25 days after the collapse ,under all 3 buildings.
You do know that FEMA did a cursory building performance report for 9/11. It was to examine the collapses and what the agency could do to better respond to situations where sky scrapers would collapse.
It wasn't an engineering report. It was a report studying the effects of having two large airlines impacting a building at high speed, that were nearly fully loaded with fuel.
From the report summary:
Quote:
This report presents observations, findings, and recommendations regarding the performance of buildings affected by the September 11 attacks on the WTC towers in New York City. The report also describes the structural and fire protection features of the affected buildings and their performance in response to the terrorist attacks.
FEMA deferred any structural and engineering reports to NIST who was conducting their own investigation; that WAS their task.
So don't confuse what one agency was tasked to do, and assume that the other agency was doing the same.
Quote:
delinked Kevin Ryan, who has no expertise in Structural engineering
You do realize that you are repeating the claims of a known fraud.
Kevin Ryan worked as a WATER TESTER for Underwriter Laboratories, who claimed that UW tested the steel for WTC Towers, when UW did no such thing. He was then fired for claiming things that his company never did.
Quote:
UL doesn't certify steel components like a steel truss or column. They certify assemblies. That means they certified the total assembly, all put together. They also didn't replicate the impact levels. They replicated a floor system with fireproofing as it would have been before the impact. They also tested it with various fireproofing thicknesses. The test trusses were physically undamaged and had intact fireproofing for the purpose of standard rating. What this means is that Mr. Ryan doesn't even know what his former employer does, much less what it did during the World Trade Center investigation. Maybe that's why they fired him... Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Myths - Fires
Quote:
But mabe your emotions are overriding your logic and reason, if you really examine the evidence from all sides then you will see that a real indipendant investigation needs to be held .
Sorry, but your false apologies do not work on me. Truthers claim they are for the victims, but I've seen nothing but blaming the victims from them. They claim that EVERYONE is pretty much "in on it" from the FIREFIGHTERS who lost 300 of their own that day, to the office works, to the passengers on the planes. I've seen them claim that the planes were actually holograms, to space beams from a death star destroyed the buildings. I've seen them claim that all the victims were fake, and that my own friends were a figment of my imagination.
REAL people died that day, and truthers like yourself rather BLAME our government and the order of nearly a million people to pull off this stupid plan, than blame the real culprits; AL Quaeda, who's had a hate on for AMERICA since at least 1991.
Yeah I'm emotional about it. I'm pissed that people like you continue to SPREAD THESE LIES AFTER 10 freaking years of BULL from your camp.
I don't see the logic? No, I'm sorry, but it isn't me who isn't seeing it logically. ITs you and yours.
Quote:
The 9/11 commission was not indipendant as it was headed by philip zelikow an advisor to the bush administration
at the end of the day i wish i was wrong and i was just a crank talking bs but when you really take a look at the evidence its clear that something very suspect happened on that day .
So what? now you are trying to use another logical fallacy? That's all you can do, it seems.
The 9/11 commission was a NON-Partisan commission, and their job was to find out WHY 911 happened. They were not tasked with finding out what cause the collapse of the buildings (that was what NIST was tasked to do).
You are wrong and you are a crank talking BS.
YEs things went wrong; and its very simple wrong
WE WERE TOO COMFORTABLE in our own power to believe that ANYONE; THAT ANY terrorist organization would ATTEMPT to attack the US on US SOIL. Not since Pearl Harbor, had any foreign nation attempt to try and attack us in a plot that would kill thousands of people in one day.
And because we were laxed, and because we had policies in place where our top information agencies could not share that information needed, we were left open and vulnerable.
Because who in their RIGHT mind would want to attack the LARGEST Free world nation in the world?
Quote:
why not take a look at the 9/11 truth evidence and NIST report on building 7 before you repy to me
I have. For 10 years. And all i'v seen from truthers are nothing but innuendo, science fiction, and direct insults.
Quote:
also can you expain that is if osama bin laden carried out these attacks why the FBI will not charge him on 9/11? very strange that theres not enougth evidence to put him in a court of law but enougth to go to war.
There is thing called "needing evidence" in America.
FBI can't list him for a crime that there is no direct evidence of him being apart of. He can claim that he did 9/11 all he want, but with out EVIDENCE (something that the 9/11 commission was SET UP TO FIND), the FBI and even our COURT SYSTEM cannot charge a person of any crime.
And the FBI had already EVIDENCE of the other crimes he has committed and that those crimes were enough to get him charged and put on their most wanted list (and if found guilty, would have been put to death).
This pretty much covered the 9/11 events:
In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.
Quote:
a conincidence perhaps that the very countries where these terrorist are supposedly hiding also have massive oil and natural gas reserves ,not to forget there geographical importance for military dominance in the middle east and the proposed oil pipe line through afganistan by american corporation unacol i believe is the company behind this ,then again i could be wrong and and 9/11 could have been caused by 19 muslim extreemist (not from afgan or iraq) who hate america and are able to fool the most powerful military force on the planet 4 times in one day and also fly a massive plane with large radar responses unnoticed and unchallenged into the supposedly safest city in the world (washington) kind of disturbing dont you think ?
lots of nonsense in this paragraph
The pipe line had nothing to do with 9/11 and its nothing but a truther claim (no support whatsoever) Anthe Unocal pipe line? That is a claim that originated with PEAK Oil conspiracy (yes another conspiracy theory).
BTW, illegals who cross the border fool US Authorities every day. These terrorists had VISAS who entered the country legally. YES they were here LEGALLY (couple of them were on STUDENT visas)
5 of them were trained pilots; two flew during the Gulf war, 5 of them were actually soldiers.
Large radar responses? There were over
You want to know what the radar looked like on 9/11?
It was only after 9/11 happened, that the FAA was able to find these planes on their documented radar. Among the many that were pictured, without the labels, could you tell us what planes were what?
When the transponders were turned off, the planes became a blip among the thousands of planes already in the air, criss crossing our country.
And what could the military do? The FAA was notified of the impact of WTC 1 5 minutes after it happened. The WTC 2 was hit 40 minutes after that, and Pentagon hit nearly 50 minutes later. By the time they were notified that Flight 93 was the one that was hijacked, it had ALREADY CRASHED.
Quote:
afterthought- also take a look at the "plane" that hit the pentagon and the route and speed taken and what real expirienced airline pilots say about that and also the part of the pentagon that was hit - the accounting offices that were investigating the 2.3 trillion dollars that donald rumsfeld said could not be accounted for
actually no, they were not located in that section of the Pentagon (why would airline pilots know where the accounting offices were?) and again misquoting the 2.3 trillion dollar claim.
Here's where Rumsfeld spoke about this on 9/10, with a little more context:
Quote:
The adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy. Not the people, but the processes. Not the civilians, but the systems...
In this building, despite this era of scarce resources taxed by mounting threats, money disappears into duplicative duties and bloated bureaucracy—not because of greed, but gridlock. Innovation is stifled—not by ill intent but by institutional inertia.
Just as we must transform America's military capability to meet changing threats, we must transform the way the Department works and what it works on...
Our challenge is to transform not just the way we deter and defend, but the way we conduct our daily business...
The men and women of this department, civilian and military, are our allies, not our enemies. They too are fed up with bureaucracy, they too live with frustrations. I hear it every day. And I'll bet a dollar to a dime that they too want to fix it. In fact, I bet they even know how to fix it, and if asked, will get about the task of fixing it. And I'm asking.
They know the taxpayers deserve better. Every dollar we spend was entrusted to us by a taxpayer who earned it by creating something of value with sweat and skill -- a cashier in Chicago, a waitress in San Francisco. An average American family works an entire year to generate $6,000 in income taxes. Here we spill many times that amount every hour by duplication and by inattention.
That's wrong. It's wrong because national defense depends on public trust, and trust, in turn, hinges on respect for the hardworking people of America and the tax dollars they earn. We need to protect them and their efforts.
Waste drains resources from training and tanks, from infrastructure and intelligence, from helicopters and housing. Outdated systems crush ideas that could save a life. Redundant processes prevent us from adapting to evolving threats with the speed and agility that today's world demands.
Above all, the shift from bureaucracy to the battlefield is a matter of national security. In this period of limited funds, we need every nickel, every good idea, every innovation, every effort to help modernize and transform the U.S. military....
The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.
We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion. Fully half of our resources go to infrastructure and overhead, and in addition to draining resources from warfighting, these costly and outdated systems, procedures and programs stifle innovation as well. A new idea must often survive the gauntlet of some 17 levels of bureaucracy to make it from a line officer's to my desk. I have too much respect for a line officer to believe that we need 17 layers between us....
[plenty more here, please go read the whole thing]
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010910-secdef.html (broken link)
It was a FISCAL accounting problem (that means software that used to track these funds, were antiquated and many of the spending had to BE MANUALLY TRACKED). The money was there, it was just not entered into the accounting software to trace it
support:
In fiscal 1999, a defense audit found that about $2.3 trillion of balances, transactions and adjustments were inadequately documented. These "unsupported" transactions do not mean the department ultimately cannot account for them, she advised, but that tracking down needed documents would take a long time. Auditors, she said, might have to go to different computer systems, to different locations or access different databases to get information.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2002/n04032002_200204033.html (broken link)
Our government isn't that perfect in handling finances, we all know that.
Quote:
children at the school he was visiting for at least 20mins after they learned it was a "terrorist attack" - why did the secret sevice not get him out of there if these attacks were a suprise , how did they know that a plane wasnt heading for the president ,why was he not rushed to saftey immediatley by the very highly trained secret service, if it really was terrorist hijacking planes then it makes it all the more alarming that the president was allowed to carry on reading for 20 mins - “The President thought for a second or two about getting up and walking out of the room. But the drill was coming to a close and he didn’t want to alarm the children.” - as staying where he was and at least not evacuating the school was putting the childrens lives at risk wasnt it ?
another strange incident is that george bush carried on reading books with
or is it not more realistic given the actions of bush and his secret service that they knew president bush was in no danger
And this shows your IGNORANCE about security. WHERE BUSH WAS, HE WAS the most SAFEST person on this planet. He was in a school, already secured by the Secret Service. The SCHOOL wasn't under attack and he was surrounded by protection; HE was not in danger.
And not wanting to cause worry over what was happening (espeically to CHILDREN), once he was notified, he was moved to NOT create a COMMOTION. THIS IS NOT HOLLYWOOD where you see fake presidents on screen getting rushed out by the men in black. This is real life. He wasn't in danger, and there was no need to get him out of their immediately. HE left the school within 10 minutes of the first attack (not 20 minutes)
What children were at risk? Fear mongering much?
If you bothered to stop copying and pasting from truther sites, you would have seen that all of your claims ARE AS OLD AS THE EVENT itself.
Please join us in 2011. You know, where Osama is now dead, and the US is a lot safer now.
that's what happens when you hang around frauds. There are many who believe the official story. Only those with bad social skills, the inability to recognize reality, ignorant on science, and are generally pre-disposed to paranoia, believe the lies of the 911 Truthers
that's what happens when you hang around frauds. There are many who believe the official story. Only those with bad social skills, the inability to recognize reality, ignorant on science, and are generally pre-disposed to paranoia, believe the lies of the 911 Truthers
Red/Grey Sphere ???....oh no say it ain't so, not those bahstids again!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does Anyone Still Believe the "Official 9-11" Story?
