While I don't really think that the US orchestrated the attack itself, I think that it certainly was asleep at the wheel when it went down. It even had people conveniently elsewhere, further complicating the chain of command. Nevermind someone ok'ing the flights of Saudi nationals out of the country when everything else was grounded.

I read a book called "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" which goes into some detail regarding the US manipulation of it's own currency, the World Bank and the IMF, and also using those two International entities to sell huge civil infrastructure projects to poor countries. The sell? There were US companies that were independant from the government that painted an inflated and overly optimistic financial picture for developing countries and how they could benewfit from massive projects. The deal was that these consultants could put in a good word at the IMF and World bank to help with their loan application. The catch: these countries had to hire US firms (KBR, Halliburton, Chas. T Main to name a few) to do the work. Oh, and these countries would also never be able to repay the debts. They would end up defaulting on them, the US would step up and secure them in exchange for natural resource rights and political capitol.

Now you have a shattered economies thanks to US loan sharks.

Also...

Militant Islam, Nazis & the CIA????

It's a long article, but very much worth the read. If only half of it is true, then the US ties to 9/11 go back 60 years.

Of course there's information being covered up. There is always going to be information covered up, in any situation. Whether it's because they're morons, they aren't sure what to make of the information yet, or they plotted some evil scheme is another story. Just as well as any situation can be easily manipulated to seem like a conspiracy. A person can always find something amiss if they're looking for it. Personally, I'm not taking any sides on this. There is not enough validated information on either side. Unless one of us secretly works for the FBI or Intel, I highly doubt we have all the facts. Even then, they probably still don't have all the facts.

9/11 Truth: Thermite & The Case for Controlled Demolition



911 Mysteries: Part 1 Demolitions: 1 of 3



911 Mysteries - Demolitions (Part 2 of 3)



911 Mysteries - Demolitions (Part 3 of 3)

___________________

Last edited by ogvh5150 on Sep-27-2006 at 01:20

Rethinking Thermite

One of the pieces of evidence conspiracy theorists use to say the buildings were brought down is a photo with something they interpret as being left behind by a thermite reaction.


There are a number of things they claim with this photo. One is the timeline. They say the photo has firemen which means this was during the rescue operation which only lasted two weeks. Why would they have fireman after the rescue operations? This suggests to them that the cut on the columns were made very close to September 11. The suggestion here is that it was done during the collapse.

They claim that the angle of the cut can't be created by a welding tool and/or is designed to have the building fall in a certain direction.

The other is a yellow substance they claim is residue from a thermite reaction.

Let's examine these claims one by one to see where the evidence takes us...

Timeline and Firemen

The rescue operation took about two weeks. They figured anyone left alive would have died by then anyway, so they started clean up operations and body recovery. During this time there was always at least 50 policemen and 50 firemen left on the scene to recover their fallen brothers. There were even more than that on ground zero until the city of NY told them to leave in November 2001. The city couldn't justify risking the health of 150 police and fireman for body recovery. In fact there was a protest about it which ended with the mayor allowing 50 members of each department on the scene.

Citing safety concerns, Giuliani had sought to scale back the number of firefighters working at ground zero to 25. At one point there had been as many as 150 firefighters and police officers at the site.

The decision angered firefighters still mourning the loss of 343 colleagues in the attacks. Many bodies have not been recovered, and the firefighters said they wanted to help find the remains of their friends and colleagues.

The number of firefighters working at the site was increased to 50 on Thursday.

http://www.firehouse.com/news/2001/11/10_APcharges.html

Below are photos of firemen well after September 11.


October


December 15th 2001

So the fact that there are firemen in the photo doesn't mean anything. That cut could have been done at any time during the clean up and recovery. Lets not forget the building went down some 6 stories underground. The firemen were recovering bodies mainly from the core and some were in the lobby when it happened. So it's not unreasonable to expect firemen there well after the event. Long enough for an ironworker to cut the column.

Angle and yellow residue

Another point is the angle of the cut. The argument here is that it suggests the column was cut at an angle so the building fell in a certain direction, like a tree. But is it possible the column was cut at an angle so just the column fell in a certain direction during cleanup? This can't be, surely the scholars would have asked an ironworker or someone else on the scene. I bet there isn't one photograph someone can find on the internet of a column which is cut at an angle. Remember, we're talking about "Scholars" here.





Once again, a close up of their column...



Maybe I'm being a little unfair. Maybe I just happened to get this from some obscure site. Maybe I work for the government and have a stash of photos the scholars aren't privy to... No, actually I got this from the same place the scholars got their photo.

Scholars Photo:
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/th...yID=5&picnum=13

The above photo
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/th...yID=5&picnum=73

Note the yellow smoke and residue left behind by the ironworker.

Thermite in general makes an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs. It doesn't make clean cuts. It's a powder that undergoes a violent chemical reaction as seen in the video below.

http://www.guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php

Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that?

Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe


2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g

density of Al=2.64 g/cc
density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc


54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3

Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.

A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg

For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh:

0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb

That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we're going. You'd need tons.

Here's a Debunking911 Fun Fact!

How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:


A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe


One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.

Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.

That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.

Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:

Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.

To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.


Example:

Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.

Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.

*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.

http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magconda.htm

The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds.

Some of the video stills show what look like 50 to 100 slugs in just one frame.



The thermite wouldn't have only needed to make a clean cut like the photo above, it would have also needed to cut sideways. Not an easy feat for thermite. You see, it's a powder which burns chaotically. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work to cut a vertical column. You can direct it with a canister but that method wouldn't work to cut a column. The canister only makes a small hole. Nano-thermite has been talked about but its uses fall far short of cutting these massive columns. It's in its research stage. They include possible uses for welding molecular devices and possible use as a heat signature flare decoy. Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet, there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work? Even if did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. Once again the answer to this from the "scholars" is "rationalized technology". They need this technology to exist so it exists. There is some secret super thermite which can be placed in a canister which can survive 1,100 degree C so the primary charge doesn't go off. "Gee debunking, you're so dumb."

Much of Jones and the "scholars" evidence is made up of photographs or videos accompanied by suggestions on what they mean. Below is a passage from Jones' document.

An intriguing photograph (below right) taken by Rob Miller, photojournalist with the New York Post, provides additional photographic evidence (Swanson, 2003) for the use of thermite or a sulfur-containing derivative such as thermate. We see debris and dust as WTC 1 collapses, with WTC 7 seen in the foreground, across the street from WTC 1. The photograph on the left shows, for comparison, the thermite reaction with a grayish-white aluminum-oxide dust plume extending from white-hot molten iron "blob" from the reaction. (Experiment at BYU by the author in which thermite-plus-sulfur cut through a steel cup in a fraction of a second. Any thermite reaction is a dangerous reaction and should only be performed by a trained professional capable of assessing the hazards and risks.)




To illustrate how deceptive this is lets see If I can find the use of thermite using this same test.





To be fair I don't know if Gallagher uses a real Nano-thermite coated Sledge-O-Matic.

Alex Jones, professional conspiracy theorist radio host, has said Jones found evidence of thermite. This isn't true. What Jones found was something which would have been in the debris pile anyway. Sulfur...

WTC Thermite

Sulfur

In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:

"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"

However when you look at the link he uses
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/...page-right-area

You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states

"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."

Apparently, Jones felt this was not important enough for his readers to know.

Sloppy research or purposeful deception by the "scholars"? The evidence for one is growing...

Thanks to Shagster, ScottS and David B. Benson for their research.

___________________

The government had too much information about the attacks before hand. Somebody obviously 'let' the attacks take place.

quote:

CIA paid Pakistan for terror suspects Daniel McGrory September 26, 2006 PAKISTANI President Pervez Musharraf has claimed the CIA secretly paid his Government millions of dollars for handing over hundreds of al-Qa'ida suspects to the US. The US Government has rules banning such reward payments to foreign powers involved in the war on terror. General Musharraf does not say how much the CIA gave in return for the 369 al-Qa'ida figures that he ordered be passed to the Americans. The US Department of Justice said: "We didn't know about this. It should not happen. "These bounty payments are for private individuals who help to trace terrorists on the FBI's most-wanted list, not foreign governments." The revelation comes from General Musharraf's memoir In the Line of Fire, and will further embarrass the White House at a time when relations between the US and Pakistan are strained. General Musharraf claimed last week that the Bush administration threatened to bomb Pakistan "back to the Stone Age" if it did not co-operate with the US after the 9/11 terror attacks. The latest revelation will embarrass the White House days before General Musharraf is scheduled to meet President George W. Bush and their Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai to discuss how to combat a resurgent Taliban. The disclosures are also causing consternation in Pakistan. Members of General Musharraf's cabinet and senior diplomats reportedly did not know he was writing a book and are worried that relations with Pakistan's allies and Western intelligence agencies will be damaged by the revelations. The CIA refused to divulge the size of its bounty payments, saying: "Our relationships with international leaders is not something we are prepared to talk about." One senior CIA figure added: "Nor do we expect these leaders to do so." Among the suspects surrendered to the US was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged architect of the 9/11 operation and many terror plots in Britain, including a planned attack on Heathrow airport that never came to fruition. General Musharraf does not explain why his intelligence chiefs questioned al-Qa'ida's alleged operational mastermind for only three days before handing him over to the CIA, when he was allegedly responsible for many attacks inside Pakistan and he alone knew the identities of the key figures in Osama bin Laden's network. General Musharraf says that in the Heathrow plot in 2002, Khalid planned to use flights leaving European airports belonging to the national airlines of the Czech Republic, Croatia, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic and Malta because of their lax security. The signal for hijackers to seize a plane was when the "fasten seat belt" sign was turned on as the aircraft was coming in to land at Heathrow. Al-Qa'ida had picked European Muslims, including a number of white converts, to fly the planes into terminal buildings and fuel dumps at London's main airport, about 25km from the city centre. Pakistani intelligence chiefs are also concerned that General Musharraf may jeopardise their relationship with British intelligence agencies after claiming that a convicted terrorist was once an informer for British agency MI6. The President outlines the role played by a former London public schoolboy, Omar Sheikh, in the kidnap and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in February 2002. General Musharraf says Sheikh, who orchestrated the abduction, was recruited by MI6 while he was studying at the London School of Economics and sent to the Balkans to take part in jihad operations there. He alleges that Sheikh later double-crossed British intelligence. "At some point, he probably became a rogue or double agent," General Musharraf says. Sheikh has been detained since February 2002 and sentenced to death. He is being held in a Karachi jail but British detectives have been denied access to him. General Musharraf says he decided to disclose details of covert operations and his country's capture of 689 suspects since 9/11 to counter claims that Pakistan has not done enough to combat al-Qa'ida. A number of the men his country handed to the Americans have been held in CIA-run secret detention centres. While Mr Bush has tried to play down reports of rising tensions between Islamabad and Washington, relations will not be helped by General Musharraf's disclosures. In the book, he says he was so angered at US attempts to bully Pakistan into supporting the White House that he had his military commanders study "war games" to see if they could take on the American forces should they try to operate inside his borders without permission. He insists it was not intimidation that led him to back the US, but the fact that it was in Pakistan's interest. General Musharraf scorns what he calls "the ludicrous demands" from Washington after 9/11, including one insisting that he suppress protests inside Pakistan against the US. His revelations are also likely to cause upset in India, because he insults the military prowess of his nuclear neighbour. At home, his political opponents say the book is General Musharraf's attempt to bolster his reputation before elections in October next year, as he has signalled his determination to stay another five years in power. They are also questioning what he intends to do with the reported six-figure sum he was paid by the publishers for his book. The Times

ARTICLE REPRODUCED WITHOUT PERMISSION FOR EDUCATIONAL, NON-COMMERCIAL USE. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (TIMELINE) and profile

___________________

Last edited by ogvh5150 on Sep-29-2006 at 23:48

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN

Did you understand a single thing about the chemistry you just posted?

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Did you understand a single thing about the chemistry you just posted?

yes. the fact that the amount of thermite required to a) bring the towers down and b) produce that amount of molten "iron" as seen leaking out of the windows clearly shows that thermite was not used in a controlled demolition.

also that thermite could not have possibly burned through the supporting pillars in the manner conspiracy theorists suggest.

nothing like a bit of cold hard science to show how intellectually corrupt the CTers are

___________________

quote:

Monday, October 02, 2006 Omar Sheikh and British intelligence Musharraf claims that Omar Saeed Sheikh was a British intelligence agent. Of course, Musharraf would say something like that, as it takes the heat off his own country for some of the things that Omar Sheikh has allegedly done, all supposedly on behalf of Pakistani military intelligence. On the other hand, Musharraf’s story fits. Omar Sheikh was from a well-to-do family, educated at a public school, and had excellent marks. Athletic, aggressive, and intelligent. A young Muslim male at a time when such an agent might well be useful. A text-book mark for British intelligence recruitment. Like all alleged terrorists, he suddenly turned into a violent Islamist religious extremist, and ended up in an Afghan training camp (where Aukai Collins knew him as Umar). As usual with all these ‘terrorists’, all his old friends now say they have trouble imagining such a thing happening to him. He was supposedly radicalized in Bosnia, but Bosnia seems to have been both a school for Islamic terrorists, and the foundation for NATO/German/French/British/American shenanigans in manipulating Islamist terrorist groups in the proto-WarOnTerror phony fight as a ruse for the ClashOfCivilizations-leading-to-NewMiddleEast crapola. So either it is a legitimate 180 degree personality change, or he is fitting into the role he has to play to infiltrate Islamist terrorist organizations on behalf of British intelligence. Which do you think it is? Omar Saeed Sheikh first made a name for himself by kidnapping and executing four ‘tourists’, three British and one American, an interesting choice of target. He has subsequently been traded for a planeload full of hijacked Indians, and been convicted of murdering Daniel Pearl (the latter conviction put into question by Musharraf’s remarks). Most famously, he allegedly wired $100,000 to Atta on behalf of Pakistani intelligence (who the big-conspiracy theorists claim was working on behalf of the CIA), and even received back from Atta the excess money Atta didn’t need. I’ve always had trouble with this story. Why would Pakistani intelligence send Atta a relatively small amount of money using a method, and an agent, that could be so easily traced back to them? Why would they take the risk of receiving Atta’s left-over money? On the other hand, if Omar Sheikh was working for British intelligence, with a mandate to put the blame for 9–11 on Pakistani intelligence, sending Atta some easily traced money, and receiving some money back, all to frame Pakistan, makes perfect sense. All the sources for the story are out of India, which has an obvious motive in implicating Pakistan. Of course, this scenario involves the necessity that British intelligence had foreknowledge of the nature and details of the 9–11 plot, and was working hand-in-hand with the plotters to further the bin Laden/Islamic terrorist/Pakistani back-story of September 11.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN yes. the fact that the amount of thermite required to a) bring the towers down and b) produce that amount of molten "iron" as seen leaking out of the windows clearly shows that thermite was not used in a controlled demolition. also that thermite could not have possibly burned through the supporting pillars in the manner conspiracy theorists suggest. nothing like a bit of cold hard science to show how intellectually corrupt the CTers are

Assuming that's true, do you realize that only makes the airline crash/jet fuel pan cake theory even more ludicrous? Yeah, kerosene would definetly bring down an over engineered structure like the twin towers when it supposedly takes a crap load of carefully placed explosives to do the same job (i.e. make it fall on itself in a neat little pile).

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

Pancake theory my ass. Look at these pictures, and tell me, if the building is imploding by pancake way, or is it exploding out-wise using explosives. Anyone without prior knowledge of this event will look at these photos and tell you that the building is being blown p by explosives.

WTF ... images are not working on the posts, so see the links:


http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/demolitions.html

[/COLOR]

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

Last edited by Magnetonium on Oct-05-2006 at 23:50

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Assuming that's true, do you realize that only makes the airline crash/jet fuel pan cake theory even more ludicrous? Yeah, kerosene would definetly bring down an over engineered structure like the twin towers when it supposedly takes a crap load of carefully placed explosives to do the same job (i.e. make it fall on itself in a neat little pile).

not at all.

it would take a "crapload" of explosives IF the explosives in question was thermite. and thermite seems to be the choice of CTers. the way in which thermite works means that it wouldve taken a hell of a lot to systematically bring the towers down and create all that molten metal found at ground zero. edit: and a "neat little pile"? debris went fvcking everywhere, which vids are you watching?


does this look like a neat little pile to you?

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Pancake theory my ass. Look at these pictures, and tell me, if the building is imploding by pancake way, or is it exploding out-wise using explosives. Anyone without prior knowledge of this event will look at these photos and tell you that the building is being blown p by explosives.

yeah, well thank god i dont spend my time listening to what mr joe average thinks occured on that fateful day. and to be honest, what the hell do you know about the pancake theory anyway?

please, if explosives were used id like to know which particular explosive you think was used.

and ill try to explain this. the floors of the WTC fell down in a pancake fashion, whilst the outer steel shell was pushed outwards by the falling inner floors due to how the WTCs were designed.

id like to know why you two seem to ignore almost every structural engineer on the planet that has examined the collapses. this is the most examined building collapse in history. and there is almost unanimous agreement.

___________________