Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old December 28th, 2007 #1001
Bernie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,302
Default

Guys you have to stop debating the KIKE Blackass. He's not here to do anything other than make reading this thread tiresome. Take a look at the last few pages, see what percentage of them was taken up with his nonsensical drivel? Can you now see he's a part of a 911 coverup team?

There are countless hundreds of fleas like him 'policing' the internet for the Jews. Any website where there are discussion groups have the pests in there to muddy the waters. I have PM'd Alex Linder asking him to piss Blackass off.
 
Old December 29th, 2007 #1002
Robin King
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 420
Default

I agree with Bernie. I think the general consensus on VNN is that not all is right with the official 9/11 story. The details of that may differ among WN'ists but the basic thrust is the same.

So I propose that Blackthorne be banned from General Discussion and other forums and be confined to Opposing Views. He may start a 9/11 thread there if he likes and members may join him there if they wish. In this way, we can talk about 9/11 without his interference and yet also have the freedom to debate him or other antis as per choice. The way it is he is ruining the only thread on 9/11 on VNN and discouraging people from putting up their ideas as this gets drowned out in this anti's huge posts that as Bernie says takes up most of the space in the thread and are designed to be argumentative and not constructive. And then because his posts are all over here we are forced to respond to him whether we want to or not. I do not mind opposing views per se even ones by Jew shills as sometimes it is helpful to know what their angle of propaganda is in order to be able to counter them, but there should be a place set aside for them and they should not be included in General Discussion which should be a place to develop ideas and theories about 9/11 without being attacked by a committed shill. We have enough skeptics here already, we don't need Jewish ones.

This should be like a Holocaust thread where the issue is debated. It should be put in Opposing Views so that people who want to debate it with antis can go there. If members are not interested in continually countering the propaganda that the Jews put out about it then they can discuss it here, and in other non-OV sections.

I've started a thread on 9/11 in OV where the Jews should be confined to. Anyone who wants to debate the Jew shill, blackthorne, or any other Jew shill should go there.
 
Old December 29th, 2007 #1003
Dietrich
out surfing. won't be back
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: where it's 4-6 & glassy
Posts: 2,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackthorne View Post
"After the columns bowed, the weight was no longer going straight down. Like taking a straw and bowing it in the middle, it no longer can hold the same weight as it did when it was straight. The building tried to transfer the load to the core columns and massive hat truss on the roof. The weakened core, weakened by fire and impact, couldn't hold the massive weight from tilting. As with the perimeter column, the massive load on the deformed core columns gave way."
Everyone involved should know better than this. Straws have this property because they are hollow, and once the external structure buckles, there's nothing left of its integrity. Steel columns are not hollow.

Fail, fail, and again, FAIL.
 
Old December 29th, 2007 #1004
Mike Z.
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 73
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackthorne View Post
First of all, the towers were not all all very similar. The Windsor was mainly structured dependently on reinforced concrete and structural concrete, which has a lot more fire-resistence than non-reinforced structural steel, also the highest density in concrete is structural concrete. It didn't rely on on steel frames and the core was essentially reinforced concrete.
The layout of the towers were identical except one had a concrete core, the other had steel. The Windsor also had intermediate columns between the core and perimeter.

My point is that in both buildings the "weakest link" was the connection between the core and the exterior floor area. Weld plates in the Windsor, bolts in the WTC.

This is the part that would have failed first. It did indeed in the Windsor after hours of inferno. Had the WTC experienced an actual fire, the collapse would have been virtually identical to what you see on the image of the windsor. NOVA's simulation had it mostly right, that's the ironic part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackthorne View Post
Secondly, the WTC's concrete was not structural concrete, it was merely there to provide a flat floor surface which requires much less density.
Any concrete - structural or not - prevents the spread of fire. My earlier point was about concrete shear walls which at minimum surrounded every elevator, stairwell and ductshaft (thus preventing fire spread through vertical penetrations). I'm curious as to if they surrounded any of the columns also. Shear walls are also definitely "structural" concrete, reinforced with rebar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackthorne View Post
Still, what happend to the steel that wasn't steel reinforced concrete?


It failed completely!

Of the upper floors where the fires raged predominantely, the reinforced concrete was what was standing, the bare steel had collapsed.
After an
that gutted the building right down to steel and concrete. Nothing even close to the fires in the WTC buildings.

Also note that no steel member in the Windsor was remotely as massive as the core members in the WTCs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackthorne View Post
Nonsense? You are certainly showing your lack of understanding by the comment here.

That's regular plain old concrete yes, maybe, but not structural R.C., you are trying to compare apples with oranges.
Buahaha

You are showing your lack of technical knowledge again, structural concrete can be as low as 15 MPa. 17.5 MPa is typical.

Are you aware that the tallest concrete building in the world is built with 80 MPa concrete in vertical members? That's as strong as it gets! Nowhere near the 500-1000 MPa of structural steel. Structural concrete regularly needs not surpass 30 MPa, even in the footings and piers of a building.

Steel has a strength to weight ratio that's incredibly efficient compared to concrete. That means a catastrophic collapse is way more likely with a concrete structure. Note it would have been more efficient to build the Burj Dubai of steel if there wasn't a hell of a lot of sand over there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackthorne View Post
Again, It's a completely different building all together, steel reinforced concrete is qutie different that a steel-frame building, generally they are much stronger and can carry 300 to 500 times their own weight as a structural entity, furthemore it can take fire a lot better. The steel buckled severely and collapsed in the Windsor building.
If a concrete structure can carry 300-500 times its own weight, then steel can easily carry 3000-5000 times its weight.

"Breaking length: the length of the material (in km) that could suspend its own weight (with a fixed cross-section)." click

Concrete: 00.440 kilometers
steel: 25.930 kilometers

You seem to have some serious misconceptions with regards to the strength of steel, and that's certainly a result of reading nonsense from NIST/FEMA, and other government/jew co-opted institutions.

You seriuously need to re-evaluate your thoughts on this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackthorne View Post
...
I skimmed over a few of your sources, I noticed they claim core columns were severed by the plane impacts.

That's absolute nonsense. I've seen cars (steel body) wrapped around wooden poles. An aluminum framed plane hitting the core columns would be completely shredded.

These columns were absolutely massive compared even to the perimeter columns (which were really a mesh, not individual columns)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackthorne View Post
"After the columns bowed, the weight was no longer going straight down. Like taking a straw and bowing it in the middle, it no longer can hold the same weight as it did when it was straight. The building tried to transfer the load to the core columns and massive hat truss on the roof. The weakened core, weakened by fire and impact, couldn't hold the massive weight from tilting. As with the perimeter column, the massive load on the deformed core columns gave way."
Columns do not "bow" they are either "I" beams or "box" shaped to make them rigid. The core would not have been weakened by the impact, the fires were insignificant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackthorne View Post
It's not that difficult to understand, the support of the core could not alone carry all the structural load, the same goes for perimeter columns which was interdependant with the trusses. The planes which rammed into the WTC's destroyed the integrity of the interdependance thereof, joints and supports etc and then the hot fires weakened the remaining strenght notably. Ergo, when the floors began sagging, the perimeter columns stripped from the equation by the minute, buckling, failing and joints releasing, the core had to handle a load far beyond it's capabilities which were already strained and weakened.
The Tower could not deal with it.
The core alone could most definitely support many times the rest of the buildings weight. Steel is a hell of a lot stronger than you think.

Even if the steel lost half its strength due to the fire it could still support multiples of its own weight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackthorne View Post
Erhm, the core didn't disintegrate, the weakened core collapsed after the floors, trusses, columns was collapsing around it. The core was never a single steel frame.
Wrong, the core was absolutely a single steel frame. Continuous vertical columns linked horizontally with massive beams. Had the exterior floor area and perimeter columns actually collapsed, it would have looked exactly like the Windsor building's collapse, or like NOVA's simulation. A free standing core.

That is the most logical thing do do from a design perspective, since all the vertical transportation is within the core. The people in the stairwells would have survived had the core not been shredded with shaped charges. That's why bone fragments of people were found on neighboring rooftops years later. Nothing that a pancake collapse is capable of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackthorne View Post
Every steel building of these structural types which have suffered from the same damage have collapsed.
I have yet to see it. I have a feeling I'll be waiting a long time
 
Old December 29th, 2007 #1005
Robin King
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 420
Default

Mike Z, stop debating blackass here. There is a thread in OV for that or start your own. Don't feed the troll. Blackthorne should never have been allowed onto General Discussion in the first place, Jews aren't allowed here. How come a Jew troll, Bob Smith, was banned from Gen Discussion a couple of weeks ago and Blackthorne allowed to remain. This is rather inconsistent policy. Please Mike Z, don't ruin it for the rest of us. There is a place you can go to if you want to 'debate' it with him.
 
Old December 29th, 2007 #1006
blueskies
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,392
Default

Ditto for the 911 Conspiracy Theory. If it were truth, like gravity, then it would not need pumping up War on Terror on a daily basis.
 
Old December 29th, 2007 #1007
Mike Z.
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 73
Default

Yeah, with each post it's more obvious that Blackthorne doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. He's simply repeating the same nonsense over and over, while glossing over his grave errors.

I haven't seen him post anything showing a white racialist viewpoint, mostly making excuses for the :[]. I don't see why he is not confined to opposing views...

Promoting the absurdity that steel framed buildings disintegrate themselves is about as nuts as promoting racial equality - It conflicts directly with objectively observable reality.



Good day, Blackthorne
 
Old December 29th, 2007 #1008
Bernie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Z. View Post
Yeah, with each post it's more obvious that Blackthorne doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. He's simply repeating the same nonsense over and over, while glossing over his grave errors. I haven't seen him post anything showing a white racialist viewpoint, mostly making excuses for the :[]. I don't see why he is not confined to opposing views...Promoting the absurdity that steel framed buildings disintegrate themselves is about as nuts as promoting racial equality - It conflicts directly with objectively observable reality.

Good day, Blackthorne
Mike,

I'm also pleased to see you've twigged to Blackass. You post a sensible, logical proposition and he comes back with a veritable MOUNTAIN of blather AND that, and your (genuine) posts, take up dam near all the space on a page. The average newcomer to this forum would find that irritating and with click of a mouse move on.

Blackass thus wins by keeping another person ignorant.

Blackass and 90% of the naysayers on the 911 Inside Job are actually the cover-up part of the crime itself. That doesn't mean they the know who and when of it, they do it as low level paid employment, they're right at the bottom of the 911 totem pole, at the hamburger flipping end.

I used to fall for that with Blackass's numerous predecessors, these days I can spot them a mile away. I think you have just woken up to another way in which how our ferocious racial opponent yet again deceives our people.

They're very good at it, we need to be able to spot them quickly.
 
Old December 29th, 2007 #1009
tuisto
Senior Member
 
tuisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: relegational
Posts: 2,265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackthorne View Post
Mmm indeed, like you'd know any inherent difference of what is factually there and what is erronous conjecture.
"inherent difference"?

The "erronous conjecture" of those who believed the earth was spinning around the sun was in contradiction of "what was factually there" (inquisition)turned out to be no "erroneous conjecture" after all, no matter how many people got holocausted for their knowledge of what was "factually there"
 
Old December 29th, 2007 #1010
Robin King
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 420
Default

Hey guys can you take this to OV? Blackthorne is taking any response to his posts as an invitation for him to stay here.
 
Old December 29th, 2007 #1011
Dietrich
out surfing. won't be back
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: where it's 4-6 & glassy
Posts: 2,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin King View Post
Hey guys can you take this to OV? Blackthorne is taking any response to his posts as an invitation for him to stay here.
Hey, just because you don't see how funny he is, it isn't our problem.

Opposition is good, even if it's as failstein as blackie.
 
Old December 29th, 2007 #1012
Robin King
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 420
Default

Who's laughing and even if some people are amused by him is it relevant? Bob Smith, Jew shill, was banned for being in a thread in General Discussion. Were some people amused by him? Maybe. Why are some Jew shills allowed in Gen Discussion and some are banned? Isn't this being inconsistent here?

Why did you ban Bill White but not Blackthorne? Bill White has his moments but if you think he's a Jew shill, what do you think Blackthorne is?

Does it depend on whether the shills amuse you or not? I.e. On your WHIM?
 
Old December 30th, 2007 #1013
Dietrich
out surfing. won't be back
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: where it's 4-6 & glassy
Posts: 2,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin King View Post
Who's laughing and even if some people are amused by him is it relevant? Bob Smith, Jew shill, was banned for being in a thread in General Discussion. Were some people amused by him? Maybe. Why are some Jew shills allowed in Gen Discussion and some are banned? Isn't this being inconsistent here?

Why did you ban Bill White but not Blackthorne? Bill White has his moments but if you think he's a Jew shill, what do you think Blackthorne is?

Does it depend on whether the shills amuse you or not? I.e. On your WHIM?
Yeah, on my whim.

Norly, it's up to Alex.
 
Old January 20th, 2008 #1014
kathaksung
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 708
Default

Japanese law maker speaks of 911 that Americans' dare not to say

Transcript Of Japanese Parliament's 911 Testimony
Posted Jan 14, 2008

Below is a transcript of testimony in the Japanese Parliament that was broadcast live nationwide on NHK television. The Member of Parliament talking about 911 is Yukihisa Fujita from the Democratic Party of Japan. After the testimony Mr. Fujita says he got lots of phone calls from other members of Parliament thanking him for having the bravery to bring up 911 in Parliament. He also got one death threat.

The secret government's control of Japan is falling apart. A few weeks ago one of Japan's leading commercial TV networks also broadcast a 911 truth program during prime time. One other national network and several local networks have also broadcast such programs.

The people of Japan do not want to finance genocidal mass murderers any more.

Mr. Fujita:

First of all I would like to get all members of the committee to look at this panel and look at the pictures I have provided you with. This is concrete evidence in the form of photographs and other types of information. The first photograph has computer graphics attached to show how large the plane that hit the Pentagon was. A 757 is quite a large airplane with a width of 38 meters. So as you can see even though such a large plane hit the pentagon there is only a hole that is too small for the airplane. This is a photograph taken of firemen at work and you can also see there is no damage of the sort an airplane that large should make. I would also like you to look at the lawn in front and notice that there are no airplane parts on it. Let us now look at the third picture, which is also of the pentagon taken from a U.S. TV news report has captions that show the roof of the Pentagon is still intact. Again even though a huge airplane is supposed to have hit, there is not enough corresponding damage. Now let us move to the next photograph. Here is a photograph of a hole, as Minister Komura knows the Pentagon is a very strong building with many walls. Yet the airplane has pierced them. But as you know, airplanes are made of the lightest possible material. An airplane made of such light material could not make a hole like that. Next I would like to show a photograph of how the airplane hit the building. The airplane made a U-turn, avoiding the Defense Secretary's office and hitting the only part of the Pentagon that had been specially reinforced to withstand a bomb attack.

Also, in the middle of page five we have a comment from a U.S. airforce official. He says I have flown the two types of airplane used on 911 and I cannot believe it would be possible for someone who is flying one for the first time to be able to carry out such a maneuver. Also, as you know, they have not recovered the flight recorders from most of these 4 airplanes. Also, there were more than 80 security cameras at the Pentagon but they have refused to release almost all of the footage. In any case, as you have just seen there is no picture of the airplane or of its wreckage in any of these photographs. It is very strange that no such pictures have been shown to us.

Here is something said by a Japanese research team of officials from the fire department and the construction ministry. The interviewed a Japanese survivor who said that while she was fleeing there were explosions. This testimony appears in a report prepared with the aid of the construction ministry and the fire department. Now I would like you to see the following picture. Normally it is said that the twin towers collapsed because they were hit by airplanes. However, one block away from the twin towers is building number 7. It can be seen in the following map a block away from the WTC. This building collapsed 7 hours after the WTC buildings were attacked. If I could show you a video it would be easy to understand but take a look at this photograph. This is a 47 story building that fell in this manner (He drops and object to demonstrate). The building falls in five or six seconds. It is about the same speed as an object would fall in a vacuum. This building falls like something you would see in a Kabuki show. Also if falls while keeping its shape. Remember it was not hit by an airplane. You have to ask yourself if a building could fall in that manner due to a fire after 7 hours. Here we have a copy of the 911 commission report. This is a report put out by the U.S. government in July of 2004 but this report does not mention the collapse of the building I just described. It is not mentioned at all in here (he waves the book). FEMA also issued a report but they also fail to mention this building. Many people believe, especially after seeing the story about building number 7, that something is strange. Since this is an incident where many people died people think is should be investigated.

We are running out of time but I would also like to mention the put options. Just before the 911 attacks, ie on September 6th, 7th and 8th there were put options put out on the stocks of the two airlines United and American that were hit by hijackers. There were also put options on Merril Lynch, one of the biggest WTC tenants. In other words somebody had insider information and made a fortune selling put options of these stocks. The head of Germany's Bundesbank at the time, who is equivalent to the Governor of the Bank of Japan, said there are lots of facts to prove the people involved in the terror attacks profited from insider information. He said there was lots of suspicious trading involving financial companies etc prior to the attacks. The had of the Bundesbank was willing to say this much. I would like to ask the Finance Minster about these put options. Did the government of Japan know about this, and what do you think about this? I would like to ask Finance Minister Nukaga about this.

Keiichiro Asao:

I understand put options are a deal to sell stocks at a fixed price. In this case somebody must have had insider information to carry out such transactions because nobody could normally predict these airlines would have their planes hijacked. So, I believe this was certainly a case of insider trading.

http://benjaminfulford.com/Transcrip...0of%20911.html
 
Old January 20th, 2008 #1015
Flame Baiter
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,442
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathaksung View Post
Japanese law maker speaks of 911 that Americans' dare not to say

~
Here are some youtube videos of that.


I'll re-iterate my theory about 9/11.

Modern jumbo jets have autopilot capability. What most people don't know is that a jumbo jet can be remotely put into auto-pilot mode, and controlled from the ground. This option is available in case there is loss of cabin pressure and the pilot passes out, or in the case of the airplane needing to be controlled from the ground because of a hijacking. This equipment is made and manufactured in Israel.

So, on 9/11, the Israelis (operating from the ground) used the codes that disable on-board control and put the planes into ground-controlled mode. This explains how the Israelis knew in advance the time and place of the attacks. They could place their bets on the stock-market, have a 4-man camera crew posing as movers, and tell all their fellow jews to stay home that day.

Also, this is why the 19-Arab-hijacker issue is such a murky one. There were Arabs whose faces appeared in newspapers as being the terrorists, yet they were alive and well, despite government claims that they perished on the planes.
 
Old January 22nd, 2008 #1016
Bernie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flame Baiter View Post
I'll re-iterate my theory about 9/11.

Modern jumbo jets have autopilot capability. What most people don't know is that a jumbo jet can be remotely put into auto-pilot mode, and controlled from the ground. This option is available in case there is loss of cabin pressure and the pilot passes out, or in the case of the airplane needing to be controlled from the ground because of a hijacking. This equipment is made and manufactured in Israel.

So, on 9/11, the Israelis (operating from the ground) used the codes that disable on-board control and put the planes into ground-controlled mode. This explains how the Israelis knew in advance the time and place of the attacks. They could place their bets on the stock-market, have a 4-man camera crew posing as movers, and tell all their fellow jews to stay home that day.

Also, this is why the 19-Arab-hijacker issue is such a murky one. There were Arabs whose faces appeared in newspapers as being the terrorists, yet they were alive and well, despite government claims that they perished on the planes.
I agree, the German Airline Lufthansa declined to have this optional equipment fitted to their Boeing Passenger Aircraft. I have long thought that Flt77 had its software tampered with. The Pilot was a hard case, a former combat pilot in Vietnam, there is no way hijackers would have overpowered him and 50 other people on board. The only flaw in your theory is, how did they manage to turn off the Transponders on ALL the 'hijacked' planes? My opinion is still they had Israeli Pilots in the cockpit of, at least, the 'New York' planes and sent remote controlled dummy planes into their airspace. As the dummies approached the 'real' planes peeled off and descended to a pre-arranged little used airfield nearby.

Keep in mind an Israeli Security Company controlled each of the three Airports from which the 911 Airliners departed, A Coincidence?

Over the years I, and millions of others have been following the 911 mass murder, bit by tiny bit small pieces of information appear which seems to confirm the above. For example, some years ago a picture of one of the jet engines lying on a (Murray?) street in Manhattan was widely circulated on the internet. A number of aircraft technicians familiar with Boeing planes wrote in saying the engine was a B737 not off a much larger B757. As usual, for each person who made such a comment at least three dis-information trolls, like Blackass here on this thread, wrote in to muddy the waters.

About two weeks ago I noticed that the US Government had refused an FOI request to furnish the serial numbers on recovered components of the destroyed aircraft. You might ask, what is the significance of these serial numbers? My understanding is that each 'replacement part' of a Boeing has its own and UNIQUE serial number. So if the engine on the street I refer to above has a serial number and it is traced, it might be discovered the B737 to which it belonged, was last seen perched in the Airline graveyard in the desert in America's west.

That would not be good for the health and well being for the INSIDERS who were the real mass murderers of THOUSANDS of innocent people on 911. Didn't Bush No1 once say, 'If people knew what we have done, they'd be chasing us down the street?'

Itz coming!
 
Old January 30th, 2008 #1017
kathaksung
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 708
Default Re: WTC, packed with explosives, blown to smithereens

Quote, 'THE KEY PLAYERS OF 9-11

Who is Jerome M. Hauer?
By Christopher Bollyn
www.bollyn.com

Yesterday, a reader sent me a document that contained a link to a very interesting 9-minute video clip called "The 9/11 Solution."

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/146563-The-9-11-
Solution-RESTORED-The-Video-Google-Censored
.........
Jerome M. Hauer, who has strong family connections to the State of Israel, built the bizarre crisis center for the Office of Emergency Management in Larry Silverstein's WTC 7, the 47-story tower which was demolished by explosives in the afternoon of 9-11
........

The OEM crisis center in WTC 7 is suspected as being the control center for the pre-planned demolition of the towers. The center, and all of the evidence of the crime, was destroyed when the 47-story tower was completely demolished at about 5:25 p.m. on 9-11. This blast-proof command and control bunker with its own air and water supply was fortified to withstand incredible forces. What role did it play in the demolition of the World Trade Center?

.............
http://www.rense.com/general80/key.htm
 
Old February 3rd, 2008 #1018
Oy Ze Hate
We're the Good Guys
 
Oy Ze Hate's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pediatric Burn Unit
Posts: 4,776
Default Re: WTC, packed with explosives, blown to smithereens

Relevant video 9-11 Vendetta.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4580078919009360294
 
Old February 7th, 2008 #1019
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default Re: WTC, packed with explosives, blown to smithereens

Why Were the Tapes Destroyed?

by Paul Craig Roberts

Many Americans are content with the 9-11 commission report, but the two chairmen of the commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, are not.

Neither was commission member Max Cleland, a U.S. senator who resigned from the 9-11 commission, telling the Boston Globe on Nov. 13, 2003, “This investigation is now compromised.” Even former FBI Director Louis Freeh wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Nov. 17, 2005, that there are inaccuracies in the commission’s report and “questions that need answers.”

Both Kean and Hamilton have twice stated publicly, once in their 2006 book, Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9-11 Commission, and again in the Jan. 2, 2008, New York Times, that there are inaccuracies in their report and unanswered—or mis-answered—questions.

On the second day of this new year, Kean and Hamilton accused the CIA of obstructing their investigation: “What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one of the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.”

In their book, Kean and Hamilton wrote that they were unable to obtain “access to star witnesses in custody who were the only possible source for inside information about the 9-11 plot.”

The only information the commission was permitted to have about what was learned from interrogations of alleged plot ringleaders, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, came from “third-hand” sources. The commission was not permitted to question the alleged plotters in custody or even to meet with those who interrogated the alleged plotters. Consequently, write Kean and Hamilton, “We had no way of evaluating the credibility of detainee information” that was fed to them by third party hands. “How could we tell if someone such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was telling us the truth?”

The fact that videotapes of the interrogations existed was kept secret from the 9-11 commission.

The videotapes have since been destroyed. The destruction of the videos has become an issue because of White House involvement in the decision to destroy them and because the videos are believed to have been destroyed because they reveal methods of torture that the Bush administration denies using.

According to President Bush, the United States does not practice torture even though he and his Department of Justice (sic) assert the right to torture.

Is the torture issue a red herring? The 9-11 commission was not tasked with investigating interrogation methods or detainee treatment. The commission was tasked with investigating al-Qaida’s participation in the 9-11 attack and determining the perpetuators of the terrorist event. There was no reason to withhold from the commission video evidence of confessions implicating al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden.

Was the video evidence withheld from the 9-11 commission because the alleged participants in the plot did not confess, did not implicate al-Qaida and did not implicate bin Laden? Does anyone seriously believe that evidence of confession would not have been revealed—evidence that could have foreclosed what has become a massive industry of 9-11 truth-seekers involving large numbers of highly credible persons?

There is no reason for the Bush administration to fear the torture issue. The Justice Department’s memos have legalized the practice, and Congress has passed legislation, signed by President Bush, giving retroactive protection to U.S. interrogators who tortured detainees.

The Military Commissions Act passed in September 2006 and signed by Bush in October 2006 strips detainees of protections provided by the Geneva Conventions: “No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.”

Other provisions of the act strip detainees of speedy trials and of protection against torture and self-incrimination. The law has a provision that retroactively protects torturers against prosecution for war crimes.

Did the Bush administration cleverly take advantage of the torture claims in order to spin the destruction of the CIA videotapes as a “torture story”? It is much more likely that the tapes were destroyed because they reveal the absence of confession to the plot.

As Kean and Hamilton ask, without evidence how do we know the truth? All we have is the word of the administration that told us Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that, while sitting on a National Intelligence Estimate report that concluded that Iran had terminated its weapons program in 2003, told us that Iran had an ongoing nuclear weapons program and was close to having a nuclear weapon.

What about the bin Laden videotape in which he takes credit for the 9-11 attack? Every indication is that the tape is a fake. The bin Laden in the Nov. 9, 2001, “confession video” looks nothing like the bin Laden in the last confirmed video of December 2001.

Recently, the Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera reported that the former president of Italy, Francesco Cossiga, said that Italian intelligence had concluded that the bin Laden confession video was a fake.

William Arkin in the online Washington Post on Feb. 1, 1999, described a voice-morphing technology developed at the government’s Los Alamos laboratory. Arkin reported that digital morphing, including appearance, “has come of age, available for use in psychological operations.”

Investigative reporter Kristina Borjesson reminds us that “six days after 9-11, CNN reported that bin Laden had sent a statement to Al Jazeera denying that he had been involved.” She also reminds us that the FBI says it has no hard evidence that bin Laden was responsible for 9-11.

The FBI wants Osama for the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, not for 9-11. Borjesson also reports that in the “confession video” bin Laden is revealed writing with his right hand, but is known to be left-handed.

If the bin Laden “confession video” is indeed a fake, as it appears to be, why run the risk of creating such a video if the CIA has on videotape the confessions of the alleged al-Qaida participants in the 9-11 plot? Why destroy such evidence, especially when torture has been given a green light by the Department of Justice and U.S. Congress?
 
Old February 18th, 2008 #1020
Vegas247
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4
Default

Rounder is correct and you have been watching to many xfiles episodes Controlled detenation? I agree the way both towers could be seen as suspicious almost controlled. howeer after hearing the news in Vegas while driving the 215 beltway in Vegas I started research. your theory is well founded. but VIA the towers construction and my experience ( engineer for Dana Corp. 15 yrs) its highly unlikely for a building to collapse from the top floors down without significant visual structure damage from floors 45 an up. with all the coverage all of us would have seen a very visible explosion from mid building an up. the structure failure was top down due to tempature degredation of iron an concrete on a period of time not a sole device which would be instantanious. Just my thoughtss however anything is possible these days as we all know. I wonder however what the jewish community had to gain by killing there oen banks. some of us should start wonderin gwhat rupert murdochs motives are. He owns more an more each day. and its making me weary
 
Reply

Tags
#1, 911, c4l, gov, jew bs, jew vs jew, jews did 9-11, wtc

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:58 PM.
Page generated in 0.30720 seconds.