Video: WTC Witnesses: "It was definitely no commercial airliner"

Jeff McCann wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
Jeff McCann wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 15, 5:27 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 15, 10:17 am, "Jonathan" wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 14, 11:42 am, (Al Dykes) wrote:
In article
et,
Jonathan wrote:
wrote:
In misc.survivalism wrote:
I also have questions about how the explosives for the
controlled demolition were placed without tens of
thousands of office workers knowing that it was being
done, but that can wait for another day.
To believe this crap, you'd have to
believe in the most complex and bizarre conspiracy
imaginable.
I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation.
I've worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always
questioned. And planting explosives secretly amongst tens
of thousands of bored busybodies seems like a difficult
task to me. That work is done by specialty firms. Lots
and lots of manhours would be needed for two giant
buildigs. It seems unlikely to me that the work could
have been carried out in secret.
Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under
their coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of
ways to place charges anywhere they wanted. You sure are
one simple minded soul aren't you? Do you think people
would carry their tools in broad daylight while all the
workers are on the job? When maintenance workers enter does
do they ever do it while everyone is at work? No they don't
fool. Does anyone even see the plumber or electrician while
they are doing their job? No they don't. They do it and
don't bother anyone or even disrupt the work flow. You
really should try to get out more often and get away from
the internet once in a while.
Nobody unknown walks into a Manhattan office bulding at any
time of day without being planned for and with people
controlling the space notified and told why. Office buldings
are 24x7 operations with several unrelated layers of
security, especially after Feb 26, 1993 at
the WTC.
Just getting access to the elevators to carry tools and
material requires paperwork.
There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of explosions of
size, placement, and timing consistent with the collapse of
any of the towers on 9/11.
In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was
loud enough to be heard for blocks around and by everyone
inside the complex and powerful enough to destroy several
floors of reinforced concrete yet it was nowhere close to
weakening the tower's structure. In 2001, any
bomb would have to be as bigger and louder to have any
effect. For 9/11, each and every beam was examined by at
least one civil engineer before it was shipped to China. A
couple thousands were kept
for analysis. 1,300 are in storage here. More links to
stories about
that process on request.
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/ne...2006,0,6613706....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...656282270164--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since
2001- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
ESK is right about the fact that you can't compare a 1000lb
crude bomb placed in the parking garage in 93 to the use of
shaped charge explosives that are positioned precisely on the
structural support that you want to cut. And that is pretty
much what they do. The charges almost cut the steel, rather
than blowing it every which way. You could do far more
structural damage to a building with 1000lb of charges made
for the purpose and put exactly where they belong.
However, none of that really has squat to do with WTC. Because
there is no credible evidence that anything other
than the planes were involved. Another thing to explain for the
kooks
is if the building were rigged with explosives, then how could
you be sure that when the planes crashed, they didn't cut the
various detonating cables, rip off the necessary charges,
etc? Who could know exactly where the planes would even hit?
Well fool they sure wouldn't have hit at ground level now
would they?
No the planes couldn't have hit a ground level. Thanks for
that astute observation. Now, what does that have to do with
anything? The point is that for a controlled demo collapse of a
building, the demo charges are placed througout the structure
and detonated in sequence. How are you going to ensure that
planes crashing into the building, intense fires on many floors
for hours, etc are not going to screw up either charges,
detonation cord, etc so that it still works?
BTW, if someone was going to use demo charges to bring them
down. why did they need the planes? Just to make things 1000X
more complicated?
Kook!
Anyone could have known where they were about to hit and just
about how high or low that point might have been. No one saw
the any explosives being planted so it could not have happened.
Wahahahah....
Please tell us more. Who exactly was doing the precision
flying to bring these planes into a precise floor location? By
visual, ATC and blackbox data the planes were flying farily
erratic. Now if the alleged explosives did indeed go off from
the bottom, then precisely where the planes hit would not have
interfered with the alleged demo charges. But the collapse
started from the top, not far from where the planes impacted, ie
close enough that
it's crazy to think charges left there would not have been
screwed up by the planes and fires.
It's not up to others to prove a negative. Anyone can take a
tiny shred of evidence and try to use it to make wild claims. Only
when you look at the complete picture can you determine the
truth. The official explanation fits together extremely well.
As we've asked many times, what exactly is your COMPLETE
EXPLANATION of how everything occurred, start to finish?
No one said it was precise but surely was predictable now wasn't
it? If charges are going to be used and planes to mask such an
even then what else matters than the fact that one could not have
been used alone to get the job done. How complicated do you want
to make it? All that was needed was the fact that there were
planes about to be flown. Fore knowledge. People that allowed it
to happen. I say that 12 men could not have done this alone and
all the facts are not evident and this should not be put to rest
like some seem to think. If you have a hard time with this then
that is your problem and you will remain one of the lame ignorant
ones. Your choice and your loss.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You think that any possible suspicion of how some deep, dark
conspiracy, no matter how remote, COULD have taken place is all
that is needed. In reality, what is needed is a complete
observation of all the evidence and then putting together a
scenario that's consistent with it. That has been done by
forensic experts. And the conclusion was, Al_Qeada hijacked the
planes, flew them into the WTC and that is what caused the
collapse. I'm still waiting for you alternate explanation, that
encompasses
all the facts that we know. In other words, ****ing and moaning
that the smoke that came out of the builiding didn't quite look
right to you, or that you don't believe the planes alond could
have caused the collapse, isn't persuasive proof of anything. We want
to hear, start to finish, what happened that day,
according to you. BTW, account for the fact that Bin Laden and Al
Qaeda have taken
credit for it.
Why not take credit if they really did? Show me where you heard
Bin Laden say he was responsible. There are also reports that Iraq
had WMDs and Saddam was building nukes. Where are the WMDs? Why so
many other lies? Why do you believe just what you want and not just
disbelieve anything that the Bush team has to offer? They are the
proven liars not Bin Laden. When the lies stop then people can
start to believe and not until then. Why are so many so stupid?
Saddam had nothing to do with 911 but how many people still think
he did? At first Bin Laden denied he was responsible and that is
something that I believe is true. Because they rejoice at the event
does not
mean they were involved. Show me the words that Bin Laden said that
translate into any
confession. Do it now or go away a total loser.

Put up or shut up.
This is non-responsive to the question posed. Can you, or can you
not, provide a cohesive alternate theory that accords with the
established facts, yet still incorporates the premise of a
conspiracy of some sort beyond that hatched by ObL and AQ? There
are, indeed, many unanswered questions about that day, but very
many of the supposed "facts" and arguments advanced by most
conspiracy theorists are so full of holes you could fly an airliner
or four right through them. I have yet to see a well-reasoned,
evidence-based alternate theory explaining what "really" happened
that day, from start to finish. Jeff

Wahaha........What established "facts"? BS that some decide to
swallow do not make them facts. Bush knew. That is a fact.

No, it is an allegation and there is no supporting hard evidence for
it. I despise what the Bush cabal has done to the nation and the
world, but that is based on things we have proof that he is responsible
for.
I am disinclined to conflate my personal opinions of the man with the
credibility of specious allegations against him."

There are many "facts" that
lend to enough suspicions about some internal involvement.

The real conspiracy, in my opinion, is the blunders, general
cluelessness, incompetence, neglect of duty, and intentional blindness
to the threat and the warnings by senior government officials that
allowed the attack to succeed.

I want someone to
show me where Bin Laden "confessed" to being involved. There are
plenty of people that had posted the same "end of story" BS that
Mohammed Ata was the head conspirator until it was proven he was
not. There are very little "proven facts" and none that prove beyond
doubt that explosives were not involved in the bringing down of
building 7. There WAS molten steel and witness that have stated this
no matter how much it hurts little Al and his troll boyfriends BDK
and Vandar. This administration has more than enough shame to not
be trusted and that can not be denied. I would put nothing beyond
these mass murders that don't give one iota about the lives of
innocent people be they Iraqis or Americans or US troops send off to
die for a pack of lies. You expecting a story from "start to finish" has
to be one of the
lamest things I have ever read on usenet. Are you really this much
of a fool?

Here, you amply demonstrate the main problem with conspiracy nutters,
the jumping to extreme conclusions based on scant to no evidence.

How can you even post such a request when you have just admitted
there is no such story anywhere to he told?

I "admitted" no such thing. You are seeing what you want to see, not
what is really there, just as you seem to be doing with the events of
9/11/01.

This is the main tactic of the government
to confuse everyone then make a "documentary" and show it on TeeVee.

I don't recall any government-made documentaries on 9/11 shown on TV.
What title are you referring to?

Then
there are the Hollywood movies that have been used to twist history
so no one ever knows what happened all throughout the past. One
thing that will be remembered it that these republicans have helped
destroy a way of life that will never exist ever again. All for lies
and power. Hail Bush the mass murder and war criminal. He has
murdered more than Saddam and OBL combined.

So, is this about what "really" happened on 9/111 or about how much
you hate Bush?

You sure waste a lot of words to answer a simple question when "I
can't" would have been sufficient.

Jeff

You posted this:

" There are, indeed, many unanswered
questions about that day, "

Which means you admit there is no conclusive story and you expect me to
come up with one? When the "unanswered" questions get answers then I will
admit you have something.

Where do you think the 911 account on the history channel came from? You
don't think the government had anything to do with that? Do you actually
think there is freedom of the press? Please tell me you do, I need just one
more laugh here.

This has plenty to do with the evil of Bush and his henchmen and why not?
All you have to do it look at his face when he was told about the attack. Do
you actually think he is that clueless to show no reaction what-so-ever?
Bush knew and that look says it all.

GWB wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:09:27 -0400, "Jonathan"
wrote:

Why not take credit if they really did? Show me where you heard Bin
Laden say he was responsible. There are also reports that Iraq had
WMDs and Saddam was building nukes. Where are the WMDs? Why so many
other lies? Why do you believe just what you want and not just
disbelieve anything that the Bush team has to offer? They are the
proven liars not Bin Laden. When the lies stop then people can start
to believe and not until then. Why are so many so stupid? Saddam
had nothing to do with 911 but how many people still think he did?
At first Bin Laden denied he was responsible and that is something
that I believe is true. Because they rejoice at the event does not
mean they were involved.

Show me the words that Bin Laden said that translate into any
confession. Do it now or go away a total loser.

Put up or shut up.



Gee, you'd think a group clever enough to pull off the greatest
conspiracy in history could have planted a few WMDs if they needed to.

They didn't think they needed to. That is how stupid they are. If they
could have planted WMDs then why did it take them so long to find Saddam and
why was he not dead with no need to go in to begin with? You seem to have
no problem with 12 Arabs out smarting the whole Bush team though. 12 Arabs
that learned to fly jumbo jets from a video game not to mention where was
their Intel coming from. You are just to dumb to ask any questions and think
this whole event was as easy as over powering some pilots. You should be
outraged but you rather swallow the BS because you are one of the non
thinkers. You don't even think they had any help. How lame can you be? You
rather dream up some sort about how there was nothing odd about the whole
911 attack only Arabs are the bad guys. Ya, sure, Bin Laden was the one and
now he is no longer of any importance so lets just forget about him.

wrote:
BTW, account for the fact that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have taken
credit for it.

Why not take credit if they really did? Show me where you heard Bin
Laden say he was responsible. There are also reports that Iraq had
WMDs and Saddam was building nukes. Where are the WMDs? Why so many
other lies? Why do you believe just what you want and not just
disbelieve anything that the Bush team has to offer? They are the
proven liars not Bin Laden. When the lies stop then people can start
to believe and not until then. Why are so many so stupid? Saddam
had nothing to do with 911 but how many people still think he did?
At first Bin Laden denied he was responsible and that is something
that I believe is true. Because they rejoice at the event does not
mean they were involved.

Show me the words that Bin Laden said that translate into any
confession. Do it now or go away a total loser.

Put up or shut up.-


Can you possibly be this out of touch with the news that you issue
such a dumb challenge that is easily demolished? Perhaps it's
because you spend more time watching cartoons and making up nonsense,
instead of keeping informed of even the most basic info before you
jump to bizarre conspiracy theories.

Here's your evidence that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda took credit for 911.
It's straight from Al Jazeera, which is certainly no friend of the USA
and has been the main channel for Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda to make press
releases:


http://english.aljazeera.net/English...rchiveId=35762

NEWS GLOBALNEWS

Al-Qaeda video takes credit for 9/11

A new videotape aired on Aljazeera television has shown Osama bin
Laden and senior al-Qaeda members meeting some of the men who carried
out the attacks against the US on September 11, 2001.

The 90-minute video apparently shows bin Laden, the leader of al-
Qaeda, taking part in the planning and preparation of the attacks that
killed nearly 3,000 people.

The footage, first aired on Thursday, also shows Abu Hafsa al-Masri,
al-Qaeda's then military leader, and Ramzi bin al-Shaiba, co-ordinator
of the 9/11 attacks, meeting in al-Qaeda's training camps in Taliban
controlled Afghanistan.

The tape also says that a previous unknown Arab Islamist, Abu al-Turab
al-Urduni, supervised the training for the attacks.

The video said the preparation for the attacks included not only
flight training but also lessons in street-fighting and how to forge
official documents.

The video also showed two of the 19 Islamists who took part in the
attacks, Saudi nationals Hamza al-Ramdi and Wael el-Shemari.

The men said that their actions were inspired by an urge to avenge the
suffering of Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya.

Ramzi bin al-Shaiba was captured by the US in 2002. He is now
reportedly being held in Guantanamo Bay.

Parts of the tape show bin Laden - wearing a dark robe and white head
gear - strolling through an Afghan training camp, greeting dozens of
followers, some masked, some barefaced, many carrying automatic
weapons.

Aljazeera said that among those he greeted in the footage were several
of the 9/11 hijackers but their faces were not clear, and it was not
immediately known which ones were shown.

In one scene, bin Laden addresses the camera, calling on all Muslims
to support the hijackers.

"I ask you to pray for them and to ask God to make them successful,
aim their shots well, set their feet strong and strengthen their
hearts," bin Laden said.

The comments were apparently filmed before the attacks but never
before released.

The footage also shows scenes of training at the camp.



Or how about this from PBS, which also is no particular friend of the
current administration:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/..._10-29-04.html

October 29, 2004, 5:10pm EDT
BIN LADEN ADMITS 9/11 RESPONSIBILITY, WARNS OF MORE ATTACKS

A tape aired by Al-Jazeera television Friday showed al-Qaida leader
Osama bin Laden admitting for the first time that he orchestrated the
Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and saying the United States could face more.

It was the first footage of bin Laden to appear in more than a year
and came just days before voters head to the polls Tuesday after an
extremely tight president race.

In the 18-minute tape, bin Laden, who appeared to be sitting or
standing at a table against a neutral background, said: "Despite
entering the fourth year after Sept. 11, Bush is still deceiving you
and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still
there to repeat what happened."

Bin Laden said he thought of the method of attacking U.S. skyscrapers
when he saw Israeli aircraft bombing tower blocks in Lebanon in 1982.

"We decided to destroy towers in America," he said. "God knows that it
had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our
patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the
American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon,
this came to my mind."


Now that it's apparent that you are ignorant of even the most basic
facts about Al-Qaeda and 911, it's very obvious how well founded and
thought out the rest of your nonsense is. Are you now through giving
aid and comfort to our enemies who kill innocent women and children?
No, I'm sure you'll continue.

Anything else I can help you with today, Jonathan?

You are actually this lame aren't you. You post something that starts out
with "apparently". Wahahahaha...........

Man you sure are one of the dumb ones..........

Rocinante wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:14:47 -0400, Jonathan wrote:

Rocinante wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:42:46 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

In misc.survivalism wrote:

I also have questions about how the explosives for the controlled
demolition were placed without tens of thousands of office
workers knowing that it was being done, but that can wait for
another day.

To believe this crap, you'd have to
believe in the most complex and bizarre conspiracy imaginable.

I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've
worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always questioned.
And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of thousands of bored
busybodies seems like a difficult task to me. That work is done by
specialty firms. Lots and lots of manhours would be needed for two
giant buildigs. It seems unlikely to me that the work could have
been carried out in secret.

Setting up explosives for controlled demolition of two tall
buildings is even more complicated than most people realize.



You know this just HOW?









Miles of cables
need to be run across office space in order to pull the beams in the
right direction.

You are a real pro I see.

I am an engineer who worked with demo teams.

Ya. so am I.



Also, those support beams have to be cut nearly all
the way through in order to help the bombs do their jobs. Again, the
bombs have to be planted in the right spots and some would be in
plain sight. They just can't be lobbed in hidden crawl spaces when
everyone goes home. You would also need to hide giant spools of
wiring that would be needed to wire all the bombs. Finally, bombs
are not stable. The intense heat caused by those "distracting"
planes hitting the towers would have exploded the bombs out of
sequence and/or destroyed the connecting wires.

You have no clue what-so-ever.

I see you cannot refute the truth. I just told you its raining
outside and took you outside to get wet, but you still don't believe
that it's raining. You would rather believe that someone is standing
on the roof with a garden hose.

The whole premise of this conspiracy theory is ridiculously absurd;
our own government secretly planned the mass murder of innocent
citizens in order to garner support for the Iraq war. Wouldn't it
have been easier for the government to plant some WMD's in Iraq?

Occam's Razor: research it and understand it.

There was a plan to go to Iraq long before 911 but I see you are really
ignorant. If there was a way to plant WMDs it would have been done. The only
way to unite the world was a terrorist attack and Bush even blew that. You
really need to get out more. You have no idea what the truth is and you
never will. No one will and this is my whole point but you rather drink the
Kool-Aid. All it takes are stupid ones like you to willingly give America to
the Fascists.

On Sep 16, 6:23 am, "Jonathan" wrote:
Harry K wrote:
On Sep 15, 2:11 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
Harry K wrote:
On Sep 15, 7:01 am, "Jonathan" wrote:
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Jonathan wrote:

snip

Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their
coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place
charges anywhere they wanted.

Has anyone come up with a credible scenario? I'd love to see it.

So you want someone to make up a story about how it could happen?
Some fantasy that you guys like to engage in? Where is the security
of such a building and who checks out each maintenance worker that
enters and leaves? Do you know for sure that no one could have
possibly entered at any time to do what needed to be done? There is
always a possibility that anything could happen and just because
there is no proof positive one way or the other than this means
nothing. Who would have believed that 911 could have occurred in
the first place? Reasonable suspicion is all that it needed to
create doubt and many people have plenty of that. To think that
everything is as it is told to you is the absolute truth is pretty
lame and to try to argue that way is just a loony and someone that
doubt what is fed to them.

snip

When you can come up with some way that hundreds of workers working
for months on end, stripping walls, making one huge mess, hauling
away tones of the debris that was made getting access to the
columns, cutting notches in beams, stringing miles of det cord,
without anyone noticing then the sane people here will listen.
Until then your disbeif is flat kookery.

The hundreds of men is probably too many but the crew would have
been big. The 'months on end' is accurate. It would take that
long to prepare a building the size of the WTCs for demo.

Watch a show on controlled demolions some time, the History channel
runs them occasionally. Here is a clue, just prior to detonation,
you can look clear through the building - that is how much stuff
has been removed.

But of course you will still somehow believe that all that is
possible without being noticed.

Harry K

Harry K

You are the one that says that is what is needed to get the job
done not me. Given enough time anything can be done and no
explanation need be given. How much time was needed? Do you think
this might have had to been planned over one weekend? Was every
floor occupied and was anyone expecting something to happen and was
everyone looking for something suspicious? How was it that 12
terrorists got by all the security needed to fly all the planes at
the same time into the most crowded city in the country? How did all
this come about without anyone even finding out? How was it that
even when Bush was told about it he just sat there on his stupid ass
and did nothing? This was the unbelievable part you fool. Not the
part about placing charges in a tall building. Why are you loons so
dumb to think otherwise? This whole 911 even happened and you obsess
about some simple thing that could have easily have occurred. Man
you are a stupid lot of asshats.

If before 911 someone was asked what they thought more likely to
occur. Some team of crack specialists blowing up a tower in NYC or
flying huge jumbo jets into sky scrappers what do you think would
have been the answer?

Why are you so lame?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You must have missed all the people saying that "until you can make a
believable explanation for how the charges were placed in an occupied
building, you have nothing but kookery going for you.

Clue 1. Even a small house cannot be prepared for demo in one
weekend.

I have stated this but you don't seem to be able to keep up. Who said it
had to be one weekend? Where do you get this BS from?

Clue 2. The WTC towers were occupied by thousands of workers and
maintenance staff 24/7. The maintenance staff alone would have had to
be deaf and blind not to have seen the activity or, even allowing the
impossibility of doing it in one weekend, they would have had to be in
on the conspiracy.

Are you still on that week end timetable? You have to know for sure the
planting of explosives could not have ever occured to be sure but you don't
even seem to have any clue about how much time was taken to plan 911. This
could have been planned for years so why are you so limited in your
thinking?

Clue 3. Further assuming that the charges were somehow placed without notice (LMFAO), you have the problem of miles of det cord strung
throughout the building just prior to the demo in the middle of a work
day with noone noticing.

You are now an expert on this I see. You seem to be very simple minded and
a fool. You are clueless.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The "one weekend" was from a post in this thread. I thought it was
from you. If you had any reading comprehension at all, you would see
that I have repeatedly stated it would take 'lots of time (months),
and lots of workers'. But then if you were to understand that, you
would have to give up on your moronic 'it was bombs' belief.

As to being an expert? No, just from using my eyes and ears, watching
the history channel programs on demo, common sense, reading, etc.
None of which you seem to apply.

So just when _do_ you plan to put forth a sensible explanation of how
the charges were planted without notice?

Harry K

In article et,
"Jonathan" wrote:



There was a plan to go to Iraq long before 911 but I see you are really
ignorant. If there was a way to plant WMDs it would have been done. The only
way to unite the world was a terrorist attack and Bush even blew that. You
really need to get out more. You have no idea what the truth is and you
never will. No one will and this is my whole point but you rather drink the
Kool-Aid. All it takes are stupid ones like you to willingly give America to
the Fascists.

Just so I understand, they did NOT fake the presence of WMD which
would have been a few orders of magnitude easier to do than wire the WTC
but they DID wire the WTC and blew it up on purpose? He was nefarious
enough to set-up the WTC and yet too damn stupid to culminate his rise
to the top and not plant WMD in Iraq?

On Sep 16, 9:51 am, "Jonathan" wrote:
wrote:
BTW, account for the fact that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have taken
credit for it.

Why not take credit if they really did? Show me where you heard Bin
Laden say he was responsible. There are also reports that Iraq had
WMDs and Saddam was building nukes. Where are the WMDs? Why so many
other lies? Why do you believe just what you want and not just
disbelieve anything that the Bush team has to offer? They are the
proven liars not Bin Laden. When the lies stop then people can start
to believe and not until then. Why are so many so stupid? Saddam
had nothing to do with 911 but how many people still think he did?
At first Bin Laden denied he was responsible and that is something
that I believe is true. Because they rejoice at the event does not
mean they were involved.

Show me the words that Bin Laden said that translate into any
confession. Do it now or go away a total loser.

Put up or shut up.-

Can you possibly be this out of touch with the news that you issue
such a dumb challenge that is easily demolished? Perhaps it's
because you spend more time watching cartoons and making up nonsense,
instead of keeping informed of even the most basic info before you
jump to bizarre conspiracy theories.

Here's your evidence that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda took credit for 911.
It's straight from Al Jazeera, which is certainly no friend of the USA
and has been the main channel for Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda to make press
releases:

http://english.aljazeera.net/English...rchiveId=35762

NEWS GLOBALNEWS

Al-Qaeda video takes credit for 9/11

A new videotape aired on Aljazeera television has shown Osama bin
Laden and senior al-Qaeda members meeting some of the men who carried
out the attacks against the US on September 11, 2001.

The 90-minute video apparently shows bin Laden, the leader of al-
Qaeda, taking part in the planning and preparation of the attacks that
killed nearly 3,000 people.

The footage, first aired on Thursday, also shows Abu Hafsa al-Masri,
al-Qaeda's then military leader, and Ramzi bin al-Shaiba, co-ordinator
of the 9/11 attacks, meeting in al-Qaeda's training camps in Taliban
controlled Afghanistan.

The tape also says that a previous unknown Arab Islamist, Abu al-Turab
al-Urduni, supervised the training for the attacks.

The video said the preparation for the attacks included not only
flight training but also lessons in street-fighting and how to forge
official documents.

The video also showed two of the 19 Islamists who took part in the
attacks, Saudi nationals Hamza al-Ramdi and Wael el-Shemari.

The men said that their actions were inspired by an urge to avenge the
suffering of Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya.

Ramzi bin al-Shaiba was captured by the US in 2002. He is now
reportedly being held in Guantanamo Bay.

Parts of the tape show bin Laden - wearing a dark robe and white head
gear - strolling through an Afghan training camp, greeting dozens of
followers, some masked, some barefaced, many carrying automatic
weapons.

Aljazeera said that among those he greeted in the footage were several
of the 9/11 hijackers but their faces were not clear, and it was not
immediately known which ones were shown.

In one scene, bin Laden addresses the camera, calling on all Muslims
to support the hijackers.

"I ask you to pray for them and to ask God to make them successful,
aim their shots well, set their feet strong and strengthen their
hearts," bin Laden said.

The comments were apparently filmed before the attacks but never
before released.

The footage also shows scenes of training at the camp.

Or how about this from PBS, which also is no particular friend of the
current administration:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/..._10-29-04.html

October 29, 2004, 5:10pm EDT
BIN LADEN ADMITS 9/11 RESPONSIBILITY, WARNS OF MORE ATTACKS

A tape aired by Al-Jazeera television Friday showed al-Qaida leader
Osama bin Laden admitting for the first time that he orchestrated the
Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and saying the United States could face more.

It was the first footage of bin Laden to appear in more than a year
and came just days before voters head to the polls Tuesday after an
extremely tight president race.

In the 18-minute tape, bin Laden, who appeared to be sitting or
standing at a table against a neutral background, said: "Despite
entering the fourth year after Sept. 11, Bush is still deceiving you
and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still
there to repeat what happened."

Bin Laden said he thought of the method of attacking U.S. skyscrapers
when he saw Israeli aircraft bombing tower blocks in Lebanon in 1982.

"We decided to destroy towers in America," he said. "God knows that it
had not occurred to our mind to attack the towers, but after our
patience ran out and we saw the injustice and inflexibility of the
American-Israeli alliance toward our people in Palestine and Lebanon,
this came to my mind."

Now that it's apparent that you are ignorant of even the most basic
facts about Al-Qaeda and 911, it's very obvious how well founded and
thought out the rest of your nonsense is. Are you now through giving
aid and comfort to our enemies who kill innocent women and children?
No, I'm sure you'll continue.

Anything else I can help you with today, Jonathan?

You are actually this lame aren't you. You post something that starts out
with "apparently". Wahahahaha...........

Man you sure are one of the dumb ones..........- Hide quoted text -



I figured you'd have no credible response, having been exposed as a
total buffoon. I give you Al-Jazeera, which has been the main
press channel for Al-Qaeda, reporting on a video released to them by
Al-Qaeda, where they take credit for 911 and you ignore it. But if
some whackoo bag lady said she saw Bush and a team of men in black
leave the WTC just before it fell down, that would be totally credible
and a sound basis in fact for your childish conspiracy claims.

In article et,
Jonathan wrote:
Al Dykes wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote:
That is very different from a controled demolition. My
understanding is that small, strategically placed charges are
used. They cut through structural members in a precise order, to
use gravity for help in the demolition. Indeed, it is my
understanding that the compnies that ddo such work pride
themselves on using the least amount of explosives possible, for
reasons of both safety and economy.


Like this demolition job?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

Yes, but I don't realy know anything about that implosion other than
a brief id.

(That building is about one twentieth the size of either WTC1, 2,
or 7. That means that each WTC tower is about 8,000 times as
massive and that the largest beams are that much stonger.)

Ummm...OK. So what?


There is no audio/video record or eyewitness report of explosions of
size and timing and placement consistant with the collapses of any
of the buildings at WTC.

Yes, but what does that have to do with your point? You'e said it 5
times already.




Cutting charges go boom.

Cutting charges for big beams go BOOM

Nobody saw or heard BOOM immediatly preceeding the collapse of any
tower.

Al goes boom boom. You have no clue little Al. None what so whatever about
what no one saw of didn't see Al. Now grow up and go play your mindless


This would be the first controlled demoliiton in history that didn't
make the charactistic noise just before it started.

There were no eyewitnesses, audio, video, or seismic records, or
anything else that shows any sort of man-made explosives consistant
with the video each collapse.

How can you defend the claim of CD withiut any evidence.


You can either (a) cease posting this claim or (b) provide some
evidence for man-made explosives at WTC.


On a lighter note, Anyone that hasn't seen Gound Zero and the kooks
that hang out there should look at the first two videos. The others
should be required viewing by anyone that has an opinion about 9/11
and WTC.


Ground Zero 911 Conspiracy Wars by Ray Rivera http://rayrivera.net
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...15283354424113

The Ground Zeros by Mark Roberts
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...37229146&hl=en

The Naudet Film about 9/11 at WTC
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...12957&q=Naudet

Marks's collapse video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...95848233&hl=en

"The 9 - 11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction"
http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=125450

WTC Ground Zero 9/11/2007 Sad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2LeCXXIjo











--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

In article et,
Jonathan wrote:
Al Dykes wrote:
In article et,
Jonathan wrote:
Al Dykes wrote:
In article et,
Jonathan wrote:
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Al Dykes wrote:
In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud
enough to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the
complex and powerful enough to destroy several floors of
reinforced concrete yet it was nowhere close to weakening the
tower's structure. In 2001, any bombs would have to be as
bigger and louder to have any effect.

Naw, you could use many small charges, accurately placed. But
that would require a lot of work, which ISTM would be impossible
to do undetected.



Small charges ? laugh out loud

The 1000 pound bomb in 1993 destroyed several levels of
reinforced concrete yet didn't come close to damaging the
structure. It was hear for blocks around.

That is very different from a controled demolition. My
understanding is that small, strategically placed charges are
used. They cut through structural members in a precise order, to
use gravity for help in the demolition. Indeed, it is my
understanding that the compnies that ddo such work pride
themselves on using the least amount of explosives possible, for
reasons of both safety and economy.



There is nothing on the audio/video record that shows explosives
consistant in loudness, placement and timing with the inages of
the collapse.

Yes.

Why doesn't the "truth movement" pay a demolition expert to
design a plan that he thinks that would be consistant with the
audio/video record of the collapse of one of the towers and the
laws of physics.

I have no answer.


There isn't a single demolition expert in the world that says
that WTC1, 2, or 7 were brought down by man-made explosives or
thermate/thermite. All that have commented, and there are many,
are on record as saying that no man-made explosives/therm*te were
needed.


Name one and prove me wrong.

You seem to misunderstand me. I have no proof of anythig. I have
said repeatedly that te controlled demolition scenario seems
pretty far-fetched to me.


(I know what Jowenko has said and will cite his statements if you
mention him as someone that says WTC was a CD).

I've never heard of him. If you'd like to cite him, go ahead.
Does he shed light on the CD allegations?

The whole of 911 was "pretty far fetched" before it happened.




So was the sinking of the Titanic and the crash of a space shuttle
and the collapse of the Tacamo-Narrows bridge, until it happened.


Just my point. What is yours? You have nothing that proves any more
or less than anyone else but still you like the taste of Kool-Aid.
You post fake YouTube BS and expect everyone to swallow your lame
fairy tales.




On a lighter note, Anyone that hasn't seen Gound Zero and the kooks
that hang out there should look at the first two videos. The others
should be required viewing by anyone that has an opinion about 9/11
and WTC.

Your videos are no more creditable than the ones you do not like that also
exist. You have nothing AL. NOTHING.



Let people watch them and decide for themselves.




On a lighter note, Anyone that hasn't seen Gound Zero and the kooks
that hang out there should look at the first two videos. The others
should be required viewing by anyone that has an opinion about 9/11
and WTC.


Ground Zero 911 Conspiracy Wars by Ray Rivera http://rayrivera.net
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...15283354424113

The Ground Zeros by Mark Roberts
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...37229146&hl=en

The Naudet Film about 9/11 at WTC
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...12957&q=Naudet

Marks's collapse video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...95848233&hl=en

"The 9 - 11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction"
http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=125450

WTC Ground Zero 9/11/2007 Sad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2LeCXXIjo




--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

In article et,
Jonathan wrote:
Al Dykes wrote:
In article et,
Jonathan wrote:
Al Dykes wrote:
In article et,
Jonathan wrote:
Al Dykes wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
In misc.survivalism Jonathan wrote:

I can't get past the "controlled demolition" explanation. I've
worked in a bunch of skyscrapers. Workmen are always
questioned. And planting explosives secretly amongst tens of
thousands of bored busybodies seems like a difficult task to
me. That work is done by specialty firms. Lots and lots of
manhours would be needed for two giant buildigs. It seems
unlikely to me that the work could have been carried out in
secret.

Gee I saw no strange looking guys hiding anything under their
coats. Man you are one NutJob. There are plenty of ways to place
charges anywhere they wanted.

Has anyone come up with a credible scenario? I'd love to see it.



There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of explosions of
size, placement, and timing consistent with the collapse of any
of the towers on 9/11.

No eye witnesses. Man you are ignorant aren't you? There were
plenty of people that said they heard explosions from down below.
Now go ahead and make up a story to show that was not true and
they really didn't hear anything fool.


In 1993, a 1000 pound bomb in the basement of a tower was loud
enough to be heard for blocks around and by everyone inside the
complex and powerful enough to destroy several floors of
reinforced concrete yet it was nowhere close to weakening the
tower's structure. In 2001, any bombs would have to be as bigger
and louder to have any effect.

Were aircraft used along with the explosion to mask and confuse the
issue? Make up all the BS you want but this does not show anyone a
single thing.




No. The sound of the impact was not like that of a large cutting
charge.

In the hour after the impact fires raged in towers 1 and 2 right up
to the instant of the collaspe. Video shows the building failing
at the location of the fire, nowhere else. No demolition
explosions were heard immediatly preceeding the collapse.


There were explosions heard whether you like it or not fool. People
that were there have stated this over and over again. Man you are a
dumb one aren't you?

There have been videos made to show this but you refuse to believe
anything but what you want. You have no credibility and none of your
YouTube BS means squat. Get back to your video games and dream on
little broomstick cowboy.



There is no eyewitness or audio/video record of any explosions of
size, placement, timing or brisance [2], that immediatly preceeds any
tower collapse.

Show me a video that specifically shows explosions that indicate
charges placed, timed sized to cause the collapse of a tower.

There is no proof of anything Al. The real truth will never be known. You



Hundreds of thousands of people were close enough to hear demolition
charges when WTC was first hit. Maybe a million could have heard them
once they were watching the first tower burn.

There are 7,000 video segments available to anyone in the "truth
movement" that can afford teh time to go through them. That's what
real researchers do.

Nobody saw or heard anything that was consistant with man-made explosives
casuing the collapse.

There is nothing on any of the video that shows demolition charges
causing the collapse of a tower.

There is no seismic evidence.

How can you assert that man-made explosives were used just because
someone told you?






On a lighter note, Anyone that hasn't seen Gound Zero in NYC and the
kooks that hang out there should look at the first two videos. The
others should be required viewing by anyone that has an opinion about
9/11 and WTC.


Ground Zero 911 Conspiracy Wars by Ray Rivera http://rayrivera.net
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...15283354424113

The Ground Zeros by Mark Roberts
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...37229146&hl=en

The Naudet Film about 9/11 at WTC
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...12957&q=Naudet

Marks's collapse video
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...95848233&hl=en

"The 9 - 11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction"
http://www.torrentbox.com/torrent_details?id=125450

WTC Ground Zero 9/11/2007 Sad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2LeCXXIjo





--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001