Government bak 9/11?

[Uglemose]

Navnet "Al Qaida" henviser til en database som inneholdt lister over mujahideen som ble trent, bevæpnet og finansiert av CIA og saudiene for å kjempe mot Sovjetunionen. Osama Bin Laden var en CIA agent som gikk under navnet "Tim Osmond". Men det er selfølgelig bare flere tilfeldigheter...

 

 

 

“Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited andtrained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.” - Robin Cook

 

“The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informedintelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the ‘TV watcher’ to accept a unified internationalleadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money.” - Pierre-Henry Bunel

 

http://rupeenews.com/usa/the-taliban-was-a...med-by-the-cia/

 

"Under the Bush Administration's watch, according to French intelligence, Bin Laden was treated in an American hospital in Dubai for 10 days in July 2001, where he was visited by a CIA agent"

 

"Bin Laden was a CIA asset from 1979 to 1989, when he went under the codename of "Tim Osmond." The CIA's treatment of him, even after the rise of anti-Western Muslim extremism, leaves the possibility he remains an asset to this day. Also questionable was the Sept. 11 breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill of then House and Senate intelligence heads Porter Goss and Bob Graham with Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistani intelligence. According to Indian intelligence, it was Ahmad's agency that had recently wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker."

 

http://media.www.ntdaily.com/media/storage...n-1893948.shtml

Endret 12. juli 2008 av Uglemose

[Ballemannen]

Det er mildt sagt merkelig at denne tråden lever etter 80 sider...

 

Men når jeg ser møkk som Loose Change spammet om og om igjen så skjønner jeg jo hvorfor...

Og hadde man fjernet alle innleggene med like lav kvalitet som ditt eget, hadde vi kanskje vært nede i 50 sider?

[anonymouse]

Og hadde man fjernet alle innleggene med like lav kvalitet som ditt eget, hadde vi kanskje vært nede i 50 sider?

 

Ja, jeg ser jo at du er opptatt av å heve debatten, "Ballemannen"

 

Hadde vi klippet ut all den resirkulerte konspirasjonssvadaen ifra denne tråden hadde det ikke vært noe igjen.

 

På den annen side... for all del... fint at dere holder dere til én tråd...

 

Etter snart syv år er alt du har å komme med en edit av en edit av en edit av en video postet på internett skapt av tre tenåringer på gutterommet som drar inn populærfiksjon og bevisforfalskninger.

 

Denne "debatten" var OVER for seks år siden. At konspirasjonsteorien lever har mer å gjøre med enkeltpersoners manglende evne, eller ønske, til å innta faktaopplysninger.

[Ballemannen]

Og hadde man fjernet alle innleggene med like lav kvalitet som ditt eget, hadde vi kanskje vært nede i 50 sider?

Etter snart syv år er alt du har å komme med en edit av en edit av en edit av en video postet på internett skapt av tre tenåringer på gutterommet som drar inn populærfiksjon og bevisforfalskninger.

Når 'steammachine' spurte om noen så dokumentaren på tv2 to, så syns jeg det var passende å linke til nettopp denne dokumentaren. Det begynner forresten å bli et kjedelig argument det med loose change og gutterom og forfalskninger.

Denne "debatten" var OVER for seks år siden. At konspirasjonsteorien lever har mer å gjøre med enkeltpersoners manglende evne, eller ønske, til å innta faktaopplysninger.

At konspirasjonsteorier lever har vel mest med de mangelfulle offisielle forklaringene å gjøre, og deres manglende evne, eller ønske, til å innta faktaopplysninger. Debatten var ikke over for seks år siden. Den hadde ikke engang begynt for seks år siden, ok? Det tok ca 1.5 år før det i det hele tatt ble satt ned en kommisjon, og denne brukte igjen nye 1.5 år på å levere fra seg et makkverk av en rapport som ikke svarte på halvparten av spørsmålene fra ofrenes familier, og heller ikke andre vesentlige punkter som var verdt å undersøke.

 

FEMA har også levert fra seg en rapport, i mai 2002, som bl.a kom med den latterlige "pannekake-teorien".

 

NIST er ikke ferdig med rapporten om WTC 7 enda, så ikke kom her å si at debatten er over.

 

Men bare for å bringe nye nytt på banen kan du lese denne rapporten. Her diskuterer Kevin Ryan muligheter for at bl.a nano-thermite ble brukt i demoleringen av disse bygningene. I tillegg er det meget mistenkelig med alle koblingene som NIST-gjengen har til sprengningsindustrien, militæret og diverse forskningsinstitusjoner som driver nettopp med dette. Etter å ha lest rapportene deres om WTC og deres nyere FAQ kan man få inntrykk av at ingen i NIST-organisasjonen har det minste begrep om nano-thermite, mens sannheten er at de jo vitterlig har nær kontakt og erfaring med ekspertisen på dette feltet.

 

Men når det kommer til stykket så er du kanskje ikke så interessert allikevel? Ignorance is bliss osv.

 

Utdrag fra dette skrivet:

Klikk for å se/fjerne innholdet nedenfor

1. NIST was working with LLNL to test and characterize these sol-gel nano-

thermites, at least as early as 1999 (Tillitson et al 1999).

 

2. Forman Williams, the lead engineer on NIST’s advisory committee, and the most

prominent engineering expert for Popular Mechanics, is an expert on the

deflagration of energetic materials and the “ignition of porous energetic

materials”(Margolis and Williams 1996, Telengator et al 1998, Margolis and

Williams 1999). Nano-thermites are porous energetic materials. Additionally,

Williams’ research partner, Stephen Margolis, has presented at conferences where

nano-energetics are the focus (Gordon 1999). Some of Williams’ other

colleagues at the University of California San Diego, like David J. Benson, are

also experts on nano-thermite materials (Choi et al 2005, Jordan et al 2007).

 

3. Science Applications International (SAIC) is the DOD and Homeland Security

contractor that supplied the largest contingent of non-governmental investigators

to the NIST WTC investigation. SAIC has extensive links to nano-thermites,

developing and judging nano-thermite research proposals for the military and

other military contractors, and developing and formulating nano-thermites

directly (Army 2008, DOD 2007). SAIC’s subsidiary Applied Ordnance

Technology has done research on the ignition of nanothermites with lasers

(Howard et al 2005).

 

In an interesting coincidence, SAIC was the firm that investigated the 1993 WTC

bombing, boasting that -- “After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, our blast

analyses produced tangible results that helped identify those responsible (SAIC

2004).” And the coincidences with this company don’t stop there, as SAIC was

responsible for evaluating the WTC for terrorism risks in 1986 as well (CRHC

2008). SAIC is also linked to the late 1990s security upgrades at the WTC, the

Rudy Giuliani administration, and the anthrax incidents after 9/11, through former

employees Jerome Hauer and Steven Hatfill.

 

4. Arden Bement, the metallurgist and expert on fuels and materials who was

nominated as director of NIST by President George W. Bush in October 2001,

was former deputy secretary of defense, former director of DARPA’s office of

materials science, and former executive at TRW.

 

Of course, DOD and DARPA are both leaders in the production and use of nano-

thermites (Amptiac 2002, DOD 2005). And military and aerospace contractor

TRW has had a long collaboration with NASA laboratories in the development of

energetic materials that are components of advanced propellants, like nano-gelled

explosive materials (NASA 2001). TRW Aeronautics also made fireproof

composites and high performance elastomer formulations, and worked with

NASA to make energetic aerogels.

 

Additionally, Bement was a professor at Purdue and MIT. Purdue has a thriving

program for nano-thermites (Son 2008). And interestingly, at MIT’s Institute for

Soldier Nanotechnology, we find Martin Z. Bazant, son of notable “conspiracy

debunker” Zdenek P. Bazant (MIT 2008), who does research on granular flows,

and the electrochemical interactions of silicon. Zdenek P. Bazant is interested in

nanocomposites as well (Northwestern 2008), and how they relate to naval

warfare (ONR 2008). MIT was represented at nano-energetics conferences as

early as 1998 (Gordon 1998).

 

Bement was also a director at both Battelle and the Lord Corporation. Battelle

(where the anthrax was made) is an organization of “experts in fundamental

technologies from the five National Laboratories we manage or co-manage for the

US DOE.” Battelle advertises their specialization in nanocomposite coatings

(Battelle 2008). The Lord Corporation also makes high-tech coatings for military

applications (Lord 2008). In 1999, Lord Corp was working with the Army and

NASA on “advanced polymer composites, advanced metals, and multifunctional

materials” (Army 1999).

 

5. Hratch Semerjian, long-time director of NIST’s chemical division, was promoted

to acting director of NIST in November 2004, and took over the WTC

investigation until the completion of the report on the towers. Semerjian is

closely linked to former NIST employee Michael Zachariah, perhaps the world’s

most prominent expert on nano-thermites (Zachariah 2008). In fact, Semerjian

and Zachariah co-authored ten papers that focus on nano-particles made of silica,

ceramics and refractory particles. Zachariah was a major player in the Defense

University Research Initiative on Nanotechnology (DURINT), a groundbreaking

research effort for nano-thermites.

 

6. NIST has a long-standing partnership with NASA for the development of new

nano-thermites and other nano-technological materials. In fact, Michael

Zachariah coordinates this partnership (CNMM 2008).

 

7. In 2003, two years before the NIST WTC report was issued, the University of

Maryland College Park (UMCP) and NIST signed a memorandum of

understanding to develop nano-technologies like nano-thermites (NIST 2003).

Together, NIST and UMCP have done much work on nano-thermites (NM 2008).

 

8. NIST has their own Center for Nanoscale Science and Technology (CNST 2008).

Additionally, NIST’s Reactive Flows Group did research on nanostructured

materials and high temperature reactions in the mid-nineties (NRFG 1996).

 

9. Richard Gann, who did the final editing of the NIST WTC report, managed a

project called “Next-Generation Fire Suppression Technology Program”, both

before and after 9/11. Andrzej Miziolek, another of the world’s leading experts

on nano-thermites (Amptiac 2002), is the author of “Defense Applications of

Nanomaterials”, and also worked on Richard Gann’s fire suppression project

(Gann 2002). Gann’s project was sponsored by DOD’s Strategic Environmental

Research and Development Program (SERDP), an organization that sponsored a

number of LLNL’s nano-thermite projects (Simpson 2002, Gash et al 2003).

 

10. As part of the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer, NIST

partners with the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Indian Head (NSWC-IH) on

Chemical Science and Technology (FLCTT 2008). NSWC-IH is probably the

most prominent US center for nano-thermite technology (NSWC 2008). In 1999,

Jan Puszynski, a scientist working for the DURINT program, helped NSWC-IH

design a pilot plant to produce nano-size aluminum powder. It was reported that

“At that time, this was [the] only reliable source of aluminum nanopowders in the

United States” (SDSMT 2001), however, private companies like Argonide and

Technanogy were also known to have such capabilities.

Among an interesting group of contractors that NSWC-IH hired in 1999 were

SAIC, Applied Ordnance, Battelle, Booz Allen Hamilton, Mantech, Titan, Pacific

Scientific Energetic (see below), and R Stresau Laboratories for “demolition

materials” (NSWC 2000).

 

A tragic coincidence left William Caswell, an employee of NSWC-IH, dead on

the plane said to have hit the Pentagon (Flight 77). He had for many years

worked on “deep-black” projects at NSWC-IH (Leaf 2007).

[JimL]

Uansett hvordan man vrir og vender på det er jo saker som dette interessante. Kan være mye som ikke stemmer med disse teoriene som sirkulerer, men om bare en brøkdel av argumentene er noe hold i så er det likevel tankevekkende. Tenker da i hovedsak mest på krigen mot terror, al qaida, etc.

Endret 13. juli 2008 av JimL

[Kubin]

"Jack Cloonan, a special agent for the F.B.I.’s Osama bin Laden unit until 2002, told Ms. Mayer that Sept. 11 was “all preventable.” By March 2000, according to the C.I.A.’s inspector general, “50 or 60 individuals” in the agency knew that two Al Qaeda suspects — soon to be hijackers — were in America. But there was no urgency at the top. Thomas Pickard, the acting F.B.I. director that summer, told Ms. Mayer that when he expressed his fears about the Qaeda threat to Mr. Ashcroft, the attorney general snapped, “I don’t want to hear about that anymore!” "

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin

[Ballemannen]

"Jack Cloonan, a special agent for the F.B.I.’s Osama bin Laden unit until 2002, told Ms. Mayer that Sept. 11 was “all preventable.” By March 2000, according to the C.I.A.’s inspector general, “50 or 60 individuals” in the agency knew that two Al Qaeda suspects — soon to be hijackers — were in America. But there was no urgency at the top. Thomas Pickard, the acting F.B.I. director that summer, told Ms. Mayer that when he expressed his fears about the Qaeda threat to Mr. Ashcroft, the attorney general snapped, “I don’t want to hear about that anymore!” "

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/opinion/...amp;oref=slogin

Ja, og på tross av at alle disse ignorerte advarslene om et forestående terroristangrep mot landet, så er det jo merkelig rart at ingen trengte å stå til rette for dette i ettertid!?

F.eks i Presidential Daily Briefing Aug. 6th 2001:

On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. [source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01]

 

Les om løgnene til heksa Condi Rice:

Klikk for å se/fjerne innholdet nedenfor

Pre-9/11 Intelligence

 

CLAIM: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 5/16/02

 

FACT: On August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." In July 2001, the Administration was also told that terrorists had explored using airplanes as missiles. [source: NBC, 9/10/02; LA Times, 9/27/01]

 

CLAIM: In May 2002, Rice held a press conference to defend the Administration from new revelations that the President had been explicitly warned about an al Qaeda threat to airlines in August 2001. She "suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer." [source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]

 

FACT: According to the CIA, the briefing "was not requested by President Bush." As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA." [source: Washington Post, 3/25/04]

 

CLAIM: "In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

 

FACT: "Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft's 'Strategic Plan' from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department's seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft's predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism 'the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.'" Meanwhile, the Bush Administration decided to terminate "a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States." [source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Newsweek, 3/21/04]

 

CLAIM: "The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

 

FACT: President Bush and Vice President Cheney's counterterrorism task force, which was created in May, never convened one single meeting. The President himself admitted that "I didn't feel the sense of urgency" about terrorism before 9/11. [source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob Woodward's "Bush at War"]

 

CLAIM: "Our [pre-9/11 NSPD] plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets -- taking the fight to the enemy where he lived." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

 

FACT: 9/11 Commissioner Gorelick: "There is nothing in the NSPD that came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan." Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: "Right." Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]

 

Condi Rice on Pre-9/11 Counterterrorism Funding

 

CLAIM: "The president increased counterterrorism funding several-fold" before 9/11. – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/24/04

 

FACT: According to internal government documents, the first full Bush budget for FY2003 "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [source: New York Times, 2/28/04; Newsweek, 5/27/02]

 

Richard Clarke's Concerns

 

CLAIM: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

 

FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. [source: CBS 60 Minutes, 3/24/04; White House Press Release, 3/21/04

 

CLAIM: "No al Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

 

FACT: "On January 25th, 2001, Clarke forwarded his December 2000 strategy paper and a copy of his 1998 Delenda plan to the new national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice." – 9/11 Commission staff report, 3/24/04

Response to 9/11

 

CLAIM: "The president launched an aggressive response after 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

 

FACT: "In the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows. The papers show that Ashcroft ranked counterterrorism efforts as a lower priority than his predecessor did, and that he resisted FBI requests for more counterterrorism funding before and immediately after the attacks." [source: Washington Post, 3/22/04]

9/11 and Iraq Invasion Plans

 

CLAIM: "Not a single National Security Council principal at that meeting recommended to the president going after Iraq. The president thought about it. The next day he told me Iraq is to the side." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

 

FACT: According to the Washington Post, "six days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush signed a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." This is corroborated by a CBS News, which reported on 9/4/02 that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq." [source: Washington Post, 1/12/03. CBS News, 9/4/02]

 

Iraq and WMD

 

CLAIM: "It's not as if anybody believes that Saddam Hussein was without weapons of mass destruction." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/18/04

 

FACT: The Bush Administration's top weapons inspector David Kay "resigned his post in January, saying he did not believe banned stockpiles existed before the invasion" and has urged the Bush Administration to "come clean" about misleading America about the WMD threat. [source: Chicago Tribune, 3/24/04; UK Guardian, 3/3/04]

9/11-al Qaeda-Iraq Link

 

CLAIM: "The president returned to the White House and called me in and said, I've learned from George Tenet that there is no evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11." – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04

 

FACT: If this is true, then why did the President and Vice President repeatedly claim Saddam Hussein was directly connected to 9/11? President Bush sent a letter to Congress on 3/19/03 saying that the Iraq war was permitted specifically under legislation that authorized force against "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11." Similarly, Vice President Cheney said on 9/14/03 that "It is not surprising that people make that connection" between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks, and said "we don't know" if there is a connection. [source: BBC, 9/14/03]

 

Folk ble i stedet belønnet. General Richard Myers ble forfremmet til Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, mens General Ralph Eperhart, leder i NORAD(!), ble forfremmet til sjef for det nye "Northern Command".

 

Ashcroft som du nevnte, begynte jo å chartre fly pga terrortrusselen i tiden før 911. F.eks:

Earlier this week, the Justice Department leased a NASA-owned G-3 Gulfstream for a 6-day trip to Western states. Such aircraft cost the government more than $1,600 an hour to fly. When asked whether Ashcroft was paying for any portion of the trips devoted to personal business, a Justice Department spokeswoman declined to respond. [CBS 7-26-01]

[NuckChorris]

Denne "debatten" var OVER for seks år siden.

 

Denne "debatten" er langt fra over. Joda, det er endel youtube videoer som er ganske så tvilsomme, hvor enkelte påstår at flyene var militærfly med raketter på undersiden osv. Men så har du også de filmene som etter min mening stiller viktige spørsmål. Så nettopp "The 9/11 Chronicles, Part One", og selv om halve filmen viser anklagelser slengt i trynet på politikere, så viser den også at flere og flere amerikanere er tvilende til at Bush & co. har lagt alle kortene på bordet.

 

Michael Bloomberg har jo også bedt regjeringen i USA om 150mill dollar, årlig(apr 2008), for å dekke sykehusregningene til de tusenvis som har blitt syk av støvet rundt "Ground Zero", som helsemyndighetene i USA sa var helt trygg å puste inn. Så dette er langt fra over.

 

At konspirasjonsteorien lever har mer å gjøre med enkeltpersoners manglende evne, eller ønske, til å innta faktaopplysninger.

 

Hvilke faktaopplysninger er det? Jeg har sett flere faktaopplysninger som tilsier at noe ikke stemmer, enn faktaopplysninger som bekrefter den offisielle versjonen. Jeg sier ikke at jeg er 100% sikker på at Bush og gjengen hans står bak 9/11, men det er så mange løse tråder at det er god grunn til å stille spørmål rundt det.

 

Bare tanken på at Bush & Co. står bak er ganske så skremmende og nesten utenkelig. Men det har jo vært utallige grusomme ledere i div land gjennom historien som villig ofrer sine egne for å få gjennom sin agenda. Så hvorfor kan ikke Bush være en av disse? Bare ta Irak som eksempel på hva denne karen er i stand til.

 

Og skulle en ikke tro på noe av det som blir lagt fra i div dokumentarer så må man jo skjønne hvorfor de etterlatte fortsetter å stille slike spørsmål. De har jo ikke fått skikkelige svar. Kommisjonen som skulle etterforske 9/11 var jo nærmest en vits. De vil jo bare ha en skikkelig etterforskning som kan gi dem svar, en gang for alle.

[Kubin]

"Flight 93: Cell Call Exposed"

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RjNB9MGSoWc ( 8 min )

[Ballemannen]

En annen morsom telefonsamtale er den med Mark Bingham og mora hans:

"Alice, talk to Mark," Kathy said, handing her the phone. "He's been hijacked."

"Mom? This is Mark Bingham," the voice said. It sounded strange for her son to introduce himself by his full name. She knew he was flustered.

"I want to let you know that I love you. I'm on a flight from Newark to San Francisco and there are three guys who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb," he said.

"Who are these guys?" Alice Hoglan asked.

There was a pause. Hoglan heard murmurs of conversation in English. Mark's voice came back.

"You believe me, don't you?" he asked.

"Yes, Mark. I believe you. But who are these guys?" There was a pause. Alice heard background noise. The line went dead.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/2001...mainstoryp7.asp

 

Mobilsamtaler fungerte så vidt opptil 8000 fot på den tiden, men i praksis bare i korte perioder av gangen. UA93 cruiset i 30000 fot, noe som i utgangspunktet tilsier null mobilforbindelse.

 

Samtalen mellom Barbara Olsen og mannen hennes er også interessant:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/amrarticle.html

[IntelAmdAti]

9/11 - Se på Pentagon-bygget før det kollapset, ingen har klart å forklare dette på noen rimelig måte og den ene hendelsen alene avkrefter hele den offisielle konspirasjonsteorien..

 

Med mindre man faktisk tror at flyet krasjet inn i bygget uten at vingene eller haleseksjonen påførte noen som helst skader på fasade eller vinduer siden de ble foldet/brettet bakover på en slik måte at de suste sporløst inn i hullet langs flykroppen - et hull som faktisk ikke engang hadde rommet kun selve flykroppen, men flykroppen ble også brettet/krøllet sammen og forsvant inn i hullet.

 

Dersom en kan tro noe slikt kan en like gjerne tro på julenissen, da har en mistet helt kontakten med virkeligheten. Dette er helt umulig, det samme gjelder den andre offisielle forklaringen om at "kanskje vingene, motorene og haleseksjonen ble fullstendig pulverisert før de traff bygget".

 

Etter 9/11 har antall "konspirasjonsteoretikere" eksplodert, så noen er fremdeles i stand til å fatte at massemediene og propaganda ikke er en 100% pålitelig informasjonskanal.

[Ballemannen]

snip

Jammen har du ikke sett bevisene for at det var en 757 der da?

 

[isbit]

11/9 kom som en velsignelse for Bush-administrasjonen, men det er selvsagt ikke de som sto bak.

[Mangellapp]

Etter 9/11 har antall "konspirasjonsteoretikere" eksplodert

 

Sant nok, det er fordi at stadig flere nutcases får tilgang til internett.

[isbit]

Man skulle kanskje tro at internett ville bidra til å opplyse den jevne verdensborger, men det virker som folk får mindre og mindre sans for fakta, og mer og mer sans for bullshit.

[Ballemannen]

11/9 kom som en velsignelse for Bush-administrasjonen, men det er selvsagt ikke de som sto bak.

Innlegget ditt er null verdt.

 

Sant nok, det er fordi at stadig flere nutcases får tilgang til internett.

Der tapte du debatten.

 

 

Man skulle kanskje tro at internett ville bidra til å opplyse den jevne verdensborger, men det virker som folk får mindre og mindre sans for fakta, og mer og mer sans for bullshit.

Har du opplyst deg noe særlig i denne saken? Har du bidratt med fakta?

[isbit]

Bevisbyrden ligger på deg.

Endret 28. juli 2008 av isbit

[username882]

Dette er sikkert skrevet, men orker ikke lese gjennom 80 sider.. : p

 

Noen som har sett den south park episoden hvor det er om 9/11?

 

Der det kommer frem at USA er bak alle konspirasjonsteoriene fordi de vil at verden skal tro de kan gjøre hva de vil, mens de sier at det egentlig var noen terrorister som var bak..

 

Hvem vet

[Ballemannen]

Bevisbyrden ligger på deg.

Hvorfor ikke på deg? Hvilke fakta støtter du deg til?

Jeg kan bevise at de offisielle forklaringene er MEGET mangelfulle. Derfor trenger vi nye, uavhengige, granskninger.

 

Har FBI/CIA beviser for at Al-Qaeda stod bak? Nei. Det har vi fastslått tidligere. Talibanregimet ville utlevere bin Laden til USA dersom de framla bevis. Det fikk de ikke.

[isbit]

Extraordinary claims require extraodrinary evidence. Bevisbyrden ligger alltid på dem som kommer med en påstand. Jeg sier ikke at Al Qaida definitivt står bak, men at amerikanerne skal stå bak dette selv - til og med fra øverste hold - er en drøy påstand som krever beviser.