Re: Scholars for 9/11 Truth -- HTTP://ST911.ORG -- REPLY IN THIS THREAD ONLY

> There are too many posts in to many threads to keep up.

You are the one that started multiple threads.

I will now only
> follow this thread.

WOW, you actually made sense there

>
> I will now wait for the self proclaimed experts in these groups to debunk
> ALL 17 points in Jones' paper. Don't even think about using red herrings
> as proof. NO bullshit. You think Jones is wrong? Then explain his 17
> points.

His own peers disagree with him.

TRUTH wrote:

> There are too many posts in to many threads to keep up. I will now only
> follow this thread.
>

Jones isn't qualified as a structural engineer.

That pretty much closes the case ( against him ) for me.

Graham

Okay, then I won't need to waste anymore time with you. Good bye

>
> WAKE UP PEOPLE ! 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!

For what purpose?

The primary reason given for the invasion of Iraq was WMD, not 9/11.

Do you think that taking down the two WTC towere would not have been
enough to stir up US citizens? Why would they need to take out WTC7,
the Pentagon, and the plane in PA?

Bush blamed 9/11 on Iraq. That is fact.

--------------------------------

The following are ten quotes from the WTC Task Force Interviews "Oral
Histories" as published in the New York Times.

See here for many more quotes, and links to the Times website
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820

FDNY CAPTAIN:
"Somewhere around the middle of the world trade center, there was this
orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then
this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that
building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping
sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the
building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides
as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were
getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."

FDNY BATTALION CHIEF:
"It looked like it was a timed explosion"

FDNY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER:
"I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came
down."

Q. "Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire
was?"

A. "No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish
a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's
what I thought I saw"

FDNY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER:
"We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we saw
was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people
thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I remember
seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the
building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to collapse
like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come down. My
initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they
show you those implosions on TV."

FDNY FIRE MARSHAL:
"I thought it was exploding, actually. That’s what I thought for hours
afterwards, that it had exploded or the plane or there had been some
device on the plane that had exploded, because the debris from the tower
had shot out far over our heads"

FDNY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER:
"I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that
the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the
building."

"As I said I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the
building. That's how loud it was, crackling explosive"

FDNY CHIEF:
"You could see the windows pop out just like in the picture, looked like
a movie. I saw one floor of windows pop out, like poof, poof. I saw one
and a half floors pop out. It looked almost like an explosion. The whole
top was teetering, and I really thought just the top of the building was
falling off."

FDNY FIREFIGHTER:
"I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed
like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction,
then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down in a
pancake."

Q. "where was the fire? Like up at the upper levels where it started
collapsing?"

A. "It appeared somewhere below that. Maybe twenty floors below the
impact area of the plane. I saw it as fire and when I looked at it on
television afterwards, it doesn't appear to show the fire. It shows a
rush of smoke coming out below the area of the plane impact. The reason
why I think the cameras didn't get that image is because they were a far
distance away and maybe I saw the bottom side where the plane was and the
smoke was up above it."

FDNY FIREFIGHTER:
"I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on
television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all
the way around like a belt, all these explosions"

FDNY FIREFIGHTER:
"There was an explosion at the top of the Trade Center and a piece of
Trade Center flew across the West Side Highway and hit the Financial
Center." ... "the south tower from our perspective exploded from about
midway up the building." ... "At that point a debate began to rage
because the perception was that the building looked like it had been
taken out with charges"

Look at this JPEG:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/binladen8.jpg

Even Mr Magoo would have to say that Osama 'E' stands out like a sore
thumb, and this is the man confessing on the "lucky find" tape.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/binladen_tape.jpg

Between the nose and the cheeks it is clear that this man is NOT Osama.

In the video Osama 'E' appears to write notes with his right hand, yet the
FBI's description of Osama indicates he is left-handed. Osama 'E' wears a
ring on his right hand which does not appear on other confirmed photos of
Osama (e.g. Osama 'B'). Another man is seen wearing a large gold ring in
the video. Since the wearing of gold rings is forbidden by Islam it shows
neither he nor Osama 'E' has any devotion to this faith.

More info here:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

mrtravel wrote:

And *NEITHER * were valid either !!!!

Graham

TRUTH wrote:

I've never seen the 'fat Osama' ( E ) on the news.

Can you post a link to the supposed video ?

Graham

Red herring. The point isn't that blaming Iraq 9/11 (and WMD) was
invalid. The real point is that Bush used both of them as reasons. And
there is compelling evidence (if not pure proof) that Bush was planning
to lie in order to get into Iraq

I disagree. But then I'm starting from a different perspective.

Bogus reasons.

I thought it was Cheney who was really keen.

See http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

In any event - it wouldn't have taken much to convince the American public
that any Arab country was fair game after 9/11 I suspect.

Graham

Yes, I will be happy to :-)

The entire video is archived on NPR: http://tinyurl.com/4zs59

American's (espeically New Yorkers like me) were ready to bomb the hell
out of Afghanistan and anyone else who protected bin Laden. And I
personally was very angry with France, not joining in the war. (Remember
"freedom fries"?)

And, because of my religion, I will definitely take the US's side if Iran
attacks Israel. In fact, AFAIK, Iran can be wiped off the map right now,
since they said the same thing about Israel. But then again, those are my
emotions talking. I do not believe the US should attack Iran, which is
what they plan to do next month.

TRUTH wrote:

Oh indeed.

In the event the French were shown to be rather smarter weren't they ? ( Note
the apparent outbreak of civil war in Iraq just like cetain ppl like me
always reckoned would happen ) . Compare Jugoslvia under Tito to Iraq under
Hussein.

Much as Iran may be a thorn in the side there is no valid reason to attack
it. The US will become a world pariah it it tries it on.

Graham

Why is it that you require the debunkers to be qualifed structural
engineers, but not Jones himself?

Try this again.
What was the primary reason given by Bush for attacking Iraq?

Bush has other published "reasons", but, by far the number 1 reason was
the violation of the UN resolutions.

I didn't say they were.
Bush didn't need to fake 9/11 to get approval for the Iraq invasion.
Bush, and many Americans, believed Bush was right invading Iraq because
of the stated intelligence reports indicated there were WMD, and that
Iraq had failed to comply with the 1991 and later UN resolutions.

At some point Bush made reference to Iraq's supporting the terrorists,
but 9/11 was the primary reason for invading Afghanistan ,and WMD (in
violation of UN resolutions, was the primary reason given for invading Iraq.

If faking 9/11 was his reason to get into Iraq, wouldn't he have invaded
Iraq a lot sooner?

Are you under the impression that Saddam was in full compliance with all
of the UN resolutions relating to the Gulf War?

I seem to recall something about the 'weapons inspectors'.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1023
http://www.btinternet.com/~brentours/GOV23.htm

for your interest

Graham

mrtravel wrote:

I just wanted to re-inforce the point !

That much made sense.

And that made no sense at all !

The West has gifted Iraq not only a bombed out shell of a country with crippled
infrastructure but a civil war now too !

Graham

I didn't say it made sense, it was the reason given for the invasion of
Iraq. OTOH, if they actually had WMD, would you have considered it to
make sense?

Indeed.

In order for them to have had WMD you'd have had to totally dismiss the work of
the UN weapons inspectors. That would make no sense at all. Oh but that's what
the USA did of course - LOL !!!

Graham

It's interesting reading, but it fails Occam's razor. The simplest
expanation is:
1. The WTC towers were hit by large passenger aircraft.
2. The WTC towers were built in disregard of fire regulations.

The last point is extremely relevant, because it raises questions of
liablity.
T.

Hell, you couldn't follow the arguments in the *first* thread you
started.

We don't have to kid, you're here to convince us; not demand we convince you.
The actual engineers at BYU say Jones is full of shit, that's good enough for
me, why isn't it good enough for you?

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724

<begin excerpt>
Not long after this spate of interviews, BYU’s College of Physical and
Mathematical Sciences posted a statement on its Web site stressing Jones’ right
to publish what he wished while distancing itself from Jones’ current research.

That statement has since been removed, but a similar one is still online at the
College of Engineering and Technology’s Web site.

“The University is aware that Professor Steven Jones’s hypotheses and
interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center
buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners,
including many of BYU’s own faculty members,” it reads in part.

“Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that
his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues
that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering
faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the
hypotheses of Professor Jones.”

Reached for comment, structural engineering professors Steven Benzley and Rick
Balling both said they supported the statement as written.

Balling said he and Benzley have made contact with Jones on more than one
occasion, engaging him in a dialogue about the more technical aspects of his
research.
</end excerpt>

"The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and
Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

That's pretty damn clear, even you should get the fact that real engineers in
his own school have debunked it. And before you go off on an irrelevant
tangent, the Ira A. Fulton College of Engineering and Technology is indeed part
of BYU. http://www.et.byu.edu/

WMD wasn't a "primary reason" either, being near the bottom of a laundry
list of a dozen or so reasons.

That's nonsense. Review, for example Powell's speach to the UN.

Peter Skelton

Powell's presentation to the UN came after months of all of the other
things that were presented. You should remember that one of the reasons
*given* for invading Iraq wasn't WMD production, but *not complying with
sanctions and inspections* (along with the aforementioned laundry list).

The only people who were holding out for WMD proof were the countries
who were then taking bribes from Saddam's regime (France, Russia, China,
Germany, et al).

If you want the full set of reasons, find a transcript of George Bush's
State of the Union speech from that year...

That, sir is bullshit.

He was bribing all the wiorld's powers with two exceptions? Bunk.
Please explain how he bribed my country, Canada, for example.

Just did, you're full of it. WMD got very heavy emphasis.

BTW that was Jan. 28, Powell spoke Feb. 5.

Peter Skelton

Who was the Prime Minister of Canada in 2003, where is he now, and why?

The phrase is used exactly 4 times only, and twice without any reference to
Iraq or Hussein.

1. "We're working with other governments to secure nuclear materials in the
former Soviet Union, and to strengthen global treaties banning the
production and shipment of missile technologies and weapons of mass
destruction.

2. "In Iran, we continue to see a government that represses its people,
pursues weapons of mass destruction, and supports terror."

3. " Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last
casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to
disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he
systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and
nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date
has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic
sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile
strikes on his military facilities."

4. " Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent
enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass
destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use
he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack."

Furthermore:

"The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological
weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses
to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's
given no evidence that he has destroyed it. "
"The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient
to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject
millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for
that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it. "

" Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials
to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such
quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not
accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has
destroyed them."

" U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000
munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned
up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence.
Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibite
d munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them."

" The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam
Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design
for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching
uranium for a bomb."

Were all these statements absolutely untrue at the time?

It's a pity Clinton wasn't eligible to stay in office, or at the very least
that a Democrat isn't there now. We'd still have invaded Iraq as evidenced
by what the key Democrats said regarding WMD's, but the action would be seen
in a wholly different light. Maybe Bush should have simply changed political
parties - that would have made everything okay with the rest of the world.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle,
John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
Dec, 5, 2001.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident
that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological
weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his
chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate
that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the
progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue
to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will
keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout
question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous
dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly
grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And
now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

Paul Nixon

Here's an interesting article in the London Guardian:

Blair-Bush deal before Iraq war revealed in secret memo

PM promised to be 'solidly behind' US invasion with or without UN backing

[This article also shows Bush was thinking of flying a US drone painted
with UN colors into Iraq to provoke Saddam to shoot in down... Very
similar to the Operation Northwoods plan in 1962]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1700881,00.html

Powell's former chief of staff on Iraq intel: 'I participated in a hoax'
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Powells_former_chief_of_staff_on_0205.html

Ex-CIA Official Faults Use of Data on Iraq
Intelligence 'Misused' to Justify War, He Says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2006/02/09/AR2006020902418_pf.html

If you believe everything you read in the Grauniad, you really ARE
deluded!
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

From my knowledge, there was 9/11, violation of the UN resolutions,
threat of WMD, and "freedom Iraqi". (Although that last one was given
after the war started, when they couldn't find WMD.)

But this article from the London Guardian shows that Bush was planning to
attack Iraq with or without UN support. Bush even considered painting a
US military drone with UN colors, flying it into Iraq to provole Saddam
to shoot it down.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1700881,00.html

Also see this from a PBS interview:

The reason for the Iraqi invasion was oil and building American military
bases. This is made clear in Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz's organization's
own documentation.

Search the following PDF for "Iraq", "Afghanistan", and "new Pearl
Harbor"

http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Even ABC News said 9/11 was the New Pearl Harbor:
http://tinyurl.com/da23y

see here too:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1840182.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm

also:
CBS NEWS: Bush warned Of Suicide Hijackings
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/18/attack/main509488.shtml

I do not know. Maybe they were preparing??

No, abslutely not. But the US set the conditions for all this to happen.

And for what purpose do you believe the Bush version? Especially when
Bush is a known liar?

The articles about are reputable.

Anyone who thinks an unprepped building can be demolished the way he
says WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 were and keeps pushing the same lies even when
proved wrong IS delusional no matter which newspaper he reads.

I only hope he doesn't reproduce.

On the other hand he is quite amusing. I wonder what he does for a
living. It can't be anything that requires intellect, logical thinking,
integrity, honesty or an open mind. I suppose he could always be used as
a dummy load at a radar site. Then again he can certainly be employed as
a bad example.

I have an idea, when he turns 18 he can join the military. I'd love
to see the reaction when he tells a drill sergeant he's wrong.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Peter Skelton" <skel...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:k3hvv15bdhh060lll...@4ax.com...

| SNIP

Do you think you could post that again in comprehensible English?

On second thoughts, don't bother.

But there is now a strong alliance between Iran and Syria. Assad is now
very weak, and is in the crosshairs of the UN, the US and France for, among
other things, the Harriri assassination. Iran wants to protect the
conventional belief that "Bush Lied, Kids Died." If it turns out that the
US administration was right about Iraq, it will be harder for Iran to stand
up to world opposition to its nuclear ambitions. So, Iran props up Syria,
and Assad protects the secret. Hezballah and Hamas are just garnish for
Iran. The depth of their hatred towards Israel and the West is
incalculable.

"TRUTH" <TR...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97753E4...@130.81.64.196...

It was the reason presented to the UN and NOT at the bottom of a laundry
list.

Jean Poutine, playing golf because he retitred. He's been accused
of a ton of corruption but nothing from Iraq.

I wonder whether that's because Bush also used phrases like
"weapons of terror"? The issue is the reason for invasion, not
the number of times a specific phrase showed up in a speech.

Would you like to show that any one other reason for the invasion
got more prominence?

<irrelevant craqp snipped>

You are aware that your contention is that WMD was not the
principle reason for invasion aren't you? Why did you think a
pile of material showing that liots of American leaders were
confused on the issue would support it?

Peter Skelton

LOL.

By your own statement, "Just did, you're full of it. WMD got very heavy
emphasis", you levied the charge that WMD's got very heavy emphasis, and you
were wrong.

You will note the dates with regards to the WMD threat from Iraq PREDATE
Bush coming to power and extend at least into 2003. And where did you see
confusion in any of the crystal clear statements?

As for my contention, it is that you were wrong with regards to the emphasis
placed on WMD's in Bush's State of the Union Address of 2003. I note you
decided not to address the issues raised in that address that supported the
President's position with regards to WMD's, but if you want to, do so. As
far as I know, the only statement that was wrong was with regards to the
uranium report which, surprise surprise, is what everyone seems to have
fixated on.

Paul Nixon

Care to rewrite that in English (or French if you prefer).

And what has that got to do with the subject being discussed? I
am certainly not accusing Br. Bush of originating the idea that
Saddam had WMD or, in fact any original thought. I'm also not
postulating the idea that thinking S had WMD was unreasonable.
The point at issue is whether S's WMD were the primary reason
given by the administration for invading Iraq.

There is no confusion in the statements I snipped. But all, the
clarity of quotes comes from the source, not the quoter, you
should not claim a capability you cannot maintain.

It is quite obvious that a lot of American leaders were confused
on the subject, as I said. And I still wonder why you injected
large quantities of irrelevant material into the discussion.

I did address them, and the very weak logic you used to come to
your conclusion.

When someone takes exception to an idiot point of view you hold,
you should not accuse him of disagreeing with you other ideas
lest he conclude that they too are idiocy.

Peter Skelton

You've been telling us for a week or more that there *were* no suicide
hijackings...

That is documented truth, and is only ignored by folks like yourself who
have very dull axes to grind.

Don't miss the post a couple of hours upstream where he brings up the
idea that Bush knew about the suicide hijackings (after he's spent all
of this time telling us they were robot planes, or didn't exist at all).

The story was a U-2 not a drone. Stupid theory. The UN marked USAF U-2s
and French Air Force Mirage IVs flew missions into central Iraq with
the authorisation of the Iraqi's themselves and with the knowledge of
the UN. They didn't just penetrate the central belt of Iraq on their
own without the coordination of the parties involved.

TJ

OFCS go read Powell's speech.

Peter Skelton

It was already in English, but if you can't understand that language:

Par votre propre rapport, "juste, vous êtes plein de lui. WMD a obtenu
l'emphase très lourde," vous avez facturé la charge que WMD a obtenue à
emphase très lourde, et vous aviez tort.

Which was someone else's argument, not mine.

Then why did you claim there was confusion in what was snipped? You
sound...confused.

Eh?

There was no confusion at all. The groundwork for the invasion of Iraq
predated Bush - that's the simple fact. What's so hard to swallow is that
the case was being built by President William J. Clinton, a Democrat and
someone very popular with the more left-leaning world we live in, and not by
the far-right GOP who was, supposedly, only after the oil.

You didn't say a single word to address them. Shall I assume you agree that
the statements are, in fact, actually true?

The above seems to confirm that English is not your native language. C'est
la vie. I can certainly understand the challenge you might face with relying
on translation especially given the questionable sources you would be tuned
to, but one thing is perfectly clear: Bush did not originate the threat that
Iraq had WMD's, and more to the point at hand, Bush did not place the heavy
emphasis on WMD's in his 2003 State of the Union address as *you* had
charged.

Paul Nixon

Have you actually read his speech? It does not appear that you have, for it
certainly does talk at length about non-compliance re: sanctions and
inspections.

Why did Powell go before the UN?
'"I asked for this session today for two purposes: First, to support the
core assessments made by Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei. As Dr. Blix reported to
this council on January 27th, quote, ``Iraq appears not to have come to a
genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of
it,'' unquote. '

And as Dr. ElBaradei reported, Iraq's declaration of December 7, quote, "did
not provide any new information relevant to certain questions that have been
outstanding since 1998."

"My second purpose today is to provide you with additional information, to
share with you what the United States knows about Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction as well as Iraq's involvement in terrorism, which is also the
subject of Resolution 1441 and other earlier resolutions."

So in Powell's own words from his own speech his intent in being before the
UN revolved around non-compliance with sanctions and inspections, just as
was asserted and contrary to what you claimed without convolution.

Paul Nixon

tim gueguen 101867

The really funny part is that the "noarchive" tag is only observed by
about 10% of Usenet archivers, so the morons try that tack are just one
more level of stupid.

There weren't any on 9/11. But the government was definitely warned. (In
fact the CIA helped out by paying for their apartments and flight
training.) Patsies

...about the suicide hijackings that didn't take place?

Riiiiight....

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/background.html
(Click on the links next to the word "background" at the top)

http://911review.com/attack/pentagon/index.html

I had originally recommended this site:
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

however... the OilEmpire site believes it bad to promote theories that
could be debunked, (although many don't believe in their debunking
methods), therefore OilEmpire concentrates more on the hard-core
evidence. Either way, OilEmpire does not believe that Hani Hanjour flew
flight 77 into the Pentagon. Look at the information and come to your own
conclusion.

People have a hard time understanding 9/11 because of cognitive
dissonance. Fortunately people are waking up.

I have given enough information and links over the past week for those
intererested to look into it deeper. (Note also that each link I gave has
links to other sites as well.)

Here's a few excellent sites:
http://www.911blogger.com
http://www.question911.com/links.php
http://www.911busters.com
http://www.911truthseekers.org
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org
http://www.standdown.net
http://3c.911truth.org
http://www.reopen911.org
http://st911.org

Note that Physics Professor Steven Jones' WTC controlled demolition paper
is now up to draft version 5.1. With the popularity of this paper, more
and more evidence and scientifically accurate reasoning is being added
all the time. In addition, this peer reviewed paper is schuduled for
publication in "The Hidden History of 9-11-2001"
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Remember, there are many unknowns about 9/11. Not everyone will be in
complete agreement about every single detail. Use your intelligence and
figure out what makes sense to you.

I am done in these groups. Feel free to continue your airplane
discussions

I applaud your decision to admit you were wrong all along.

TRUTH wrote:

Promises, promises. Are you really going this time?

This describes the Pentagon background and has nothing to do with the attack

>
> http://911review.com/attack/pentagon/index.html

A lot of supposition on this site.
Wow, believe it or not, a former military pilot was in control (what are
the odds that military fighter pilots end up on an airline):

"The pilot of Flight 77 was Chic Burlingame, a graduate of the U.S.
Naval Academy who flew F-4s for the U.S. Navy in Vietnam. According to
Col. Donn de Grand Pr‚, would-be hijackers had no chance of seizing
control of the plane from this experienced veteran. Such a pilot could
have easily disabled any would-be hijackers by simply rolling the plane"

Various reports have indicated the vulnerability of a seated and
strapped in pilot. "Simply rolling the plane"? How often is this done in
the 757 simulator?

That isn't what that page says, does it?
It actually says these stupid theories are made up to make the truth
people look bad. Are you in this group?

It also states, regarding the "truth people": "a few appear to be
promoting nonsense deliberately."

Have you actually read these websites?

One really doesn't have to look all that "deeply" to determine just how
much of a kook Jones is.

For example: Claim 1 - "Molten Metal, Flowing and in Pools"

Jone's effective claim was that this could have only happened with a
mass of Thermite being smuggled in, since the cutter charges wouldn't
have produced the amount of observed heated steel, and the dark smoke
from the conventional fire allegedly could not have produced
temperatures in excess of 650C.

Assume Jone's claim is correct that it was indeed a conspiracy and try
to actually impliment his claimed mechanism: what do we learn by doing
so?

First, I've previously detailed out the amount of Thermite required; I
won't repeat it. At the aforementioned parametric minimum, a total of
2,500 cubic feet of thermite was required *per floor*. The parametric
upper limit is 4x greater...10,000 ft^3 per floor, per building.

That's in cubic feet. How much does it weigh?

Thermite weighs around 4g/cc, which is 4x the density of water, which
would mean that a cubic foot would be 4x 62.4 lbs = ~250lbs.

This means that the conspirators needed to smuggle in over 300 TONS per
floor.
(at the estimated upper limit, it is roughly 1,200 TONS required *per
floor*)

Okay, so how could they have transported in this much material?

Since there was no obvious major heavy construction from 1993-2001,
smuggling in of large quantities would have been highly difficult: the
above mass works out to 40 pallets worth of materials...again per
floor, per building...and each pallet would weigh 8 tons...can't move
that by hand, so we're really probably looking at ~650 pallets at
1000lbs each. Plus, we would then have to break down and covertly
dispurse each pallet within each floor - - - since at the cube factor
of a pallet, you're talking about occupying the floor space equivalent
of over 10,000 office cubicles between the two buildings, you can't
just try hide it in the photocopier room.

650 pallets per floor, times 110 floors = 71,500 deliveries per
building.

If you choose to reduce the risk of getting caught breaking down a
pallet-sized delivery to the floor, the alternative is to make it the
sum accumulation of many hand-carried packages, and the first thing to
consider is the upper practical limit to hand carry in on a frequent
(daily) basis. A "backpack" sized package which would have to weigh in
round numbers no more than 20lbs (a "briefcase" size would have to be
half of this). This means that at the parametric minimum 300tons/floor
of thermite, at least 30,000 trips *per floor* to smuggle in the
material would be required.

Assuming one trip per courier per day (as in a normal worker coming to
work, to provide a plausible cover story) and a generic weekday job (5
days/week), this would result in roughly 200 work days per year, and
thus, 200 transports per year. This means that it would take one
volunteer 30,000 trips / 200 trips/year = 150 *years* to covertly
transport the materials in ...again, **per floor**.

Since taking 150 years to do the job is an impossibility, we would have
to try to compress the timeline by using more couriers. The minimized
staffing comes with a maximum available timeline: assume that they
started on creating such a plan immediately after the first bombing
(Feb '93) and had it fully implemented by 18 months later (Fall
'94): this gives a "nice round number" of seven (7) years available
to transport materials, which - - straight math - - would nevertheless
still require at least 20 couriers (and 80 couriers at the upper
estimated quantity of required thermite) ... until we remember that
this manpower requirement is still on a "per floor" basis:

We now multiply by 110 floors and 2 buildings, so we're talking about
needing an absolute minimum of 18,500 conspirators (and 18,500 at the
upper limit) who combined will have to conduct 6.4 million (to 26
million) successful covert material smugglings without any of them ever
getting caught to tip off the authorities that anything's going on.

Even if there was only a random "1 in a million" chance of pure dumb
luck of any individual transport from getting however randomly caught,
the vast number of required sorties means that odds of at least one of
them being detected are over 85%.

In other words, this plan would have had at least an 85% probability of
failure, simply because of its required scale.

And if we go back to the far more detectable 1000lb pallet delivery,
71,500 of these in 7 years workd out to just over 40 deliveries per
day...assuming a 12 hour day and 5 business days per week, that's one
shipment passing in front of security every 18 minutes that's subject
to inspection. Start reviewing security tapes, and YMMV as to how
many Port Authority guards had to be "in" on this conspiracy just to
make this part have a chance of working.

Material Cost: Aluminum (not Aluminum Oxide) powder is slightly over
$10 per pound. While the Iron Oxide is generally less expensive,
thermite is hard to ignite, so several hundred #8 blasting caps are
necessary; assume a simple cost offset. At the minimum required mass
(300T/floor), times 110 floors, times 2 buildings, the basic materials
cost is $1.32 **billion** dollars, plus whatever premium comes about
from trying to buy such a vast quantity covertly.

UN Security Council Resolution 1373 obligated nations to freeze the
assets of terrorists and to prohibit anyone in the country from
providing financial or other material assistance to terrorists or their
supporters. 166 countries have only found $121 million to freeze.

Conclusion: It was pragmatically impossible to have successfully
performed the required smuggling tasks while remaining 100% covert
across a likely 10 million 'sorties', and also pragmatically
impossible to have financed since the cost of just this one item is 10x
the total demonstrated financial resources.

In plain english, the Thermite Premise is too hard and too expensive.

-hh

What a load of crap.

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

MSNBC / NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE:

full article: http://tinyurl.com/5q282

EXCERPT:

Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained at U.S. Bases.
The Pentagon has turned over military records on five men to the FBI

Sept. 15 — U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that
suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes that were used in
Tuesday’s terror attacks received training at SECURE U.S. MILITARY
INSTALLATIONS in the 1990s.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The following is information concerning the trial of Zacarias Moussaui:

Media Misrepresentation of Moussaui Trial

************************************
It should be exposed that Colleen Rowley, who wound up as one of three
"Women of the Year" for her whistleblowing action as an FBI field agent,
tried to alert her FBI superiors that Moussaui was exhibiting suspicious
behavior at his flight school. She tried to get a FISA warrant granted to
see what was on his laptop computer. However, Marion "Spike" Bowman and
John Ashcroft made sure that didn't happen.

From the Star Tribune in Minneapolis, MN on 12/21/02
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/29467.html
The Star Tribune's Greg Gordon reported last week that at a quiet little
ceremony earlier this month, Marion (Spike) Bowman was one of nine people
in the bureau to receive an award for "exceptional performance." The award
carries with it a cash bonus of 20 to 35 percent of the recipient's salary
and a framed certificate signed by the president. What does this have to do
with Rowley? Bowman heads the FBI's National Security Law Unit. That's the
unit that blocked Minneapolis agents from pursuing their suspicions about
Moussaoui. Bowman received the big pats on the back (and cash) a few days
before the House and Senate Intelligence committees turned in their reports
of pre-Sept. 11 intelligence failures.

From an article by AP on 6/2/05 titled "Moussaoui Is Symbol of Missed
Clues"
...public interest in Moussaoui, who wants to fire his court-appointed
lawyers and represent himself, only grew after the FBI counsel in the
bureau's Minnesota field office wrote a scathing May 21 letter alleging
that headquarters officials thwarted local efforts to search Moussaoui's
computer in the weeks before the terrorist attacks.

``The Minneapolis agents who responded to the call about Moussaoui's flight
training identified him as a terrorist threat from a very early point,''
Coleen Rowley wrote FBI Director Robert Mueller.

Mueller, in announcing a major FBI reorganization, acknowledged last week
that agents could have been on the trail of the hijackers if they had
pieced together several clues: Moussaoui's desire to learn to fly big jets,
and at least two other memos about Middle Easterners taking flight
training.

From a Reuters article on 4/21/05 by James Vicini
He said the purpose of his plot was to free the blind Sheikh Omar Abdel-
Rahman, who is in prison in the United States after being found guilty of
terrorism charges which predated Sept. 11.

But Mr. MacMahon attacked the government's argument that had Mr. Moussaoui
spoken truthfully of what he knew when he was arrested it would have
prevented the attacks. He cited the official commission that investigated
the attacks and found the government had several indications of Al Qaeda's
plans before that day. The report found that the authorities never fully
appreciated the significance of some of the leads.

From a Reuters article on 3/7/06 by Niel Lewis
Mr. Moussaoui's actual role in the Sept. 11 attacks has remained an
intriguing mystery to investigators. The official commission that studied
the attacks concluded that Qaeda leaders might have considered using him as
"a potential substitute pilot" on Sept. 11 because of friction among other
participants, but that his arrest scuttled that possibility. The commission
also speculated that he might have been meant to be part of a second wave
of attacks and noted that Al Qaeda spent some $50,000 on his training.

From a Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, April 23, 2005; Page A11
"If we thought by the end of the day we would find the holy grail as to
exactly what the genesis of 9/11 was and what Moussaoui's role in it was,
we have been sorely disappointed," said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert
who heads the Washington office of the Rand Corp. "This contradiction in
his behavior raises more questions than it answers. The book still isn't
closed on 9/11, I'm afraid."

From Time Magazine, May 21, 2002, the 13 page memo
The e-mail communications between Minneapolis and FBIHQ, however, speak for
themselves and there are far better witnesses than me who can provide their
first hand knowledge of these events characterized in one Minneapolis
agent's e-mail as FBIHQ is "setting this up for failure."

US knew about al Qaeda in 1990s, FBI agent says, By Deborah Charles Tue Mar
7, Reuters
FBI agent Michael Anticev said in testimony at a sentencing trial for
September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui that the U.S. government knew
by the mid 1990s that there were several al Qaeda training camps in
Afghanistan and other countries.

From Lori Van Auken testimony at the July 22nd Congressional Briefing: The
9/11 Commission Report One Year Later ? A Citizens? Response ? Did They Get
It Right?
http://www.gnn.tv/blogs/11995/Lorie_Van_Auken_July_22nd_2005?r=5
FBI supervisor David Frasca and his underling, Michael Maltbie failed to
permit FBI agents to request a FISA warrant for Moussaoui but also altered
the agent?s initial request for it. Specifically, on August 28th, 2001,
Maltbie edited the Minnesota FBI?s request for a FISA warrant to search
Zacarias Moussaoui?s possessions. The Minnesota FBI?s field office wanted
to prove that Moussaoui was connected to Al Qaeda through a rebel group in
Chechnya. But the RFU agent Maltbie removed the information connecting the
Chechen rebels to Al Qaeda.

Subsequently, the FBI General Counsel who received the edited request,
scrubbed clean of any international terrorist ties, decided that there
wasn?t enough of a connection between Moussaoui and Al Qaeda to allow for
an application for a search warrant through FISA.

...In essence, the Moussaoui case was actual confirmation of the Phoenix
Memo?s prediction. And it was these same men, Frasca and Maltbie, who not
only thrwarted the efforts of FBI agents to get a FISA warrant to search
Moussaoui?s belongings, including his laptop, that had information leading
to other 9/11 hijackers, but it was also Frasca and Maltbie who tampered
with the papers requesting a FISA warrant.

...how could the Commission fail to mention that is was these two men,
David Frasca and Michael Maltbie, at the FBI?s Radical Fundamentalist Unit,
who received the Phoenix Memo and then thwarted attempts to acquire a FISA
warrant for Moussauoui?s computer?

How could the Commission remain silent on this matter when these men,
Frasca and Maltbie, have since been promoted within the FBI?

From Accuracy in Media:Will Rowley's Wake-Up Call Produce a Shake Up? Aug.
2, 2002
http://www.aim.org/aim_report/A459_0_4_0_C/
Coleen Rowley asserted that by August 17, the Minneapolis FBI field office
had concluded that Moussaoui represented a "terrorist threat." She said his
arrest by the Immigration and Naturalization Service on August 15 was
hardly a coincidence. She implied that it was done at the FBI's request to
prevent Moussaoui from fleeing or committing terrorist acts. She said that
French intelligence had confirmed that Moussaoui was affiliated with
radical fundamentalist Islamist groups and activities connected to Osama
bin Laden.

From

FISA OVERSIGHT: A CASE STUDY OF THE SYSTEMIC PROBLEMS PLAGUING THE FBI
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp108
&sid=cp1084y7aI&refer=&r_n=sr040.108&item=&sel=TOC_74689 &
In her letter, SA Rowley detailed the problems the Minneapolis agents had
in dealing with FBI Headquarters in their unsuccessful attempts to seek a
FISA warrant for the search of Moussaoui's lap top computer and other
personal belongings. These attempts proved fruitless, and Moussaoui's
computer and personal belongings were not searched until September 11th,
2001, when the Minneapolis agents were able to obtain a criminal search
warrant after the attacks of that date. According to SA Rowley, with the
exception of the fact of those attacks, the information presented in the
warrant application establishing probable cause for the criminal search
warrant was exactly the same as the facts that FBI Headquarters earlier had
deemed inadequate to obtain a FISA search warrant.

Agent: FBI Rewrote Moussaoui Request
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LUM205A.html

Officials familiar with Rowley's memo, speaking on condition of anonymity,
said she alleged FBI headquarters terrorism supervisors rewrote the
Minnesota office's warrant applications and affidavit and removed
intelligence about Moussaoui before sending them to a legal office that
then rejected them as insufficient.

She alleged that some of the revisions "downplayed" the significance of
some intelligence linking Moussaoui to Islamic extremists, and blamed the
changes on a flawed communication process.

Les Jamieson
Northeast Program Coordinator
911truth.org

Be part of Citizens Counter-Coup, The Formula For Change Now
http://3c.911truth.org

The article doesn't say this.

Not only does the article indicate they were people with similar names
and different birthdates that may have trained in the US, there is no
indication in the article of any CIA involvement. Additionally, foreign
pilot training is paid for by the country that sends the trainees.

Not only that, but the whole thing looks to me like a major case of the
FBI bureaucracy in a "CYA" situation.

As soon as I saw the attack on TV, I figured that AQ was the culprit;
after all, they had tried previously -- and failed -- to bring down WTC
with a truck bomb.

We can disparage AQ all we want, but the attack was a piece of tactical
genius (but a strategic failure).

And you expected that he actually read the article before posting? LOL.

Paul Nixon

Like I said, a load of crap.
That story is so thin I could see the next county through it.

You're starting from the position of the US government being right

Well, their story is more plausible than yours, and the you seem to
ignore how things realy work and rely on reports that you haven't even read.

You're as blind as a bat

Well that is certainly the only factual thing you have posted.
I fail to see what my medical condition has to do with this, but then I
suppose you think that was also government inflicted
However, you are just plain ignorant, which is your own damn fault.

Whether or not the US gov't version is right, the consensus in this NG
is that the scholastic standards of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" need major
improvement.

the "scholars" base their whole case on;

1. a "cold fusion" physics professor researcher's paper (peer group
rejected) claiming "sabotage". A search of credentials reveals no
qualification in structural engineering. Structural engineers have
already put the lie to such claims.

2. a so-called "aeronautical engineer" claiming that fanatical Muslims,
trained as pilots and who have trained in 767 simulators couldn't have
flown the planes they hijacked. A variety of pilots have debunked this
one, too.

3. that fire couldn't weaken steel building structures to the point of
collapse -- even after sustaining major structural damage due to
aircraft impacts releasing energy in the range of several kilotons of
TNT equivalent. Again, structural engineers have shown this claim to be
incompetently analysed

So -- which version is more credible -- the "official" one or the
fictional one put forth by "Scholars for 9/11 Truth"?

Well, I kind of agree. For instance, I don't think James Fetzer is the
best person for co-chair. OTOH, it it weren't for him ST911 would not
exist. But he seems to go overboard on radio shows while talking about
the physical evidence. He's not the physicist, Jones is. And Fetzer
talks too much about melting steel. But Jones' is more than qualified.

Dr Steven E Jones is not a "cold fusion" physics professor. That is a
myth. Check here for info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

The reason the BYU Structural Engineering Department publically denies
vadility in Jones' paper has been explained. They have families to
support and don't want to get fired. They don't wish to create enemies
with the higher ups.

I don't necessarity agree, but don't have the expertise.

A comment like that demonstates denial

There is nothing in Jones' resume that implies expertise in structural
engineering. There is a world of difference between a physics degree and
a degree in structures.

IMHO, the reason that the structures people at BYU deny the validity of
Jones' paper is that he is talking through his hat. I have seen a lot of
PhDs who assume that their PhD qualifies them in fields well beyond
their field of study.

Those of us who DO have the expertise call "Bullshit!"

No -- it demonstrates reality. If you want credibility, throw away the
incredible. Is the "9/11 Truth Movement" just trying to make a buck from
the more gullible members of society -- much like Jim and Tammy Faye
Bakker in their old "PTL" program?

So why not accept the word of pilots who DO have the expertise versus
Jones who is not? Several have already proved Jones wrong.

No, it means your conspiracy theory makes less sense than that
produced by experts. Remember when you tried to tell us the ground can't
be seen from 34,000 feet on a clear day?

Correct. The problem is that those with Structural Engineering degrees
don't wish to believe the alternative theory (which is understandable),
and therefore will not look into the information that Jones' brought
forward. Such as the fact that NIST didn't analyze the structural
behavior following collapse initiation, for one example.

But that expertise comes from people not willing to accept the fact that
9/11 could be an inside job. Therefore any opinions could be biased.
(Which again, is understandable.)

No, it demonstates denial. Your comments and associations shows you not
willing to think an inside job possible. (Again, understandable.) I've
run into this lots of times. Sooner or later, people come to terms with
what happened and see the evidence clearly.

It is ironic--and ominous for your mental well being--that you continue
to cry "denial" when every one of your bogus hypotheses has been
debunked and each of your "experts" has been shown to be a clueless
fraud.

Unfortunately for you, you have allowed your delusion to comprise such a
large portion of your life that you must sustain it at all costs--even
the ultimate cost of your sanity, if you do not make some drastic
changes.

Perhaps you can continue to function in the world on some level with
this handicap, but it is hard to imagine that you can maintain a
successfully integrated personality for long if it continues, if indeed
you have managed thus far.

It is a usenet cliche' to suggest that an adversary in an argument seek
professional help, but that is my sincere recommendation to you.

Good luck.

And your opinion is biased because you insist it WAS an inside job.
The difference is you choose to believe Jones who doesn't have expertise
over those of us who do have expertise.