9/11 Bombshell: Methodical Deception -- Rebekah Roth

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport. Wow. Umm black smoke indicates the presence of hydrocarbons. It does not mean oxygen starved.

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

I learned nothing from the OS fanboys thus far besides the beam being cut. It makes my brain sad.

-DF

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

and you got that information from 911myths I suppose?

Physics again....virtually everything that burns..initially gives off white smoke due to moisture evaporation...as the fire cools the smoke normally changes to grey (moisture & hydrocarbons) and thereafter as the fire cools the smoke changes to black

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: skyeagle409

First of all, we warned the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden unconditionally, but the Taliban failed to do so and the rest is history.

The truth about the Taliban not turning over Bin Laden was they had a deal with the US government. The Taliban said they would turn over Bin Laden if the US could prove Bin Laden had anything to do with 911. It was in all the News and News paper at the time. However the US could not give any proof that Bin Laden did the 911 attacks so the Taliban let him go.

Bombshell: Newly Released CIA Documents Prove Bush Could have Killed Bin Laden; Prevented 911

We also know that the Taliban offered to hand bin Laden over to U.S. authorities if they could simply demonstrate his complicity with 911, back when all of this began.

It didn't happen, Bush rejected the plan, he never cared about catching bin Laden and he said as much; he cared about using the man's name and image to start a new round of the crusades and with this bloody idea, Bush had great success.

salem-news.com...

Same with Saddam during gulf 1. Met a couple of the Rangers when I was in the army that had him surrounded. But they were told to stand down and not engage under Bush seniors orders. Just think if they fired rounds from the Abrams there wouldnt have been a gulf 2.

Then again we proubably would have attacked Iran instead.

I should also add the buildings were well insulated, when the fires erupted the heat stayed mostly within the buildings envelope, just like an oven or chimney.

That's why people many floors above jumped rather then endure the tremendous heat being built up with no where to go. The only safe spots were within the elevator core which by code is protected from this.
I once watched an infared video of the buildings and they looked like 2 matchsticks on fire. Would like to find that again now.

All structural metal has a plasticity index(pretty sure this is the term, been a long time since structural design classes which are generalized for architects). It describes the length of time steel exposed to heat will take before it's structurally compromised.
ANY amount of excess heat over a duration will cause a failure eventually, it's shown on graphs and is used to comply with code as to what level of fire protection is needed to counter this, thus we have fire ratings for enclosures.
Without the fireproofing this system is compromised which is what ultimately happened in the WTC's. Melting temperatures were not needed for a failure, just lots of prolonged exposure to heat without protection.

a reply to: DarthFazer

Same with Saddam during gulf 1. Knew a couple of the Rangers that had him surrounded. But they were told to stand down and not pursue under Bush seniors orders. Just think if they fired rounds from the Abrams there wouldnt have been a gulf 2.

Then again we proubably would have attacked Iran instead.

I know, right.

Our government could have capture Bin Laden any time, they knew his whereabouts, the CIA and NSA knew. Had Bin Laden been capture their boogeyman conspiracy would have falling apart. George Bush would have no reason to invade Afghanistan or Iraq. The plan was to use Bin Laden as the perpetrator of the 911 attacks so the government could invade those two countries for their resources.

My understanding there were many contracting companies waiting in line in Washington after the 911 attacks, fighting over bids to whom was going to make all the money. and you better believe Halliburton was knocking on Chaney's door for no bid contracts.

911 was about many things, Yes it was about money, and stealing resources and stripping away the Constitution and bring in a police State all right under our noses, slowly turning the United States over to the UN for their NWO.

a reply to: DarthFazer

I learned nothing from the OS fanboys thus far besides the beam being cut. It makes my brain sad.

Are you referring to this cut beam?

Cut Beam at Ground Zero

a reply to: Informer1958

ur government could have capture Bin Laden any time, they knew his whereabouts, the CIA and NSA knew.

We eventually found where he was, which is why he was taken out. We had no intention of bringing him back alive.

a reply to: skyeagle409

The impacts got the ball rolling. Structural loads were redistributed and fire finished off the job.

And that how explosive expert demo crews were made obsolete!
Great use of physics indeed.

a reply to: skyeagle409

We eventually found where he was, which is why he was taken out. We had no intention of bringing him back alive.

How many times has Bin Laden died? ( according the Press ) There was no evidence the Obama or Spacial Forces capture Bin Laden. However there is government eyewitness who went on record stating that Bin Laden died of kidney failure in early 2002.

a reply to: Informer1958

The truth about the Taliban not turning over Bin Laden was they had a deal with the US government. The Taliban said they would turn over Bin Laden if the US could prove Bin Laden had anything to do with 911.

There is a problem there because the Taliban knew that Osama bin Laden was responsible. After all, it was the Taliban that warned the United States that Osama bin Laden would attack America. Check it out.

Taliban 'warned US of huge attack

An aide to the former Taleban foreign minister, Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, has revealed that he was sent to warn American diplomats and the United Nations that Osama bin Laden was due to launch a huge attack on American soil.

news.bbc.co.uk...


The Taliban Warned us about the coming 9/11 attacks

In late July 2001, Afghanistan’s Taliban Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil learned that Osama bin Laden was planning a “huge attack” on targets inside America. The attack was imminent, and would kill thousands, he learned from the leader of the rebel Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which was closely allied with al-Qaeda at the time.

Muttawakil sent an emissary to pass this information on to the US Consul General, and another US official. Sources confirmed that this message was received.

[Independent, 9/7/02, Reuters, 9/7/02]

In other words, since the Taliban warned the United States that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America proves that the Taliban already had evidence that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.

Bush didn't fall for the Taliban's game and as a result, they paid the price.

Now, let's go here.

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.

a reply to: skyeagle409

On December 26, 2001, according to "a leading Pakistani newspaper" story, a prominent Taliban official said he attended his funeral.

Bin Laden, in fact, was very ill with kidney disease. In September 2001, CBS News anchor Dan Rather reported that he was admitted to a Rawalpindi, Pakistan hospital on September 10, 2001, and France's Le Figaro said:

"Dubai....was the backdrop of a secret meeting between Osama bin Laden and the local CIA agent in July (2001). A partner of the administration of the American Hospital....claims that (bin Laden) stayed (there) between the 4th and 14th of July (and) received visits from many members of his family as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis. (During the same period), the local CIA agent, known to many in Dubai, was seen taking (the hospital's) main elevator (to) bin Laden's room."

Why not if he was a valued asset.

In July 2002, "CNN reported that (his) bodyguards had been captured in February of that year, adding: 'Sources believe that if the bodyguards were captured away from bin Laden, it is likely the most wanted man in the world is dead."

Finally, despite Washington offering a $25 million reward for information leading to his capture or killing, no one came forward.
(2) Testimonial evidence of his death:

In 2002, influential "people in a position to know" that he died included:

-- Pakistan President Musharraf;

-- FBI counterterrorism head Dale Watson;

-- Oliver North saying, "I'm certain that Osama is dead....and so are all the other guys I stay in touch with;"

-- Afghanistan President Karzai;

-- Israeli intelligence saying supposed bin Laden messages were fake; and

-- Pakistan's ISI "confirm(ing) the death of....Osama bin Laden (and) attribut(ing) the reasons behind Washington's hiding (the truth) to the desire of (America's hawks) to use the issue of al Qaeda and international terrorism to invade Iraq."

Other evidence includes former CIA case officer Robert Baer telling National Public Radio (NPR): "Of course he's dead."

www.freedomsphoenix.com...

a reply to: skyeagle409

Bin Laden Didn’t Do 9/11, says FBI

Bin Laden Didn’t Do 9/11, says FBI
May 6, 2011 by theupliftingcrane
FBI says (in 2006), it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”
(Highlights)

“Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Usama Bin Laden for the events of September 11, 2001, but the U.S. government has not? How is it that the FBI has no “hard evidence” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden – 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?

No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11… Think about it.

Did Osama Bin Laden even have anything to do with 9/11?
(Highlights)

Bin Laden, in a September 28, 2001 interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat, is reported to have said:

“I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.”

theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com...

a reply to: skyeagle409


Bin Laden says he wasn't behind attacks

September 17, 2001 Posted: 11:21 AM EDT (1521 GMT)

DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands.

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said.

Asked Sunday if he believed bin Laden's denial, President Bush said, "No question he is the prime suspect. No question about that."

Since Tuesday's terrorist attacks against the United States, Bush has repeatedly threatened to strike out against terrorism and any nation that supports or harbors its disciples.

Bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi-born exile, has lived in Afghanistan for several years. U.S. officials blame him for earlier strikes on U.S. targets, including last year's attack on the USS Cole in Yemen and the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998.

Bin Laden's campaign stems from the 1990 decision by Saudi Arabia to allow U.S. troops into the kingdom after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait -- a military presence that has become permanent.

In a 1997 CNN interview, bin Laden called the U.S. military presence an "occupation of the land of the holy places."

Immediately after the attacks that demolished the World Trade Center's landmark twin towers and seriously damaged the Pentagon, officials of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban said they doubted bin Laden could have been involved in carrying out the actions.

The Taliban -- the fundamentalist Islamic militia that seized power in Afghanistan in 1996 -- denied his ties to terrorism and said they have taken away all his means of communication with the outside world.

The repressive Taliban regime has received almost universal condemnation, particularly for their harsh treatment of women. Only three countries, including Pakistan, recognize them as the country's rightful government.

A high-level Pakistani delegation was set to travel to Afghanistan on Monday to urge Taliban supreme leader Mullah Mohammed Omar to hand over bin Laden, CNN learned Sunday.

The Taliban, which controls more than 90 percent of the country, has threatened any neighboring country that allows its soil to be used to help the United States stage an attack on Afghanistan.

www.cnn.com...:US

a reply to: skyeagle409

Ummat Interviews Usamah Bin-Ladin
28 September 2001

Bin-Ladin Denies Involvement in the 9/11 Attacks

The Al-Qaidah group had nothing to do with the 11 September attacks on the USA, according to Usama bin Ladin in an interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat. Usama bin Ladin went on to suggest that Jews or US secret services were behind the attacks, and to express gratitude and support for Pakistan, urging Pakistan’s people to jihad against the West. The following is the text of an interview conducted by a "special correspondent", published in the Pakistani newspaper Ummat on 28 September, place and date of interview not given.

UMMAT: You have been accused of involvement in the attacks in New York and Washington. What do you want to say about this? If you are not involved, who might be?

USAMA BIN LADEN: In the name of Allah (God), the most beneficent, the most merciful. Praise be to Allah, Who is the creator of the whole universe and Who made the Earth as an abode for peace, for the whole humankind. Allah is the Sustainer, who sent Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) for our guidance. I am thankful to the Ummat Group of Publications, which gave me the opportunity to convey my viewpoint to the people, particularly the valiant and momin (true Muslim) people of Pakistan who refused to believe the lies of the demon (Pakistani military dictator General Pervez Musharraf).

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle. It is the United States, which is perpetrating every maltreatment on women, children and common people of other faiths, particularly the followers of Islam. All that is going on in Palestine for the last 11 months is sufficient to call the wrath of God upon the United States and Israel. There is also a warning for those Muslim countries, which witnessed all these as a silent spectator. What had earlier been done to the innocent people of Iraq, Chechnya and Bosnia? Only one conclusion could be derived from the indifference of the United States and the West to these acts of terror and the patronage of the tyrants by these powers that America is an anti-Islamic power and it is patronizing the anti-Islamic forces. Its friendship with the Muslim countries is just a show, rather deceit. By enticing or intimidating these countries, the United States is forcing them to play a role of its choice. Put a glance all around and you will see that the slaves of the United States are either rulers or enemies of Muslims.

www.911review.com...

Enough with the OS fallacies.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Is Bin Laden Really Dead? New Evidence No One Saw his Body

Now that we know Obama lies, it’s time to ask if, just maybe, the situation room image wasn’t the only fake. From the beginning, there have been questions about Osama bin Ladin’s body. The American people never saw a single image of bin Laden’s body. It would be too disgusting, we were told, although nobody ever explained why it couldn’t have been blurred where it was too gross. (Interestingly, American people, who understand the difference between dead enemies and innocent victims, handled remarkably well the image of Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s battered body, following the Watertown shoot-out.)

mrconservative.com...

I don't Liston to mainstream media because they lie. They are nothing more than a propaganda machine.

a reply to: Informer1958

On December 26, 2001, according to "a leading Pakistani newspaper" story, a prominent Taliban official said he attended his funeral.

Bin Laden, in fact, was very ill with kidney disease. In September 2001, CBS News anchor Dan Rather reported that he was admitted to a Rawalpindi, Pakistan hospital on September 10, 2001, and France's Le Figaro said:

Now, for the rest of the story.

Osama bin Laden Dialysis Rumor

Peter Bergen led a CNN team into Afghanistan to interview bin Laden in 1997. Bin Laden appeared healthy and strong; neither the reporters nor bin Laden mentioned dialysis or kidney trouble.

Even bin Laden's longtime associates dispute the kidney ailment meme. Saudi newspaper editor Khaled Batarfi has known bin Laden for two decades, ever since the two were neighbors in the Saudi port city of Jeddah. He told the Sunday Tasmanian, an Australian newspaper, that bin Laden "does not suffer from kidney disease."

Foreign government officials who have met bin Laden also insist that he has no problems with his kidneys. Bin Laden lived in Sudan from 1991 to May 1996. I interviewed political leaders and intelligence officials there who knew him. Gutbi al-Mahdi, Sudan's former intelligence chief, told me bin Laden had no health problems during his time in Sudan. In fact, every Sudanese I spoke with denied that bin Laden had any health problems, let alone a kidney ailment requiring dialysis.

Bin Laden himself is of the same opinion. Hamid Mir, an intrepid Pakistani journalist who writes for the Pakistani daily Dawn, landed one of the only two authentic post?September 11 interviews with the world's most wanted man.

In the course of the wide-ranging interview, Mr. Mir asked bin Laden about his kidneys: "A French newspaper has claimed that you have a kidney problem and have secretly gone to Dubai for treatment last year [2000]. Is that correct?" Bin Laden responded: "My kidneys are all right. I did not go to Dubai last year.

Dr. Amer Aziz

Strongly sympathetic to radical Islam, Aziz had treated bin Laden for years. He reportedly admitted to visiting bin Laden after the September 11 attacks. Upon his release, he talked freely to Paul Haven of the Associated Press in November 2002. The doctor said he had given bin Laden a "complete physical" in 1999 and treated him for back injuries after bin Laden was thrown from a horse. "His kidneys were fine," the doctor told Mr. Haven.

He said "If you're on dialysis, you have a special look. I didn't see any of that," and added that bin Laden "was walking. He was healthy." Aziz was emphatic: "I did not see any evidence of kidney disease; I didn't see any evidence of dialysis."

-- legions of Westerners have bought the story that bin Laden is on dialysis, with no proof at all.

www.washingtontimes.com...

a reply to: Informer1958

Bin-Ladin Denies Involvement in the 9/11 Attacks

Now, for the rest of the story.

Bin Laden's Fatwa

The following text is a fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi, a London-based newspaper. The fatwa is entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."

www.pbs.org...

Osama bin Laden got his war with the United States, which resulted wirh him losing his life and the rest is history.

Bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11

Usama bin Laden (search ) made his first televised appearance in more than a year Friday in which he admitted for the first time ordering the Sept. 11 attacks and accused President Bush of "misleading" the American people.

Injecting himself into the campaign four days ahead of the presidential election, bin Laden said the United States can avoid another Sept. 11-style attack if it stops threatening the security of Muslims.

www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: skyeagle409

Apparently you don't know the different between "yellow journalism" and opinionated smut.
That is what your New Source is

Osama debunks a myth

www.washingtontimes.com...

I'll let the casual ATSers decide who is telling the truth here.

a reply to: Informer1958

Is Bin Laden Really Dead?

He is dead now.

Osama bin Laden was once Head of al-Qaeda, and even al-Qaeda confirmed that the United States took out bin Laden.

Al Qaeda Confirms Bin Laden’s Death

Al Qaeda released a statement on militant Web sites Friday confirming the death of Osama bin Laden, according to the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadi Web sites. The lengthy statement, dated May 3 and signed by Al Qaeda’s General Command, warned of new attacks and called on the Pakistani people to rebel against their government to protest its relations with the United States.

Bin Laden was killed in a United States raid early Monday morning in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

According to a translation provided by SITE, which ran more than three pages, the statement said that Al Qaeda would not die with its founder and that its members would “continue on the path of jihad.” Bin Laden’s blood, they added, would not be “wasted in vain.”

www.nytimes.com...

Proof that Osama bin Laden did not die in 2001 of kidney disease.