Author Topic: US finally kills its own creation (Ben Laden) Dead (Read 3699 times)

joseph · « **Reply #100 on:** May 07, 2011, 09:52:48 PM »

salam,

911 happened a plane hit the towers and the pentagon which should be destroyed was hit. but the american government knew about the attack it is widely reported everywhere that bush recieved a memo about 911 before the operation saying something like osama bin laden wants to attack america with planes, and the bin laden group which is the company of osama's family has substantial dealings with bush and the zionists that work with bush, and shiekh anwar awlaki the commander of al qaeda in arabia met in the whtie house after 911 and that is reported in fox news. and adam gaddan the official spokesman of al qaeda is a jew whose father was a member of the adl a fanatical zionist organization. and al qaeda was created by the cia and isi in the 80s .

Ayyash · « **Reply #101 on:** May 07, 2011, 10:32:33 PM »

Quote from: YMJ on May 07, 2011, 08:56:36 PM

They were hit at the top, yet they fell straight into their own footprint at the same rate of gravity WHEN CORRECTED FOR FRICTION OF AIR.

The towers didn't fall at free fall, what you're seeing is debris.

Source and explanation: http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

Quote from: YMJ on May 07, 2011, 08:56:36 PM

What massive structural damage you see in the videos ? there is one small fire and no structural damage. Show me structural damage and even then, show me structural damage at each and every single floor, for it to fall in its footprint, one after another, in order for it to fall at free fall pace, WHEN CORRECTED FOR THE AIR FRICTION.

WTC 7 was hit by debris from the falling towers like many of the buildings surrounding the twin towers. However, it was also the victim of a fire fed by diesel fuel

Source and Full Explanation: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center#wtc7

Also: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Quote from: YMJ on May 07, 2011, 08:56:36 PM

And fire can melt steel? Since when and in WTC7 there was jet fuel? Since when?

The whole debate over the "melting point of steel" is deceptive as fire doesn't need to melt something to weaken it. For instance metal warps and expands when heated.

Source and Explanation: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center#steel
Note that the above link is talking about why jet fuel didn't need to melt the steel of the two towers, but the the principles apply to WTC 7 as well.

Also: http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

Quote from: YMJ on May 07, 2011, 08:56:36 PM

Isn't the fuselage located in the back? The cone head of the plane also would be fluff as you say, but what about the engines?

So the engines are fluff too?

"A Trent 900 series engine found in the Airbus A380 weighs in at 13,842lbs."

Not even a spec on the wall.

Except that's not the case, there is damage to the Pentagon, you can even see pictures with bits of engine in the Pentagon.

Source and Explanation: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon#bigplane

Also: http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

Ayyash · « **Reply #102 on:** May 07, 2011, 10:37:10 PM »

Also, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for an explanation of your interpretation of what happened.

For instance, Joseph is articulating something that is much more believable, (albeit, still fictitious) when compared to a theory talking about Aliens from the 4th dimension which represent the far-out theories.

It's also a lot easier to poke holes in another explanation then actually have to defend one which is where most 911 "truther" theories fall apart.

IronHorse110 · « **Reply #103 on:** May 07, 2011, 11:25:36 PM »

Quote

The towers didn't fall at free fall, what you're seeing is debris.

The debris are falling with each floor. With the exact same rate of gravity.

What was the coefficient of friction for each floor?

Quote

WTC 7 was hit by debris from the falling towers like many of the buildings surrounding the twin towers. However, it was also the victim of a fire fed by diesel fuel

Debris damaged the superficial structure, not the Steele frame structure. There is no evidence to show it was damaged, except for some minor fire.

Fire can't bring down a building, it might weaken the steel in its surrounding, but not melt EACH and every steel structure for each floor enough for the building to implode in its footprint at the same rate of gravity.

Quote

The whole debate over the "melting point of steel" is deceptive as fire doesn't need to melt something to weaken it. For instance metal warps and expands when heated.

It might weaken it, but not melt it for it to give away. If it did, you would see more buildings fall due to fire. Which has not happened ever before, let alone 3 times in one day.

Also, it can not weaken every single steel structure from top down.

Quote

Note that the above link is talking about why jet fuel didn't need to melt the steel of the two towers, but the the principles apply to WTC 7 as well.

It will weaken it, but not melt it. If it can not melt it, how could there be molten steel found at the very bottom of the pile of debris?

This has lead many to believe thermite was used.

Again, if fire weakens steel enough for a steel structure to give away, how come it has never happened before to much weaker buildings.

Also, not all the steel framework would be weak and would cause resistance.

Simple question, what was the coefficient of friction for each floor. If it showed resistance, how much was it, if you negate air friction.

It was zero, because each floor was taken out right before the one from the top met it. That is why it continued to accelerate downwards in its own footprint.

Quote

Except that's not the case, there is damage to the Pentagon, you can even see pictures with bits of engine in the Pentagon.

There is no damage from the engines of the planes, non.

There is however a video of a missile hitting the pentagon.

Popular mechanics is a mass media network show, there is no credibility in the same media which sold you WMD's in Iraq.

http://www.ae911truth.org/


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8182697765360042032	Small \| Large

Crazy Ivan · « **Reply #104 on:** May 08, 2011, 12:21:06 AM »

Quote from: YMJ on May 07, 2011, 11:25:36 PM

Popular mechanics is a mass media network show, there is no credibility in the same media which sold you WMD's in Iraq.

Now you're just throwing BS around.

Nightstrike · « **Reply #105 on:** May 08, 2011, 02:07:16 AM »

I guess the latest high def video releases prove that Bin Laden did infact live beyond 2001. Then again, it could be the boogeyman on tape $:-\$


Newly released video of Osama bin Laden

Now compare this video to the one above, and the Osama on Ice theory is debunked


Osama Bin Laden On 9/11	Small \| Large

IronHorse110 · « **Reply #106 on:** May 08, 2011, 11:29:36 AM »

Americans buy into this crap, probably because they've been dumbed down by their mass media networks and crumbling education system.

maiser · « **Reply #107 on:** May 08, 2011, 01:27:51 PM »

Quote from: Ayyash on May 07, 2011, 10:09:29 AM

Tell you what, if OBL comes out with another video confirming he's alive then I'll believe you. Up until that point, I'm going to assume we got 'em.

I dont think he died the 2nd May, that's all i said earlier. What you are indicating is that i believe he is still alive, which is not my viewpoint.

Did you read these two article's? http://gregoryfegel.sulekha.com/blog/post/2011/05/many-discrepancies-in-white-house-story-of-osama-bin.htm

http://gregoryfegel.sulekha.com/blog/post/2011/05/former-u-s-deputy-assistant-secretary-of-state-says.htm

Ayyash · « **Reply #108 on:** May 08, 2011, 02:36:12 PM »

Quote from: maiser on May 08, 2011, 01:27:51 PM

I dont think he died the 2nd May, that's all i said earlier. What you are indicating is that i believe he is still alive, which is not my viewpoint.

Did you read these two article's?

I think it was inevitable that the story was incorrect in some details when it was first released. Obama's speech happened before the SEAL team even returned to the states for debriefing; it would be impossible to know what actually went down. If you ever played the game "telephone" as a kid you know just how garbled a message can get when it gets transferred from one person to another. Now imagine it going from a soldier on the ground during the operation, to the commanding officer overseeing the operation, to a pentagon liason, then to Obama.

Every major event (911 included) had these types of early reporting followed by retractions and corrections followed by the same cycle again.

Ayyash · « **Reply #109 on:** May 08, 2011, 02:37:22 PM »

YMJ

Go read the sources for the points I made, I can assure you that they answer all your questions.

Pasdar · « **Reply #110 on:** May 08, 2011, 06:54:26 PM »

'Bin Laden dead long before US raid'

Iran's intelligence minister says the country has reliable information that former head of the al-Qaeda terrorist group Osama bin Laden died of disease some time ago.

“We have accurate information that bin Laden died of illness some time ago,” Heidar Moslehi told reporters on the sidelines of a Cabinet meeting on Sunday.

He questioned Washington's claim that bin Laden was killed by American troops in a hiding compound in Pakistan on May 1.

“If the US military and intelligence apparatus have really arrested or killed bin Laden, why don't they show him (his dead body) why have they thrown his corpse into the sea?” Moslehi asked.

“When we apprehended [former Jundallah ringleader Abdul Malik] Rigi, we showed him and also aired his interview,” ISNA quoted the intelligence chief as saying.

By releasing such false news, he said, the White House seeks to overshadow regional awakening.

Moslehi said US officials resort to such PR campaigns to divert attention from their domestic problems as well as their “fragile” economic situation.

US President Barack Obama claimed that Osama bin Laden was killed by US forces on May 1 in a hiding compound in Pakistan.

A US official later announced that bin Laden's body was abruptly buried at sea, falsely boasting that his hasty burial was in accordance with the Islamic law, requiring burial within 24 hours of death.

However, burial at sea is not an Islamic practice and Islam does not have a timeframe for burial.

US officials also claimed their decision for a sea burial was made because no country would accept bin Laden's remains, without elaborating on which countries were actually contacted on the matter.

Analysts, however, have raised serious questions as to why US officials did not allow for the application of a DNA test to officially confirm the identity of the corpse before its hasty burial.

http://presstv.com/detail/178898.html

IronHorse110 · « **Reply #111 on:** May 08, 2011, 07:43:38 PM »

Quote from: Ayyash on May 08, 2011, 02:37:22 PM

YMJ

Go read the sources for the points I made, I can assure you that they answer all your questions.

I have read all of them before.

They create doubt, but nothing concrete.

It doesn't answer key SCIENTIFIC points. Like steel won't melt because of hydrocarbon fire, yet molten steel was found in the rubbles way in excess of the heat which could be created by a jet fuel fire. The jet fuel fire also lacked enough oxygen to get near 500 degrees Celsius and that is witnessed from the black smoke.

It also does not explain how much each floor resisted the fall, they can easily calculate the friction that each floor would cause. Each floor should show resistance to the 'falling debris' or floors, since the other floors structure were completely intact and the thermal conductivity (heat flow) of steel wouldn't allow the complete transfer of heat from the impacted floors, to the rest of the floors. Therefore the steel and the steel structures of each floor below it would be intact and show resistance to falling debris.

This resistance of each floor can be calculated and a coefficient for the friction caused by each floor can be calculated to see how much each floor resisted.

If the fall continues to accelerate, which it did, that means the floors did not resist to cause friction.

Although coefficient of friction relates to materials surface friction, it can still be calculated (theoretically) for the friction each floor would cause of the falling 'debris'.

When you take into account air resistance and correct the fall for air resistance, you see that the towers fell at free fall speed.

This can only be achieved if each floor gives away, right before impact of the floor above it therefore causing no resistance and a continues acceleration, at the rate of gravity when corrected for air resistance.

Ayyash · « **Reply #112 on:** May 08, 2011, 08:24:18 PM »

Quote from: YMJ on May 08, 2011, 07:43:38 PM

It doesn't answer key SCIENTIFIC points. Like steel won't melt because of hydrocarbon fire, yet molten steel was found in the rubbles way in excess of the heat which could be created by a jet fuel fire. The jet fuel fire also lacked enough oxygen to get near 500 degrees Celsius and that is witnessed from the black smoke.

Here is a source that answers your question exactly:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

Quote from: YMJ on May 08, 2011, 07:43:38 PM

It also does not explain how much each floor resisted the fall, they can easily calculate the friction that each floor would cause. Each floor should show resistance to the 'falling debris' or floors, since the other floors structure were completely intact and the thermal conductivity (heat flow) of steel wouldn't allow the complete transfer of heat from the impacted floors, to the rest of the floors. Therefore the steel and the steel structures of each floor below it would be intact and show resistance to falling debris.
...

As for the notion of free-fall, I suggest you read the the document from "Debunking 9/11" more closely because it tackles exactly what you're talking about - the physics of the collapse. In fact, it cites a paper that explains it in even greater detail: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

It even takes into account the factors that you mention including air resistance and the effort invested in crushing the floors.

maiser · « **Reply #113 on:** May 08, 2011, 08:35:36 PM »

Quote from: Ayyash on May 08, 2011, 02:36:12 PM

I think it was inevitable that the story was incorrect in some details when it was first released. Obama's speech happened before the SEAL team even returned to the states for debriefing; it would be impossible to know what actually went down. If you ever played the game "telephone" as a kid you know just how garbled a message can get when it gets transferred from one person to another. Now imagine it going from a soldier on the ground during the operation, to the commanding officer overseeing the operation, to a pentagon liason, then to Obama.

Every major event (911 included) had these types of early reporting followed by retractions and corrections followed by the same cycle again.

I find it unusual that a government that is the worlds most powerful, cant wait until they know for sure what has been done in a special operation before they go to the media with the story... Basically you are saying that the president was guessing(and unprepared). That seams very unprofessional and unusual from a character like Obama. I find all this very hard to believe.

Im just wondering, are you listening to yourself excusing your government? Shouldn't you be worried about what is going on instead of apologizing for your governments behaviour?

Ayyash · « **Reply #114 on:** May 08, 2011, 08:41:51 PM »

Quote from: maiser on May 08, 2011, 08:35:36 PM

I find it unusual that a government that is the worlds most powerful, cant wait until they know for sure what has been done in a special operation before they go to the media with the story... Basically you are saying that the president was guessing. That seams very unprofessional and unusual from a character like Obama.

Im just wondering, are you listening to yourself excusing your government? Shouldn't you be worried about what is going on instead of apologizing for your governments behaviour?

Some might argue that announcing it as soon as it's been confirmed has the priority, some might argue that making sure everything is right, Swing too far to the first pole and you get something like Debka that prints any rumor or allegation surrounding Iran's weapons development, alternately, if you swing too far to the second pole, you'll end up with a situation where nothing get's released because weeks and months have to be spent tracking down every lead to confirm it with every possible source.

Whether or not we think that Obama's choice to announce it when he did was a good or a bad decision, it was by no means unprecedented which is what actually matters.

For instance, take a look at the 1972 Munich hostage crisis where it was first reported that all the hostages were safe and had been rescued when in reality they had been killed. It was the exact same situation where rapid developments in a tactical situation created a fog of war which led to reporting of incorrect facts.

IronHorse110 · « **Reply #115 on:** May 08, 2011, 08:46:25 PM »

Quote from: Ayyash on May 08, 2011, 08:24:18 PM

Here is a source that answers your question exactly:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html
As for the notion of free-fall, I suggest you read the the document from "Debunking 9/11" more closely because it tackles exactly what you're talking about - the physics of the collapse. In fact, it cites a paper that explains it in even greater detail: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

It even takes into account the factors that you mention including air resistance and the effort invested in crushing the floors.

It doesn't take into account air resistance.

"Direct observation tells us that the Twin Towers both collapsed in a time a few
seconds greater than the 9.1 second free fall time of an object dropped from a height of
416 meters onto a base about 10 meters high."

"We conclude that air resistance is not a significant factor in the collapse of the
WTC"

maiser · « **Reply #116 on:** May 08, 2011, 08:51:33 PM »

Quote from: Ayyash on May 08, 2011, 08:41:51 PM

Some might argue that announcing it as soon as it's been confirmed has the priority, some might argue that making sure everything is right, Swing too far to the first pole and you get something like Debka that prints any rumor or allegation surrounding Iran's weapons development, alternately, if you swing too far to the second pole, you'll end up with a situation where nothing get's released because weeks and months have to be spent tracking down every lead to confirm it with every possible source.

Whether or not we think that Obama's choice to announce it when he did was a good or a bad decision, it was by no means unprecedented which is what actually matters.

Im impressed how good you are at ignoring how sensitive a case we are speaking about here. This is a very delicate thing, taking out the "enemy #1". I find your arguments very apologetic in bias of your government, to say the least. You might claim i am similar in my view, but let me remind you what we are talking about here.... A enemy #1 was allegedly taken out, but his remains was thrown at the sea, no show-trial or anything like that. And all the backtracking and info on Bin Laden death from 2001 and so on.... You realize its at least biased, to ignore all the wrongs of the official story and the whole situation surrounding it?

ZamZam · « **Reply #117 on:** May 08, 2011, 09:30:57 PM »

i noticed the released video of "osama" shows 110v plugs Pakistan has 220v 50 hz power and uses different outlets.

look top right

Chords look brand new still with creases and zig zag

us/canada is 110V holywood set anyone?

Nightstrike · « **Reply #118 on:** May 08, 2011, 11:07:10 PM »

Sina,

looks like europlugs to me , which are standard in pakistan.

Ayyash · « **Reply #119 on:** May 08, 2011, 11:49:13 PM »

Quote from: maiser on May 08, 2011, 08:51:33 PM

Im impressed how good you are at ignoring how sensitive a case we are speaking about here. This is a very delicate thing, taking out the "enemy #1". I find your arguments very apologetic in bias of your government, to say the least. You might claim i am similar in my view, but let me remind you what we are talking about here.... A enemy #1 was allegedly taken out, but his remains was thrown at the sea, no show-trial or anything like that. And all the backtracking and info on Bin Laden death from 2001 and so on.... You realize its at least biased, to ignore all the wrongs of the official story and the whole situation surrounding it?

Everything speculating on Bin Ladens death pre-2011 was just that, speculation. Plenty of people thought that Bin Laden died in the Tora Bora in 2001, then again, you'll also find plenty of people who believed that he was alive and well in Pakistan. Our intelligence on OBL and AQ was far from perfect during these interim years, and still is, so it's unsurprising there are numerous conflicting intelligence reports.

Like I said, numerous conflicting reports may seem odd to you, but really, they're expected when talking about such a short time-line. Obama's speech came before the SEALs could be given a proper AAR. You may think that's dumb on Obama's part, and I'll probably even agree with you on that. However whether or not it was a "dumb" choice doesn't disprove the fact that it was inevitable that there would be discontinuities as more and more information was revealed.

Ayyash · « **Reply #120 on:** May 08, 2011, 11:52:40 PM »

Quote from: YMJ on May 08, 2011, 08:46:25 PM

It doesn't take into account air resistance.

"Direct observation tells us that the Twin Towers both collapsed in a time a few
seconds greater than the 9.1 second free fall time of an object dropped from a height of
416 meters onto a base about 10 meters high."

"We conclude that air resistance is not a significant factor in the collapse of the
WTC"

Check out p. 25 on the report by Greening

I'll quote their conclusions which are supported by the calculations in the document:

Quote

Clearly, for this case, air resistance is negligible compared to the downward force of gravity
...
Thus the air resistance force is about 100 times greater than the first case because of the
higher velocity; but even this value of FU is only 1.5 % of the downward accelerating
force. We conclude that air resistance is not a significant factor in the collapse of the
WTC.

This clearly answers your contention

The bottom line is that the towers didn't fall at free-fall (accounting for air resistance) velocities.

IronHorse110 · « **Reply #121 on:** May 09, 2011, 04:07:56 AM »

Quote from: Ayyash on May 08, 2011, 11:52:40 PM

Check out p. 25 on the report by Greening

I'll quote their conclusions which are supported by the calculations in the document:
This clearly answers your contention

The bottom line is that the towers didn't fall at free-fall (accounting for air resistance) velocities.

Fact is they did. Buildings with steel structure frames, which were meant to be burned, take a hit of a plane, etc etc.

Free fall speed is 9.1 seconds, they fell in 11 to 12 seconds, almost at free fall speed in a vacuum.

Air resistance is always important in calculating anything that falls. What they accounted for was the air resistance holding the energy of the falling building and since the mass is such a great amount, the force is much much higher than the resistance against it, but it does not mean that the air resistance did not slow it down.

Each floor showed slowed down the fall and force the rest of the mass to fall sideways, therefore taking away from the kinetic energy that would be placed on the floor beneath it.

The fact that the two planes hit, TWO different buildings in TWO different manner, but you get the SAME collapse, in the SAME manner, in the SAME time frame is just a little bit more than fishy, but not to Americans who still think there are WMD's in Iraq and Vietnam attacked them first and actually think Bin Laden was killed in a raid, JUST a year before elections.

FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER a building collapsing due to fire, THREE times.. when steel wouldn't have melted from the deoxygenated fire that was burning and it would not have transfered the heat even 10 floors below it, meaning the structural integrity of the rest of the steel frame structure would have been intact.

The sources you gave me merely create a doubt by brining in numbers which can be manipulated very easily.

Those buildings imploded into its own footprint, when it shouldn't have and couldn't have.

Ayyash · « **Reply #122 on:** May 09, 2011, 04:52:58 AM »

The fact of the matter is that you're ignoring hard data and qualitative analysis because of your pre-conceived ideological notions. You have yet to produce any evidence for your assertion beyond writing "they were in free-fall". The only piece of the evidence in this discussion so far is one that shows overwhelmingly that they did not fall at free-fall speeds.

Do they factor in air resistance? Yes, but they deem it to be too small to have a substantial effect. They did calculate it out which is something you're choosing to ignore.

Did they account for the different floors? Yes, it's all there. You would know that if you read the document.

Let me repeat, everything you're saying so far is pure, unsubstantiated speculation with absolutely zero proof provided for it. Until you're able to provide something approximating it none of your assertions can hold water.

MO_SOBOH · « **Reply #123 on:** May 09, 2011, 07:32:45 AM »

Quote from: Nightstrike on May 06, 2011, 01:14:47 PM

And in your opinion how was this carried out and by who?

was there any ''real'' hijackings? (in your opinion)

If I were to go with any theory I also said it before, ill go with Loose change theory, I think they hit the nail on the head, usually people cant argue with their theory isntead they start to criticise the age of the people who came up with the theory! which is sad! No one flew the planes, your government actually flew them remotely! To manoeuvre planes like that under these circumstances is not impossible, but extremely difficult! Its almost unbelievable! Especially the pentagon trajectory flight path!!

MO_SOBOH · « **Reply #124 on:** May 09, 2011, 07:50:33 AM »

Quote from: mamdali on May 06, 2011, 06:55:54 PM

Mo, countering something that doesn't warrant countering is a waste of time. You're basically saying the sky is made of halvah and then asking someone to 'counter' that. That's setting your expectations a bit too high. I've already wasted time.... But I'll tell you what: prove the sky is not made of halvah, then we can move to the towers. Please consider how you come across when you talk about 9/11. At the end the burden is on you to prove the nonobvious and not on us to prove the obvious. And of course you havent done that. You are deeply mistaken if what you claim is any less outrageous and flooky than a halvah sky.

Mamdali

Mamdali,

Did you get insulted by the truth? lol im laughing at ur reply thousands of miles away not even giving u the slight need of attention... and really ur post is an attention seekers post! you to attack me personally and you claim in other words that im in cookoo land! fine do it! No offence taken, but I do find it DUMB from your end to attack me instead of attacking my post and my source! I gave it to you yet u didnt even read it! usually im sure ur a reader, but for once ask ur self this do you really want to know the truth??? and if you did what the HELL are you going to do about it?? ALOT of people here in this forum talk the talk but dont walk the walk!!!! but just to fill ur curiosity and answer ur dumb question that a baby can answer with logic, (notice until now I havent insulted u) I would like to bring in attention this very good example in order for you to understand the clear size and scale of the inside job, If the "holocaust" ever existed in that large scale criminal activity to exterminate the Jews in that scale then why is it so hard for you to believe that a nation is capable of committing a crime in this scale! Think about it, I can also debunk the holocaust with your idiotic logic! The same counter argument u use with me on the 911 I can use on the holocaust! The holocaust is actually worst, for a nation to kill over 6,000,000 jews and for no one in that clear state of mind to have remorse for the dead and being gassed?? lol ur funny guy!

Mamdali,

save ur expert info for the weak!