9/11 landfill (or, as we prefer to call it, the STUPID thread)

W4d5Y

W4d5Y

Newbie
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
479
Reaction score
1
A total classic, while I have no opinion on this critical topic, it's worth reading and finding out what deception of truth lies behind all this.
From the insight mag. Their site by now is defunct, this is a saved article.
FBI Denies Mix-Up Of 9/11 Terrorists

Posted June 11, 2003

By Timothy W. Maier
FBI Director Mueller acknowledged in 2002 there was no �legal proof to prove the identities of the hijackers.� Yet the bureau insists it correctly has identified them.
FBI Director Mueller acknowledged in 2002 there was no �legal proof to prove the identities of the hijackers.� Yet the bureau insists it correctly has identified them.
Nearly 48 hours after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the names of the hijackers flashed across TV screens for the world to see. Based on intelligence information gained from interviews, witnesses, flight-manifest logs and passports found at some of the crash debris sites, the FBI claimed it correctly had identified all 18 hijackers. A short time later the number was amended to 19. A few days later the names were followed with photos of the men blamed for the terrorism that claimed nearly 3,000 lives in New York City, Washington and Pennsylvania. Incredibly fast intelligence work - some of the information coming from the National Ground Intelligence Center in Charlottesville, Va. - enabled investigators to tie the attack to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network.

While there is no doubt the hijackings were the work of al-Qaeda, questions remain about whether some of the hijackers actually were the men the FBI identified. Last year that doubt crept into the highest levels of law enforcement after a series of sensational news reports aired by the BBC, ABC and CNN, along with several British newspapers, cast suspicion on whether the FBI got it right. The reports suggested at least six of the men the FBI claimed were hijackers on the planes were in fact alive. They didn't survive the crashes, of course, but never boarded the planes.

The six claimed they were victims of identify theft. They were "outraged" to be identified as terrorists, they told the Telegraph of London. In fact, one of the men claimed he never had been to the United States, while another is a Saudi Airlines pilot who said he was in a flight-training course in Tunisia at the time of the attacks.

The stunning news prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to admit that some of the hijackers may have stolen identities of innocent citizens. In September 2002, Mueller told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers." After that admission a strange thing happened - nothing. No follow-up stories. No follow-up questions. There was dead silence and the story disappeared. It was almost as if no one wanted to know what had happened. In fact, the FBI didn't bother to change the names, backgrounds or photographs of the alleged 19 hijackers. It didn't even deny the news reports suggesting that the names and identities of at least six of the hijackers may be unknown. Mueller just left the door open.

Until now. Now the FBI is sticking with its original story - regardless of whether photographs displayed of the suspected Sept. 11 terrorists were of people who never boarded those planes and are very much alive. FBI spokesman Bill Carter simply brushes off as false the charges from news reports that the FBI misidentified some of the Sept. 11 terrorists. Carter says they got the names right and it doesn't matter whether the identities were stolen. This comes as a complete about-face from Mueller's comment that there might be some question about the names of the Sept. 11 terrorists because they might have been operating under stolen identities.

What does the FBI director think now? Mueller no longer is commenting on the charges. However, Carter insists the FBI got it right. End of story.

"There has been no change in thought about the identities of those who boarded those planes," Carter tells Insight. "It's like saying my name is John Smith. There are a lot of people with the name of John Smith, but they're not the same person."

What about Mueller's comments last year? "He might have told Congress [about the identity theft], but we have done a thorough investigation and we are confident," Carter says.

How can the FBI be sure that the 19 men it "identified" are indeed the hijackers? "Through extensive investigation," Carter insists. "We checked the flight manifests, their whereabouts in this country, and we interviewed witnesses who identified the hijackers."

But the series of stories last year prompted the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to investigate the claims, according to Paul Anderson, spokesman for Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who was chairman of the committee. Anderson says the committee apparently found nothing to dispute the FBI identification of the 19 named individuals.

But confusion remains, particularly for those who claim their names and backgrounds have been attached to a photo of a dead terrorist. The photo might be correct, they say, but the identification is not. The Saudi Arabian Embassy insists that some innocents have been maligned by a rush to identify the Sept. 11 perpetrators.

The six Saudis in question are:

# Abdul Aziz al-Omari was identified as one of the hijackers and the pilot who crashed American Airlines Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Another man with the same name is an electrical engineer in Saudi Arabia. He lived in Denver after earning a degree from the University of Colorado in 1993. Coincidence? Consider this oddity. ABC News has reported that his Denver apartment was broken into and his passport and other documents stolen in 1995. In September 2001 he told the Telegraph, "I couldn't believe it when the FBI put me on their list. They gave my name and my date of birth, but I am not a suicide bomber. I am here. I am alive. I have no idea how to fly a plane. I had nothing to do with this."

More disturbing is that the FBI accidentally may have fused two names to create one identity, because another man, Abdul Rahman al-Omari, who has a different birth date, is the person pictured by the FBI, but he still is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines. After his photograph was released, he walked into the U.S. Embassy in Jedda and demanded to know why he was being reported as a dead hijacker.

# Salem al-Hamzi was identified as one of the suspected hijackers on American Flight 77, the plane that was crashed into the Pentagon. Another man who has the same name works for the Saudi Royal Commission in Yanbu.

# Saeed al-Ghamdi reportedly was one of the alleged hijackers on United Airlines Flight 93, the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. He and another hijacker were said to have been in control of the plane when it was destroyed. A Saudi Arabian pilot has the same name.

# Ahmed al-Nami was identified as a hijacker on United Flight 93. He also may have been in control of the plane when it crashed. A Saudi Arabian pilot with the same name is alive in Riyadh.

# Wail al-Shehri was identified as one of the suspected hijackers on American Flight 11. He reportedly was in control of the plane when it crashed. Another Saudi man who is a pilot has the same name, and his father is a Saudi diplomat in Bombay. His picture was displayed by the FBI as the "terrorist" al-Shehri who crashed the plane. The al-Shehri who is alive had resided in Daytona Beach, Fla., where he enrolled in flight training at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. He currently works for a Moroccan airline. Last year the Associated Press reported that al-Shehri had spoken to the U.S. Embassy in Morocco. His photograph having been released and repeatedly shown around the world is evidence the man in the FBI photograph still is alive, the Saudi Embassy explains.

# Waleed M. al-Shehri, a name used by another suspected hijacker on American Flight 11, reportedly is the brother of Wail al-Shehri. The odd coincidence is that the other son of the diplomat father is named Waleed M. This prompted the BBC to report in 2001 that, "Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well."

The Saudi Embassy has said it believes that bin Laden's plan was to have the United States blame Saudi Arabia for the attacks. Embassy officials say that, based on the amount of hate mail they have received in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, that scheme has worked.

Timothy W. Maier is a writer for Insight.
email the author
Click to expand...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/fbi_denies_mix_up_of_911_terrorists.htm
 
goddamed why not not strip your clothes and put one of those "the end is near" stuff and scream all this in front of the white house

is getting annoying

and yes we know "is the truth and we have to fight this in the name of socialism-capitalism-anarchism-chrish rock etc...." but we dont care
 
Location: Munich, Bavaria, Germany


No wonder all his posts are about an attack on the USA.

Also, I blame video games on 9/11. Oh don't worry wads, Government controlled video games, that were played by Cho Seung Hui.
 
So if I question my governments reasoning for 9/11 I would be considered,,,What?
 
Wait, Wadsy's not under survallience anymore. :/
 
Wow, you're worse than Giuliani when it comes to mentioning 9/11... a feat I once thought impossible.
 
I doubt you could weak steel to that point, if you only have less than a third of the melting point temperature.
It was said that there was no indication by the NIST that there was sufficient heat to make the steel even lose half of its strength

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4W37g_uLYNs



alright, let's figure again what the NIST report said: "The results established that this tpye of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11."
NIST, page 143

Much of a false quotation. Or did I forget to quote the big NOT in red big letters at the end?




now, that is, what I call an outright lie and insanely false accusation.

Apart from some esoteric hillbillies on youtube, none of which are professors of physics who teached at MIT and serve the scholars for 9/11 truth movement, ALL of the 9/11 investigation sites explicitly point out they do not wish to be related to nukes, direct energy weapons or even worse, NO-PLANERS. THEY JUST DON'T.


ooooh clicky for 9/11 truth:
http://911proof.com/10.html
aaaaand some experts for your enjoyment here:
http://stj911.org/members/index.html
but wait, didn't I tell you the whole of NIST concluded they can't find out why the towers collapsed?

Here is the list of the people, who even you would find to be experts:
Frank W. Gayle
Richard J. Fields
William E. Luecke
Stephen B. Banovic
Timothy Foecke
Cristopher N. McCowan
Thomas A. Siewert
J. David McColskey

Now guess what? They WORK for NIST, THEY did the OFFICIAL report!
And what I quoted is an excerpt from their LATEST conclusions!
Now, I won't have to quote the whole 184 page report to tell you what they think: UNDER THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE DAY OF 9/11, THE TOWERS COULDN'T HAVE COLLAPSED. THAT'S WHAT THE NIST BELIEVES.

Are they crazy paranoids now, too??

[Note, that given they temperatures were below 600? degrees, now figure that this could not have melted aluminium, which melts at 660? celsius.
But what do we have here?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_wVLeKwSkXA

Either this is proof that the temperatures were in fact higher than 600? degrees and the NIST is incredibly wrong (again).
Or, if you are on the conspiracy theorists' side, it is another indication of a physical oddity concerning the matter of the towers.

My thoughts on this:
My take is, it's interesting this event happened right before the collapse.
I don't know wether a possible thermite charge would be placed in the outer edge of the tower's exterior trusses, the corner collumns would be weight-bearing then. (excuse me my possible grammar errors!:flame:)

Now, any other place would probably be out of the question, since the exterior trusses are structurally uninteresting, and the core collumns after all were the designated target of the plane, so any charges there could have set off too early, destructing the towers too quick and thereby sparking questions.
So, *maybe* corner collumns/trusses are even plausible.
But an intersting point is, that the temperatures, no matter how hot they could have gotten in the rest of the affected stories, probably was lowest in the impact zone itself, by the time the tower collapsed.
Why I believe this? Check this mother out:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_woman.html
scroll down a bit...yeah, nice and smooth...
And what do we have? A woman standing in the middle of the building's debris and scorched plane wreckage. But is it hot?
Nah, she neither looks burnt, nor does it seem to dangerous for her to rest her arm on one of the scorched collumns:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_woman.jpg

Now, picture this...The impact zone was the area that was heavily damaged, but since all the plane fuel exploded there, this area totally burnt out and while it was the worst affected by the plane, it would be the safest from the fires by the time of the collapse.

But how could it be plane debris?
This molten...something flows out of the fassade that flight 175 crashed into. In the corner located to the far left of the impact area.
If you imagine a blueprint of the affected stories, you can imagine how the plane enters the building, then obliterates into single pieces of debris, spreading over a triangular shape through the remainder of the building...

But this place, where the molten metal flows from is a location with the least probability of finding plane debris in.

And picture this; if they (the towers) should have been able to take the damage and remain standing after a less-than-two-hour-long-office-fire;
then how could it be possible to accept that a building like world trade center 7 could have collapsed, which took far far far less damage than one given single story of the impact zone of either of the towers, and couldn't have completely collapsed since the videos cleary show that no matter how bad it might have been hit, at least two thirds of the building were intact by the time it all miraculously came down, all of the perimeter collumns and trusses failing at the same time:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=F6QV6LK8j1Q
(I just learned there was an explosion 9 seconds before wtc 7 came down. Similiar accustic events occured before the collapse of the south tower (dunno know which fell first/was hit second, while it should be noted that one can speculate that these were just trusses failing), not to forget the extensive exlosive events having occured way below the impact area of the towers)

Anyway, half of the victims' families doubt the government's official version: http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/aj_2006-07-07_clipped.mp3

So what does this tell us? Did they go crazy, too?

so does the 9/11 congressional comission itself:
http://911proof.com/6.html

And the conservatives:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/03/911-and-right.html
 
Guess what, this is now the official 9/11 thread (unless Pi closes it). Clearly, the fact that every such thread dies or explodes has not dissuaded you; in future, keep it all in here.

Any other threads on the fact that 9/11 was faked will be closed.
 
Don't give popular mechanics too much credit. They are using the pancake collapse theory to explain the collapse of the towers, while the ones responsible for this theory already retracted it...the NIST itself.

And yes, there sure is a whole lot that can be debunked. But think about strawmen arguments:
If everything the newsstations report is, that there actually is something like a movement suggesting no planes crashed into the towers, then of course the whole truth movement is discredited at once.

I know 911myths very well and I have watched parts of screw loose change, and I really like people, who find the truth, because by correcting false assumptions, we support the idea of trying to seek the truth.

But not even 911myths does explain, why it took the FBI so long to clear the mystery plane thing up, and why it initially edited testimony about that matter.
What the e-4b plane was about, why it was in the air and why that was covered up.

-If there is nothing to hide, then they would have nothing to hide! But they do anyway!-

Why was the C-130, that accompaigned flight 77 on its final approach to the pentagon flying in its radar shadow, flying a few hundred feet over it, not as if it was following, but guiding that plane into its target...

Also, once the FBI had come up with an explanation for this plane flying around, why was it the only plane that had (officially) been able to intercept any of the flights? (Remember, there was a white, unmarked plane with engines located at its tail-section over the flight 93 crash site)

And the FBI even tells us, one and the same plane witness both the crash of flight 77 and then the crash of 93, while 93 was, given the material available, probably shot down, and the plane that flew in the range of its crash site was also not a C-130 cargo plane (or a C-130 electronic warfare plane??) but something more akin to a lear-jet, while it hasn't yet been identified as such by anyone who saw it.

So, what they also lied to us about, regarding aeronautic anti-terrorism, is, that planes still can be tracked by radar, even with its transponders off.
And the government's account soon was, that they could only guess which route the planes exactely took, because they had no idea.

This claim has been refuted by a professional air-traffic controller, who himself believes, the planes could never have reached their destinations, if somebody hadn't hindered NORAD's work.

So why was it exactely that day that they had operation global guardian running, huh?
A live-fly wargame involving real airplanes as part of an air defense scenario.

It was officially reported that "blips", artificially inserted planes into air-traffic controllers' radarscreens, still were being cleansed from the radar screens until hours into the whole incident.

And you were also lied to about the planes because Cheney had flight 77 tracked on radar for at least 50 miles before it hit the pentagon.

This becomes obvious by Traffic minister Norman Mineta's account before the 9/11 comission.
Of course this wasn't implemented into the report, because it contradicts the official account, which is of course true.

No worries about all the fallacies concerning the timeline, the comission's concideration of taking legal actions because of the false statements NORAD and the FAA offered.

No worries why the CIA would interfer with the transmission of data about two of the 19 hijackers before 9/11 among the fbi.

Of coooouuuurse it was all clean as a baby's silk bottom.

Oh, what kind of intelligence, one way or other, do the americans have if you can't get the FBI to observe Zacarias Moussaoui after you warn you supervisors 70 ****ing times about his interest to fly a plane into the world trade center.


Why were jets scrambled in Langley, Virginia, if Andrews Air Force Base (I think edwards is the testing range at the west coast, is it?) had three F-16s at its conveniance?
Something that was later covered up by deleting a certain phrase on its own website prior to april 2001, that entry is now only visible on an internet archive.


I think, even after reading all of 911myths, and even after watching all of screw loose change, I will never give up the idea that all this stuff points to a conspiracy.



I doubt that, because for structural integrity to vanish, the integrity of the steel would've had to be compromised as well, which cannot happen with temperatures less than 600? degrees Celsius.
What really tears my brains apart is the fact, that with the second tower hit falling first, we see there had been dynamic damage...
Since the second tower had more weight to bear, its structure was first to fail.
So if somebody blew up the towers, he must have been pretty clever to decide which one was more likely to fail.

On the other hand, given that explosives were located in the towers, they probably were in place to damage the overall structure, to aid the later collapse, not to destruct the building in place. Picturing somebody would have blown up all of the *potential* explosives at once, the towers were more likely to collapse sooner, drawing too much attention on possible physical fallacies (which already exist), as would the massive explosive event created...
//edit: This also is another reason why I seriously doubt terrorists could be the source for explosive devices, which has been a futile claim made by debunkers, desperately seeking to find a reason why such thoughts ought to be skeptic about.

So apart from firefighters being thrown upwards stairs by explosive events below them and the burning tower section and other firefighters witnessing flashes as the towers failed, the thermite discussion is really exciting.

Dr. Steven Jones pointed out that the massive temperature pools located in the rubble of 1, 2 and 7 in the aftermath of 9/11 were consistant with the employment of thermite in their destruction.

Now, the funny thing is that since the NIST alleges the fires went out after twenty minutes and never were capable of even melting aluminium, how did those temperatures get there after the collapse?
(I heard a pretty interesting explanation from some debunker regarding the use of water to cool that rubble down and some odd exothermic chemical reaction, yet I cannot remember that one right.)

So what intrigues me about that famous thermite-video is, that this flowing metal stream comes out of the side of the building which was hit by the plane...
So the usual debunkers' attempt was, to explain that this more likely than molten steel was molten aluminium from the plane, since it has a lower melting point (660.3? Celsius).

Now two things, according to the NIST, there wasn't enough heat for any metal to melt at all, also, even if NIST was wrong about their conclusions regarding the fires, we all agree that since this molten stream of metal flows out of the side which the plane hit in, this side is less likely to have any aluminium debris.
In fact, on the stories which were affected by the plane's impact, this corner has the least probability of any other place in that area to feature plane debris.

Picture the impact, the plane comes in, fuel explodes, it obliterates into thousand pieces of debris, spreading in the back of the building, facing the impact zone.

I'm done here so far, I'll other stuff later. But please, you should read the longer entry on the first page again, it is all explained there.


Question remains, why is this stuff there if it is not supposed to be?
 
I've written enough on that topic no to believe any of that crap.
I already told you there's nothing to burn in the cores, so you just contradicted yourself, because you assume fire was the primary damage to the towers' structures despite the absence of such fires in the areas that later were to collapse.
And even if there still had been something to burn in the offices around the hit zone that didn't get incinerated immediately after the plane's impact and managed not to vanish in the following 30/100 minutes, it still account for fire (if there even had been any) damaging the cores, because there is just elevators and stairwells running there, there's nothing inflamable there, nada, njet, zero.

Just elevators and stairwells, AND massive steel collumns, and not just some "hollow steel shaft" as the Kean comission believes.
Tss.

No wonder they always wanted you sheeple to believe the storey trusses were the key to the physical explanation of the collapses.

Flight 93 was shot down, I struggled on the no-plane topic long enough but finally found enough hints to assume that flight 93 actually did crash in Shanksville (hooray!) yet not due to the circumstances the Kean Comission has alleged to be the causes of the plane's crashing.

I've read about the mayor pointing out he knew two people, whose names he didn't want others to know, one of them being a vietnam-vet, having heard a missile and that to his knowledge F-16s were close by.




Further,

Now please come up with some lame-ass explanation why that account was fabricated by the mayor of shanksville on the day of the attacks.

The article also sums up indications of a shoot-down having taken place (I already covered the lavatory-guy):



http://web.archive.org/web/20011119...ntent/daily_news/2001/11/18/local/SHOT15C.htm

Of course 911-myths has an totally logic explanation for the smoke in UA93.
The smoke was.... STEAM!! VAPOUR!!! AEROSOLE BIHYDROGENOXIDE!!!

Anyway...

Fires, 93, ah, building 7?

Okay, building 7, it definatively had some damage and had generators on the lower floors, but I doubt that incinerated fuel or exploding generators could simply slice steal collumns.

If that was true, controlled demolitions wouldn't require precisely timed high-speed explosives distributed all over the building's structure and manually burried inside the collumns.
They'd just spill a few thousand litres of fuel as a relatively slow explosive agent around the lobby and light that up, and there it goes, that lovely building.
Now no matter how badly the south-face of WTC7 was damaged, more than a half of the building still was structurally intact and didn't show any fires.

So sure you can argue that the building was not indestructable (although it was a pretty hefty design, just picture Rudy's bunker on the 23rd floor), I do not oppose that point, it simply is worth mentioning that it appears odd -at last it appears so to me- that the untouched side of the building will collapse almost instantly as the other, way more badly damaged one does.






[emphasis added]


[emphasis added]




These are members of the 9/11 family steering comitee, which has criticized the kean comission for omission of important information regarding the september 11th attacks, some of which numerous FBI members and other whistleblowers offered.

A list of the whistleblowers, uncovering blatant government incompetence and obstruction of FBI investigations, I am aware of:

-Colleen Rowley (sent a 13-page memo to the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, on may 21nd of 2002 complaining about the FBI-headquarters' stonewalling of Moussaoui related Fbi-investigations. Mueller immediately classified the document as "secret", however it also was distributed to the Senate intelligence comittee.

-Kenneth Williams, he wrote the famous phoenix memo, and sent it to the FBIHQ on july 10, 2001, requesting, after a 7-year investigation, that flight schools in arizona be monitored because they had muslims taking flight lessons there (Hani Hanjour turned out to be one of them, the guy who flew AA77 -with amazing skill- into the e-ring of the pentagon)
His memo mentioned Bin Laden and alarmed the FBI that possible plane-hijackings and airport security breaches could occur.
Of course the FBI never monitored any flight schools and their clients, allegedly because of lack of resources.

-Mike Vreeland
this story is a lil' big, basically he's the bob lazar of 9/11, the tagline is that he was a government-man and tried allerting the US and Canadian officials of impending attacks while being imprisoned for alleged credit fraud.
There's a document he allegedly wrote prior to 9/11, in which he listed some intelligence information such as possible targets like the world trade center, the pentagon or the sears tower, numerous names (Osama Bin Laden was mentioned) and the phrases "They'll paint me crazy and call me a liar" and "let one happen -stop the rest!"

-Robert Wright, twelve-year FBI veteran.
Congressional News Service, May 30 of 2002:
[emphasis added]

source:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200205/NAT20020530d.html


Anyway, you want to imprison widows?
Is that what you want, dude??
Eat shit, man, if you still believe in the government's innocence, it's so implausible.


You cannot "paint me crazy and call me a liar" if I am right, right?
 
you look like someone that start stalking to you in the street and when you try to avoid it keeps close to you trying to get your attention by speaking louder and grabbing you
 
I'm not exactly seeing many reasons to keep this thread open.
 
Every time I see a moderator post in one of these threads I hope it's to ban.
 
If you do not care about the obvious deception you are living through, than please gtfo.
Otherwise contribute to my quest.
Or proove that you can't think beyond anything that is not posted on 911myths.

Asking you FBI supervisors 70 times to investigate the contents of the notebook of a suspected terrorist (who would turn out to have connections to the death of Senator Paul Wellstone) which already is in possession of the police, pointing out that he might have an interest in flying airplanes into the world trade center and yet not being allowed to do so by that time and at no other point later in time, even after a catastrophicly massive scale domestic terrorist attack having intermediately occured, smells like a conspiracy to me.


If this should turn up on 911myths, then please tell me.
 
Notice how no-one is discussing this stuff with you? You appear to be arguing with yourself. Hardly a "discussion" thread, is it?
 
W4d5Y said:
you sheeple
Click to expand...

*giggle*


And the reason we don't take you seriously is that you don't even bother to discuss this with us. You give valid information indeed, but you merely sound like the religious fanatic who stands on top of a box screaming about the apocalypse ignoring everyone's questions while the rest of us stand around trying to figure where the hell we were going before you distracted us with your ramblings.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Samit

Harry Samit, FBI agent, ever heard of him?

Just tell me, I can't remember having seen him on 911myths so I just suppose you won't know about him at all.

Just go ahead and read the wiki entry, and tell me what you think about his story.
 
W4d5Y said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Samit

Harry Samit, FBI agent, ever heard of him?

Just tell me, I can't remember having seen him on 911myths so I just suppose you won't know about him at all.

Just go ahead and read the wiki entry, and tell me what you think about his story.
Click to expand...

Add a ch at the end of his name and it sounds like "sammitch" which reminds me of a sandwhich which reminds me i going to gtfo of this thread to go get a sandwhich.
 
Pi Mu Rho said:
I'm not exactly seeing many reasons to keep this thread open.
Click to expand...
If we keep it open we have an easy excuse to hand out spam infractions to anyone who starts another 9/11 thread.

I think the price is worth it.
 
Keep the thread open, but IP permaban OP for the love of all that is holy!

Oh, yeah, and Praise Allah!
 
Evidence of prior knowledge of impending attacks on the side of the FBI

See the Colleen Rowley 13-page memo written to FBI-director Mueller, which he of course classified at once.
See Sibel Edmond's trouble with the authorities and all the gag orders she's gotten for blowing the whistle on the cover-up of foreign penetration of the FBI's translation detachment.
See Delmart Mike Vreeland.
See Phoenix-memo.
See minneapolis agents.

All these intelligence folks tried alarming the authorities of al quaeda activity on US soil. Yet all of their efforts to further investigate things like several arabs training in flight schools were stiffled without explanation.
Observation of flight schools allegedly wasn't possible due to lack of resources.

What kind of excuse is that.
Back in 1995, they descended all over the country and checked flight schools when they warned of alquaeda activity back then.

I do not know why the FBI (especially Dave Frasca and Robert Mueller) were so inexplicably reluctant to allow all these true patriots in the FBI pursue their counter-terrorism work.

Either these people are stupid, or they obstructed intelligence work with the clear goal in sight to allow these terrorist events they were warned of to take place.

Ever concidered that explanation before?

No, these stories aren't on 911myths, so don't tell me you've already debunked this story, because 911myths HASN'T AND THEREFORE YOU HAVEN'T EITHER.

What a beautiful chemtrail outside, it's like a whole mile wide, glimmering red in the sunset.
 
W4d5Y said:
Evidence of prior knowledge of impending attacks on the side of the FBI

See the Colleen Rowley 13-page memo written to FBI-director Mueller, which he of course classified at once.
See Sibel Edmond's trouble with the authorities and all the gag orders she's gotten for blowing the whistle on the cover-up of foreign penetration of the FBI's translation detachment.
See Delmart Mike Vreeland.
See Phoenix-memo.
See minneapolis agents.

All these intelligence folks tried alarming the authorities of al quaeda activity on US soil. Yet all of their efforts to further investigate things like several arabs training in flight schools were stiffled without explanation.
Observation of flight schools allegedly wasn't possible due to lack of resources.

What kind of excuse is that.
Back in 1995, they descended all over the country and checked flight schools when they warned of alquaeda activity back then.

I do not know why the FBI (especially Dave Frasca and Robert Mueller) were so inexplicably reluctant to allow all these true patriots in the FBI pursue their counter-terrorism work.

Either these people are stupid, or they obstructed intelligence work with the clear goal in sight to allow these terrorist events they were warned of to take place.

Ever concidered that explanation before?

No, these stories aren't on 911myths, so don't tell me you've already debunked this story, because 911myths HASN'T AND THEREFORE YOU HAVEN'T EITHER.

What a beautiful chemtrail outside, it's like a whole mile wide, glimmering red in the sunset.
Click to expand...


Thats really believable there wadsy when they can't even spell Al-Qaeda right....
 
clarky has redeeming features in that he actually does stuff outside of the conspiracy theory stuff that has value to others.

kathaksung has redeeming features in that he's batshit insane.

w4d5y has no redeeming features because he appears to be trying to prove a point to himself that no-one else cares about.
 
Well then, what else do you want me to talk about?
I've also talked about other stuff outside of 9/11.
Maybe I'll talk about 7/7 next time (which was an inside job, too, just between you and me.)

And What's wrong with Al Quaeda?
Nobody cares about the spelling. This is exactely the way we spell it in germany for what I know.

And yes, you should care more about 9/11 because that day has really opened up my eyes to the big, fat lie that is our modern day western society. Everything about it is bullshit.

We're spending money on terrorist camps in afghanistan and chechney for a network called Al Quaeda which has about, uh, a brazillion members?
Just to have them get back here and play the enemy for us.
Yet, we still fall for their fashism, we still fear the enemy symbol that is radical muslims, and what do we do?

We pass the patriot act, we install cameras in public places, our every move is controlled because they can track where you use your mobile, telephone or computer. And they even spie on you by doing eavesdropping via truned-off mobiles.

And tomorrow we will welcome the UN to patrol our streets and our children to be killed off by aids (thanks MK-NAOMI) to lessen the effects of climate change.

And you're still stuck with falsely assuming the US government was innocent and had no involvement in 9/11, despite the obvious fact that they were the biggest profiteers from that shitty day and that they undertook no countermeasures or other actions to prevent that terrorist strike from happening.

Yes, the CIA hasabducted blacks and homeless people nobody cared about back in the 60s and 70s, fed them with drugs and tried creating sleeper assassins for their evil purposes and declassified documents show that.

FDR has allowed pearl harbour to be attacked to change public opinion.

The CIA has been selling C-130s owned by the pentagon to columbian druglords to ship cocaine into the US.

The UK has been conducting atmospheric testing of Bioweapons on its population.
And even today, this is a "running operation" ("we do not comment on running operations")


And now they're putting aluminium and barium up in the air to worsen climate change, which of course the media invented in the first place.

And they won't tell you that the poles of mars are melting and that this can't be because you guys fart too much.



...



But they still do love you.
 
I want to hear more about Cthulhu eating the undersea internet cables.
 
*facepalms*

Some conversation which isn't the usual horseshit conspiracy theory would be nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CptStern
Why 9/11 doesnt happen in China
Replies
9
Views
2K
Stylo
Stylo
-smash-
Valve and The Road to GDC 2015
Replies
10
Views
44K
Engineer123
E
Dandan
FBI/DEA thwart terror plot in U.S. involving Iran
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
ríomhaire
[UPDATED with second session] Gabe Newell - "Whether We Want to Or Not We're Becoming a Bottleneck"
Replies
9
Views
8K
MFL
MFL
Krynn72
P40 plane wreck from WWII found in desert...
Replies
7
Views
5K
Tyguy
Tyguy
Back
Top