Bin Laden: Shoot To Kill

[Edwin]

http://www.slate.com/slideshow/news-politics/the-guide-to-911-conspiracy-theories#slide_1

 

[GreyWing]

*The planes could not have brought down the towers in the timeframe...if at all. One of the bonuses of steel framed buildings is their ability to withstand great trauma and prelonged fires.

Let's assume you are right. You say that timeframe, bearing in mind it's almost impossible to get firefighting equipment up there other than fire axes. Why did they need explosives, it would have come down on its own anyway within a few more hours.

*Numerous explosions were experienced by many people at the scene.

Numerous fires going off numerous high pressure fire extinguishers exploding. It is impossible to answer without more detail.

*The buildings were recently taken over on a long lease and required so much money spending on them to bring them upto spec that they would've never been profitable.

That includes most buildings around the world, none of the landlords organise planes to fly into them. But this indicates a motive for the landlords of the buildings, does that mean it was them or the Government that planned this.

*Insurance have paid out providing a near $4b profit for the lease holder.

You have to quantify that over a time frame, if it is to account for the loss of rent for 10 years whilst the new building is built then it is about right.

*News agencies appeared to be working from scripts - in a couple of instances reporting events before they occured.

There were hundreds of news agencies out there that day and using thousands of sources and I think you are referring to the BBC report, the statistical chance of one of them getting it wrong are high.

*Steel from the towers was sent to the other side of the world instead of being analysed for explosives etc. In other words evidence from the US's biggest crime scene was destroyed intentionally.

They probably thought it was obvious what happened and no real need to test for explosives. But it was there for almost a year, so it wasn't like a chinese ship there waiting to take it on Spetember 12th.

*Eye witness accounts state there were multiple explosions within the buildings along with a strong smell of exposives (as a military man you will agree they often have a highly destinctive smell)

There are different types of explosives, dynamite smells different to symtex. But mostly you can't smell it. Just like after a demolition of a tower block. There is loads of dust that you would never smell it through choking on dust.

*Strange activity was recorded within the buildings in the weeks leading upto 911 which has never been explained.

You can look back and isolate odd behaviour in anything with hindsight. But nobody is on record as logging those incidents at the time. Nobody was blogging about these odd things at the time.

Nothing factual this bit, but if you were in charge of the 911 attacks, wouldn't you have sent one of the planes into the Statue of Liberty?
If you genuinely wanted to attack the US (and their liberty), the answer would surely be yes.

To hit that thing would have took a bit more skill, it's not a big thing to hit. Many ships look down on the statue of liberty as they come in to NY.

But nope, these people are after publicity. Most publicity is in the centre of NY.

But there is no reason to plant explosives and nothing odd about anything that happened since.

BTW Sky news reporting that a group of doctors are challenging the Dr D Kelly fella not getting a inquest.

The rumour behind that is that David Cameron was the opposition shadow minister who should have held Labour to account over this. He is blocking an inquest because if it finds anything it will make him look like an idiot because he missed it.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Brewster..... We know what you don't think happened. But what do you think happened?

I believe that 911 was organised by people with something to gain and the resources to carry it through.

I believe that there are enough willing participents to carry it through, and who have enough to lose (or gain) to keep it quiet.

I believe that all the WTC buildings were brought down by explosives placed inside the buildings.

I believe that 911 was organised in order to be able to invade Afghanistan and then Iraq.

I believe there was no evidence of WMD in Iraq.

I believe Dr David Kelly was murdered by our intelligence agencies.

I believe that Al Qaeda was invented by the CIA as a type of 'bogey man' they can use to keep the masses in fear.

I believe that there are many instances of countries leaders mass murdering there own people. (Why is it that people won't believe that the US or UK could do such a thing? Is it because they've got Disneyland and stuff?)

I believe that Bin Laden was dead before the first plane hit the WTC.

I believe that some individuals are lured into Al Qaeda lead by US operatives to 'bulk out' the appearence of the organisation ande commit the sideline events such as suicide bombings etc.

Hope this is clear for you.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Still waiting for evidence ...

Still waiting for you to 'debunk' what I've said.

As you put in your first post, you were going to do that one point at a time. So the onus is on you to disprove.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Let's assume you are right. You say that timeframe, bearing in mind it's almost impossible to get firefighting equipment up there other than fire axes. Why did they need explosives, it would have come down on its own anyway within a few more hours.

It is highly unlikely that they would have come down at all due to fire - steel frame buildings just don't.
The whole point of the US creating 911 was to provide something visually impactful - something that would horrify and shock the masses enough for them to back whatever they did in rataliation. Buildings on fire for a couple of days just wouldn't do it - hence the need for explosives.

Numerous fires going off numerous high pressure fire extinguishers exploding. It is impossible to answer without more detail.

Impossible to know 100%, yes. But listening to firefighters who said there were explosions going off in rapid "bang bang bang bang bang" style strongly supports controlled explosions rather than random ones.

That includes most buildings around the world, none of the landlords organise planes to fly into them. But this indicates a motive for the landlords of the buildings, does that mean it was them or the Government that planned this.

I believe the building lease holder was part of the conspiracy, yes.

You have to quantify that over a time frame, if it is to account for the loss of rent for 10 years whilst the new building is built then it is about right.

The cost of updating the buildings would've outstripped any profit over the time of the lease. The insurance paid out the cost to rebuild plus $4b.

There were hundreds of news agencies out there that day and using thousands of sources and I think you are referring to the BBC report, the statistical chance of one of them getting it wrong are high.

The main one I recall is of a reporter talking about the collapse of WTC7 while the building was stil intact and visible over her shoulder.

They probably thought it was obvious what happened and no real need to test for explosives. But it was there for almost a year, so it wasn't like a chinese ship there waiting to take it on Spetember 12th.

Then why didn't they test it or allow independent tests. As evidence from a crime scene surely they should've kept at least a sample back for testing?

There are different types of explosives, dynamite smells different to symtex. But mostly you can't smell it. Just like after a demolition of a tower block. There is loads of dust that you would never smell it through choking on dust.

Again, this came from firefighters at the scene who knew the smell to be distintive and of a certain type of explosive (that cuts through steel) and was prior to the collapse of the towers.

You can look back and isolate odd behaviour in anything with hindsight. But nobody is on record as logging those incidents at the time. Nobody was blogging about these odd things at the time.




To hit that thing would have took a bit more skill, it's not a big thing to hit. Many ships look down on the statue of liberty as they come in to NY.

But nope, these people are after publicity. Most publicity is in the centre of NY.

But there is no reason to plant explosives and nothing odd about anything that happened since.

BTW Sky news reporting that a group of doctors are challenging the Dr D Kelly fella not getting a inquest.

The rumour behind that is that David Cameron was the opposition shadow minister who should have held Labour to account over this. He is blocking an inquest because if it finds anything it will make him look like an idiot because he missed it.

 

[GreyWing]

Sorry Sean, Brewster's beat me too.

Brewster I guess we'll just agree to disagree then mate.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Brewster I guess we'll just agree to disagree then mate.

Fair enough!

 

[anthony]

It is highly unlikely that they would have come down at all due to fire - steel frame buildings just don't...

Traditonal steel frame buildings dont, but these were not traditionally constructed box frame, all the support strength was in the outer walls, both severely weakened by impact damage and fire.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Traditonal steel frame buildings dont, but these were not traditionally constructed box frame, all the support strength was in the outer walls, both severely weakened by impact damage and fire.

There was no impact damage below the 75th floor on one tower and the 93rd of the other.

The buildings main structural strength was from it's steel core.

The amount of fuel on each plane was only enough to fill a nine foot diameter by four foot deep paddling pool - most of which burnt off on impact...and this defeated over 100,000 tonnes of structural steel? In 56 minutes?

 

[jasman]

On the subject of sources...

If you only get your news from mainstream media, you are not going to know what they are not telling you. Censorship is actually pretty common, though you may not realise that unless you look at non-mainstream sources, as (obviously) the mainstream media is never going to run a story of how common their own censorship is!

Another problem is that many news stories printed are not original but are licensed from Reuters or Associated Press, and so we see the same story proliferated around hundreds of publications, seemingly adding credence because it seems all the sources agree when in fact they are all parroting one story. This is becoming increasingly common as more and more the point of news publishers is not to try as best they can to provide accurate news, but to provide something the majority of their readership will be satisfied with whether it is true or not. Why should they care? Either way the advertising revenue comes in but licensing pre-written content or paying a junior journalist to rehash an existing article will usually be cheaper than paying investigative journalists to come up with the most accurate. It's not like they will be easily exposed either as the same stories are latched onto with similar conclusions right across the mainstream media. It is no secret how few people control the vast majority of the media now too.

If you don't check things for yourself you will only have heard the official version and will be unaware that there are things that do not add up. One classic example of censorship is when the BBC was caught censoring Sir David Frost's interview with Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister of Pakistan. She stated back in 2007 that Bin Laden had been murdered. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z01t7YDm1VQ The rest of the world got to see the uncensored version for free while the good old Beeb who we Brits are forced to pay, supposedly to ensure their independence, cut that bit out. And not long after she was assasinated.

Independent media websites can be useful but they have the disadvantage of having less of a track record than the established media. So we are left with the censored/ parroted version from the mainstream media vs the version from an unqualified source.

But sometimes the independent media websites will highlight a story that slips through one establishment source and is censored by the rest. Or sometimes they provide footage like Obama's rather amusing fainting women scam he pulled on his campaign trail http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1sM6MnRL00

Other times they do a freedom of information request highlighting something factual that would never be printed by the mainstream media. So certain unestablished sources can be very valuable if you want to know what is really going on. But you have to be open minded enough to take a look at what they are saying, and patient enough to check things for yourself and sift through the misinformation rather than believe in any conspiracy that fits with your world view.

Otherwise if you haven't the patience and want to be spoonfed, then don't complain if the wool is pulled over your eyes, because there are plenty of corrupt people out there who are delighted to spoonfeed the sheep.

 

[jasman]

On the subject of 911

There are many things that don't add up about the official version of events and the main ones that are commonly touted in the 911 Truth movement were summarised in Charlie Sheen's letter to the President http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJay06JrWKw

You can discredit Sheen all you like but he just summarised the main points focused on in the most watched 911 documentaries, the points that millions of people want answers for.

It is rather telling that the mainstream media went wild repeating over and over the official verion and dramatising the hunt for Bin Laden but spared little time investigating the parts of the official story that don't add up.

Aside from the main points in Sheen's list, here are a few other things I have picked up along the way:

You may be interested to know that George Bush Sr. (the then president's father and former US president) had a breakfast meeting with Bin Laden's brother on the morning of 911. There are quite a few sources for this, but here's a CBC video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF6VdWjxJ1g

Then we hear that "Members of Osama bin Laden's family were allowed to fly out of the US shortly after the September 11 terror attacks... even though American airspace had been shut down, the Bush administration allowed a jet to fly around the US picking up family members from 10 cities, including Los Angeles, Washington DC, Boston and Houston"

http://news.sky.com/home/article/12758358

Kind of strange that no civilians were allowed to fly apart from Bin Laden's family and other Saudi elites. If Bush administration knew that Bin Laden was responsible, then they should have detained rather than giving red carpet treatment to his family members to get them out of the country. If they didn't know then what a remarkable coincidence that the one group of people they helped get away were in the same family as the one man they wanted for that attrocity! And that Bush Sr. had a meeting with one of them on 911.

Also Marvin Bush, George Bush's brother was a director of Securacom the firm that was in charge of security at the WTC.

And while not relevant to 911, another eyebrow raiser is that George Bush's grandfather was indicted under the Trading with the Enemy Act in WW2. He was a director of a New York bank which funded Hitler in WW2 and had ties to several companies doing business with the Nazis, one of which used Nazi slave labour in the concentration camps.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

 

[Whibs]

There was no impact damage below the 75th floor on one tower and the 93rd of the other.

The buildings main structural strength was from it's steel core.

The amount of fuel on each plane was only enough to fill a nine foot diameter by four foot deep paddling pool - most of which burnt off on impact...and this defeated over 100,000 tonnes of structural steel? In 56 minutes?

Don't forget over 400 tonnes of plane hitting the building at 500 miles per hour.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Don't forget over 400 tonnes of plane hitting the building at 500 miles per hour.

The maximum take off weight of a Boing 767 is 185 tonnes (and that's for the extended long range version which these probably weren't) which includes fuel and maximum number of passengers. Over half the seats were empty and most of the fuel burnt off on impact.

The buildings were designed to take an impact from a commercial plane.

The steel had been fireproofed.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Double post.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Triple post????

 

[Pred]

lets get back to domains shall we?

 

[Pred]

Most sensible thing you've said in the last 24 hours

it's not often it happens
make the most of it

 

[BREWSTERS]

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

Interesting read - a pilot pulls apart the official story of the pentagon plane.

 

[BREWSTERS]

Last one, but for anyone who believes the official story (or one of the 3 official stories) on how and why the twin towers 'collapsed', it's worth 10 minutes of your life to flick through the 65 or so slides on here; http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/introduction.html

It shows beyond any doubt that the only way those buildings could've come down was by using explosives. There simply is no other way.

If at the moment you believe the official story and don't want that to change, don't watch this. But if you are open minded and want to know what is going on in the world without any sugar-coating, then do.

 

[anthony]

All this theory and conjecture, but no proof. Where's the proof? Where's the evidence of involvement? Fact is, you have none, neither does anyone else. When someone actually comes forward with ANY evidence whatsoever to prove the government or anyone else were behind it, then all these web sites have zero credibility. Their stance boils down to an arguement that the supposed 'state bad boys' did a really lousy & shitty job of making it all look realistic, but they did a really first rate job of ensuring no one can prove they did it. Not a letter, an email, a phone conversation, nothing! There would have been hundreds of people needed behind the scenes to manage this show, I await any evidence from you or the hundreds of conspiracy sites of just one of them. Fact is, no one will bother to put any real effort in to prove anything, because deep down they know it's not there to find!