See other 9/11 Articles
Title: "Seven is exploding"
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0
Published: Apr 16, 2007
Author: Canale 5
Post Date: 2007-05-05 10:55:52 by honway
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 1258
Comments: 92
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 91.
#3. To: (#0)
(Edited)
Counterpunch: Dark Fire - The Fall of WTC 7 There were five emergency power systems in WTC 7. Three of them (American Express, OEM, U.S. Secret Service) drew fuel from the other two and larger systems (Salomon Smith Barney, Silverstein Properties). (1c), (8) The emergency power for the building (Silverstein Properties) was provided by two 900 kW generators on the southwest corner of Floor 5. They drew fuel from a 275 gallon tank nearby, and this was replenished by pumps drawing from two 12,000 gallon tanks at ground level under the loading dock, at the southwest corner of the building. The SSB emergency power system used nine 1,725 kW generators on Floor 5: three in the southwest corner, two near the west end of the north face, four at the east end of the north face. Louvers for air intake and exhaust were situated on the building faces near the generators. Because there was already a 275 gallon "day tank" on this floor, the SSB system pumped on demand from their own pair of 6,000 gallon storage tanks, also situated under the loading dock, under the southwestern part of the building. The fuel supplier was contracted to keep the tanks full, and they were full that day. Fuel pipes for all systems except SSB ran up the western side of the core of the building, along elevator shafts. The SSB pipes ran up a shaft through mechanical spaces near the southwest corner of the building. Kindling After 1 p.m. on September 11, 2001, WTC 7 was an evacuated, stricken building. The southwest corner and central third of the south face had been ripped open by the cascading debris from the collapse of WTC 1. Fires burned in sections of Floors 6 through 30 at different times, and they migrated along their floors independently, seeking new sources of fuel. From the street the fires on Floors 11 and 12 appeared most intense. Many fires in the area went unchecked because utility power for electrical pumps, and water pressure for fire engines had either diminished or been lost. This is what happened. A Pumped Oil Spill The debris fall ripping into the southwest corner ruptured the oil pipes of the SSB pressurized fuel distribution system. Operating as intended -- the lack of utility power triggering the "need", and the lack of pressure due to a severed pipe signaling the "demand", the SSB system pumped oil up from its 12,000 gallon basement reservoir, maximally with a pressure of 50 psi (pounds per square inch) and flow rate of 75 gpm (gallons per minute), onto Floor 5. Pumping would have started at 9:59 a.m., when Con Ed cut utility power to WTC 7; and the spilling would have started a half hour later when the pressurized pipe was cut. The SSB pumps could have drained the two 6,000 gallon tanks in 2 hours and 40 minutes. Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation found that "there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC." (10) Additionally, "Both tanks were found to be damaged by debris and empty several months after the collapse. Some fuel contamination was found in the gravel below the tanks and the sand below the slab on which the tanks were mounted, but no contamination was found in the organic marine silt/clay layer underneath." (7) By contrast, 20,000 gallons of oil was recovered from the two 12,000 gallon tanks of Silverstein Properties. (10) Pulled up by the emergency pumps, the SSB diesel fuel went , from the 6,000 gallon storage tanks, under the loading dock, under the southwestern part of the building, to floor 5. It may all have been pumped out by 1 p.m., or it may have been pumped out at a rate as low as 29 gpm for 7 hours. Since this fuel was absent from the wreckage, it was burned. You can see it as the huge plume of black smoke rising from the World Trade Center, in panoramic photographs of that day. Diesel fuel can supply 2.13 MW of power per gpm given an air supply of 1333 cfm (cubic feet per minute). (11) Thus, a diesel fuel gusher of 75 gpm burning with excess air would produce 160 MW of heat; a total energy of 1536 GJ for the 12,000 gallons. This energy is equivalent to that released by an explosion of 367 tons of TNT. If the pumping rate is lower, or the air supply is throttled, then the burning would occur at a lower rate. Since the louver system along Floor 5 was designed to supply each of the nine SSB engines with 80,000 cfm, it seems likely that a fuel oil fire there would find sufficient air for combustion. For a discussion of heat at 9/11, and energy units, CounterPunchers will soon be able to have my study, "the Thermodynamics of 9/11", to be published shortly on the CounterPunch website as part of our final package on the actual physics and engineering realities of the collapse of the WTC buildings.
Official fairy talers are fond of posting quotes like that. It sure makes that deisel fuel seem like a powerful exposive, doesn't it? What always gets left out is flame speed. Flame speed for TNT is somewhere around 20,000 feet per second. In other words it releases it's energy quickly and with a much higher velocity. I bet a good rain shower unleashes as much energy as a few hundred tons of TNT too, but normally rain does not take down buildings.
You are correct, Critter, and this is also the explanation for the difference between what AGA, in ignorance (I assume), is claiming here, and what happened to the bridge in Oakland. Gasoline burns very, very fast; it is nearly explosive in its burning, and because of the rate at which it burns, it creates a lot more quick heat. Diesel fuel has a lot more power as a fuel because it does burn slower, and thus creates a more sustained ''push'' inside of an engine, whereas gasoline burns much faster, akin to an explosion inside of each cylinder on each stroke. Trying to compare what diesel fuel does to what gasoline does is really, really ignorant.
Another self-taught scientist weighs in. The Oakland overpass did not collapse because of "flame speed." The overpass collapsed because it got heated so much that the bolts supporting the structure melted, the steel beam(s) buckled, and the structure collapsed. And heat is measured in *BTU's*, which means that a gallon of diesel fuel or kerosene produces more heat than a gallon of gasoline.
No shit, O BRILLANT ONE? Of course, because of flame speed, that heat is released over a much, much longer period of time, leading to an overall much, much lower tempature..... but what do I know....... Oh, that´s right! I do know! I have worked a lot of construction, generally, as the BOSS, if you understand the word. Many, many times, we used diesel fuel in five gal. cans, with the tops cut out, to mark opem holes or piles of dirt esp. during work shiffs at night. Probably, you have seen simialar things, if you simply think about it. And it is really amazing.... the TIN cans NEVER ONCE melted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And, we would use cut off 55 gal. drums, with diesel fuel and several pieces of rebar (which is made of SOFT steel) PLACED OVER THEM to melt tar (HELD IN A 5 GAL. BUCKET WHICH ALSO NEVER MELTED!) to repair or caulk sewer pipes with-------NEVER ONCE HAD A 55 GAL. DRUM MELT!!! AND, USED THEM FOR HOURS AND HOURS! AND DAYS AND DAYS!!!!!!!!!!!! Now, I understand how ignorance is an excuse for many things, but what you are talking about goes way, way beyond ignorance and borders on stupidity, but hey, what do I know.....
Like I said, another self-taught scientist. Now you want to claim that kerosene and diesel fuel take "much, much longer" to burn than gasoline. Are you vaguely aware that jet aircraft go Mach 2 using fuels similar to kerosene even though by your "reasoning" their engines would take "much, much, longer" to burn their fuel, and hence generate less thrust and speed, than if they used av gas (which nobody uses for high performance jets)? And the afterburners of those jet aircraft using fuels similar to kerosene reach temperatures of 3,000 degrees which again by your "reasoning" would be "an overall much, much" lower temperature than what you claim av gas would produce? That explains a lot I worked in construction a summer after I got out of college until I went on to better things. Now I do my own because I've seen first hand the work put out by people who do it for a living. I'm sure that your "much much higher temperature" gasoline never has melted a 55 gallon drum either. But nevertheless, a gasoline fire did "melt" a fairly large section of a concrete and steel bridge. And I have no doubt that a kerosene or diesel fuel fire under similar conditions would do the same thing Your point being? Last but not least, do some research on how hot oil well fires get- which burn totally undistilled crude which by your "resoning" should burn even at lower temperatures than kerosene or diesel - before you make any more uneducated utterances about hydrocarbon combustion.
I do not have to be a scientist to understand basic facts, O BRILLANT ONE. Now you want to claim that kerosene and diesel fuel take "much, much longer" to burn than gasoline. All things are in relationships; for instance, if gas burns in one second, and kerosene in two seconds, tnen kerosene burns half as fast, thus shows a slower flame speed and a slower release of heat. This is why kerosene/diesel fuel is also much safer to haul; oh, by the way, had about 80 over the road trucks including tankers. And that brings up the point, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A DIESEL/KEROSENE LOADED TANKER EXPLODING? Inquiring minds want to know, because I never have....... Are you vaguely aware that jet aircraft go Mach 2 using fuels similar to kerosene ¿No shit? REALLY!? Of course, here you are comparing apples to organges, as you seem to really, really, really, really, really like to do, as if all of us are stupid, right? Have you ever looked at a break down of a jet engine, and the methodology used to reach those tempatures and thrust? Because if you have not, I have, and IF they used AV gas, they would have more slightly more thrust, but much, much higher tempatures, such that the life of the engines would be severly curtailed. IF IF IF they could build an engine, at any price, that could stand the tempatures. Simply put, AV gas DOES NOT fit the technology of jet engines; never has and never will. I'm sure that your "much much higher temperature" gasoline never has melted a 55 gallon drum either. Damned if I know, because no one I know has ever been stupid enough to pour gasoline into an open drum and drop a match into it. Doesn`t mean it has not happened, but whoever did it, if they lived to tell of it, certainly never spoke of it to anyone! gasoline fire did "melt" a fairly large section of a concrete and steel bridge. First off, concrete does not melt. It will crack and scale, if enough heat is applied, but it don't melt. Second, the bridge sagged, but the steel did not melt either. That is what happens to steel when it gets hot; it sags, esp. when it is loaded with weight. By the way, concrete is heavy, so the bridge was carrying a lot of weight, and that is what caused the sag as the steel lost its tensile strenght. You need to consider something; just because some ignorant so-called newsreporter said something about a bridge melting, does not make it fact. The pictures I saw of the bridge certainly had steel sagging down, but I saw no puddles of steel below the bridge... but hey, maybe you know something I do not! Ummmmmmmmm, probably not...... Last but not least, do some research on how hot oil well fires get- which burn totally undistilled crude which by your "resoning" should burn even at lower temperatures than kerosene or diesel - And once again, apples and what, pears(?), this time! Is this another example of ignorance, or just plain stupidity? Undistilled crude is EXTREMELY dangerous because it is FULL of many, many different chemicals, including natural gas. And what is in the undistilled crude varies widely from oil field to oil field, but in nearly all cases, except in some cases of very heavy crude, it is flammable with only a spark. In fact, oil field fires have been set off with dropped tools sparking on a steel deck, and with static electricity. So I would suggest that you look for other types of info, or, read a few books, before you continue to lecture me.
The BLOviator is not a scientist either. It's a shill posting talking points and distractions/disruptions to the thread. That's its job.
Yeah, I caught on. Thanks for the note. I wonder if him and BeAC are posting from the Pentagon, Langley, or some Jewish group in New York..... inquiring minds want to know.....
How about because of the binary sarin warhead that turned up as an IED and the fact that Iraq was still in contact with the terrorists who killed 3000+ on 9/11? BeAChooser posted on 2006-06-29 19:32:37 ET http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=148037&Disp=27&Trace=on#C27 So, although absolutely zero connection has been shown between Saddam's government and al Qaeda, you here repeat the chimp and Cheney's quite laughable and debunked claim that Saddam and 9-11 were tied together. Sounds like you are the one having trouble separating perception from reality, not those you bait.
What's the problem, ferret? You don't want to discuss WTC 7, the collapse of the WTC towers, or the damage at the Pentagon anymore? I thought that's what this thread was about ... ROTFLOL!
From post #277 in this thread: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=146686&Disp=277&Trace=on#C277 So BAC, why is it nobody but you and the Neocon garbage in the Bush Administration repeats such tired, debunked crap? You claim you only post facts and the truth, but here we have two instances of lies of convenience by you. Care to explain yourself? Hmmmmmmmmmmm? ROTFLMFAO!!!!!
Well, since you no longer want to talk about WTC7, the collapse of the towers or the damage at the Pentagon (and no wonder ... ROTFLOL!), let's examine your claim that above statements by me are instances of me lying. Well I'm sorry ferret, but I have no record of you or anyone else EVER providing sources or sound logic to shows any of those assertions are lies. Whereas I have and can provide both sources and logic to support each one. Tell you what. Let's consider my first statement: You say that's a lie. Well to begin with, two 9/11 families were awarded over $100 million by U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer based on evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/05/september11/main520874.shtml) in part, because of an editorial that was published July 21, 2001 in the Iraqi newspaper Al-Nasiriya which was owned by Saddam's son, Qusay. The columnist was Naeem Abd Muhalhal, who evidence at the trial indicated had a long term connection with Iraqi Intelligence. On September 12, 2002, Senator Fritz Hollings entered the editorial into the Congressional record (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005332.php ). Here are a few quotes from it: "Meanwhile America has started to pressure the Taliban movement so that it would hand them Bin Ladin, while he continues to smile and still thinks seriously, with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House ....." "It seems that they will be going away because the revolutionary Bin Ladin is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting. That the man will not be swayed by the plant leaves of Whitman nor by the ``Adventures of Indiana Jones'' and will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs." So just two months before 9/11 we have reference to upcoming attacks on the Pentagon, the White House and, if we are going to curse the memory of Frank Sinatra, New York (since New York, New York was Sinatra's most famous song). The statement that bin Laden "will strike America on the arm that is already hurting" would seem, in hindsight, to narrow down the New York target to the World Trade Center, since that was already attacked (and hurt) in the 1993 bombing. Mulhalhal's editorial also contained the following: “The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one and the same in the heart of a believer." That might be a reference to using airplanes as bullets in the attack. Circumstantial, yes. But what a curious and unlikely coincidence. Especially when Saddam personally praised Muhalhal in the September 1, 2001 issue of that paper for his "documentation of important events and heroic deeds that proud Iraqis have accomplished." Now consider the above in light of the following: http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1999/03/990304_in.htm "During the Gulf war, Iraq's media and officials threatened revenge in the form of assassinations and bombings. On Jan 30, 1991, INA warned, 'The American arena will not be excluded from the operations and explosions of the Arab and Muslim mujhadin and all the honest strugglers in the world.' On Feb 9, Baghdad Radio read a cable from the chief of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam, 'We will chase them to every corner at all times. No high tower or house of steel will protect them against the fire of truth.'" A curious way of phrasing things... Audio tapes captured in Baghdad after the 2003 invasion, that were recorded in the mid to late 90's, clearly suggest that Saddam and his closest advisors still considered themselves at war with the US despite the cease fire agreement stopping the fighting in the 1991 war. The 1993 bombing was perhaps the first act in continuation of that war. Among the 1993 WTC bomb plotters, the leader was a man with an Iraqi passport named Ramzi Yousef. Ramzi was known to his associates as "Rashid the Iraqi". Now get this ... Yousef was one of the original planners of Operation Bojinka in 1994. That was a plot to attack buildings with airplanes. Another leader in the WTC bomb plot, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled to Baghdad after the bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Rahman_Yasin ). Documents found in Iraq after the invasion show he was put on government payroll and given a home. In addition, "an ABC news stringer saw him there in 1994, outside his father's house, and learned from neighbors that he worked for the Iraqi government." Iraq was clearly involved in the first attempt to bring down the World Trade Center towers. So why not the second? The WTC bomb plot can be viewed another way, as well. Although Iraqis were involved, all ten of those convicted in the plot are identified as islamic fundamentalists. Since the anti-war naysayers are always pointing to Saddam's secularism as proof that he would have nothing to do with islamic fundamentalists (like al-Zarqawi), the plot was set up provides a certain deniability on Iraq's part. Perhaps from the very beginning, authorities were meant to suspect islamic terrorists, rather than Iraq. It just didn't go as planned because the FBI had an informant in their midst. This may demonstrate that Saddam was not above instigating a plot where someone else gets blamed. A false flag operation. Throughout the 90's Iraq cultivated a relationship with al-Qaeda and other terrorists. Here's a good summary based on a variety of sources: http://www.judicialwatch.org/cases/78/Wtccomp.htm If even a fraction of those assertions are true (and many of them are corroborated by more than one source), then the case for a Saddam / al-Qaeda connection is strong, making pre-awareness of the 9/11 attack and even some Iraqi participation in the 9/11 plot more likely than the anti-war community and the mainstream press wants to admit. For example, Farouk Hijazi, an Iraqi intelligence officer, reportedly met with Bin Laden in Kandahar in December 1998. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," according to a 1999 report in the Guardian. Also in 1998, two of bin Laden’s senior military commanders, Muhammad Abu-Islam and Abdullah Qassim, visited Baghdad for discussions with Qusay Hussein ... the son who owned the paper in which Mulhalhal published his prescient article. http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp?pg=2 "On December 28 Milan's Corriere della Sera reported "Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden have sealed a pact." In its issue dated January 11, 1999, Newsweek quoted an anonymous "Arab intelligence officer who knows Saddam personally" as warning that "very soon you will be witnessing large-scale terrorist activity run by the Iraqis" against Western targets. The Iraqi plan would be run under one of three "false flags": Palestinian, Iranian, and the "al Qaeda apparatus." All of these groups, Newsweek reported, had representatives in Baghdad." The above source lists a large number of other connections between al-Qaeda and Iraq and reasons to suspect Iraq knew and was involved in more than the anti-war community and liberal media will admit. In any case, let's move on and take the second of the claims you say I'm lying about. Since I obviously was not lying about the first. I had good reasons for claiming what I did. The Czech government to this day maintains they are 70% certain that Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent, Al-Ani, in Europe five months before 9/11 in April, 2001. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030729-093909-9839r.htm and http://edjayepstein.blogspot.com/2005_11_01_edjayepstein_archive.html The intelligence agent's day planner (seized after the war in what had been the Iraq regime's Czech embassy) indicates a meeting on that day with a "Hamburg Student", which coincidentally is the occupation Atta listed on his passport. Atta's whereabouts during the time in question are not known. He disappeared off the FBI's radar in the US for a week around the date of the alleged meeting, immediately after withdrawing $8000 out of a bank account. The ONLY thing suggesting he was still in the US was the use of his cell phone. But the hijackers shared cars, apartments, bank accounts ... why not a cell phone that wouldn't have been usable in Europe anyway? A secret CIA memo, released by the Senate Intelligence Committee, cited evidence that Iraqi intelligence bankrolled Mohamed Atta in the months leading up to 9/11. That memo said Atta met as many as four times in Prague with al Ani prior to the 9/11 attacks. The Czech government stated their certainty that Atta did meet al-Ani on a previous occasion. The 911 Commission said Atta "is known to have been in Prague on two occasions" — once for a single night in December 1994, and once for a single night in June 2000. Curiously enough, 3 days after the 2000 meeting, a large amount of money showed up in Atta's bank account. Three days after the alleged April 2001 meeting, a large amount of money was again deposited to Atta's bank account (and http://respekt.inway.cz/english/clanek_detail.php?f_id=62 ). And this certainly looks like a picture of Atta and Al-Ani together: And note ... Colonel al-Ani headed Iraq's department for "special operations". He's exactly the person Iraq might have picked to handle such an important case. Plus, senior US intelligence sources said the CIA had 'credible information' that at least two other members of the hijacking team also met known Iraqi intelligence agents outside the United States. And then we have Atta asking about crop dusters at a time when the decision had already been made to crash commercial jets into the buildings. And the coincidence of Atta and the hijackers residing in Florida within a few miles of where the very first case of anthrax showed up. And the coincidence of Atta and another hijacker visiting a doctor and a pharmacist to get treatment for skin conditions that in hindsight those two medical professionals as well as doctors from John Hopkin's say were likely anthrax. Now surely you aren't so uninformed that I have to repeat the links to prove the above. Well perhaps you didn't hear about the last one. Here: http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/anthraxhijackerslink.html And if the hijackers had something to do with the anthrax attack, where did they get the anthrax? Iraq? So again, you see I'm not lying. I've plenty of basis for claiming what I did. Which brings us to the last claim that you say I'm lying about. Well, here are SOME of the sources I've cited in the past: Stephen Hayes reported that documents reveal that "in 1998, Iraq began training 2,000 Arab Islamic terrorists a year and that this training continued through 2002. ... snip ... As a U.S. intelligence official explained to this author, the United States has interrogated the Iraqis who trained the foreign terrorists and has their accounts of that training, along with material like group pictures of the graduating classes. ... snip ... What is the relationship between the expertise that the IIS developed in IEDs, their training of terrorists, and the present Iraqi insurgency? Document (CMPC-2003-005745) details plans for improving IEDs in 2003 and includes such points as triggering bombs at a distance and by light, as well as "studying the improvement of the explosive power of RDX." We can reasonably infer that such plans existed for 2001 and 2002 as well." Centcom spokesman General Vincent Brooks stated on April 6, 2003: "There was a raid last night by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force. What they raided was a training camp near Salman Pak....This raid occurred in response to information that had been gained by coalition forces from some foreign fighters we encountered from other countries, not Iraq. And we believe that this camp had been used to train these foreign fighters in terror tactics.... [T]hat's just one of a number of examples we've found where there is training activity happening inside of Iraq. It reinforces the likelihood of links between his regime and external terrorist organizations, clear links with common interests. Some of these fighters came from Sudan, some from Egypt, and some from other places, and we've killed a number of them and we've captured a number of them." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1618519/posts "2003 Document: Saddam Ordered To Treat The Arab Feedayeen Terrorists The Same As Iraqi Soldiers, Posted on 04/20/2006 2:00:22 PM PDT by jveritas Document ISGQ-2004-00060580 is a memo that contains a direct order form Saddam Hussein in the middle of the war asking to treat the Arab Feedayeen i.e. the non Iraqi Foreign Arab Terrorists as equal as the Iraqi soldier in salary and benefits and not just any soldier but like those in the Special Forces. These are the same Arab terrorists who stayed in Iraq after the removal of the regime and caused those horrible attacks mostly on innocent civilians. This document is a follow on another document where the Iraqi were training Foreign Arab terrorist since the year 2000 (please see those two translations: Document: Iraqi Intelligence To Train Arab Feedayeen Terrorists In the Year 2000 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1617431/posts Document: Saddam Regime Training and Using Foreign Arab Terrorists As Suicide Bombers. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600367/posts ). The extremely strong connection between Saddam and Terrorism is something that we need to tell the whole world about it, because for this reason alone we would have all the right to remove this Terrorist Regime after the 9/11, we just cannot afford to live with it." http://iraqdocs.blogspot.com/ "Independent Verification Of jveritas Translation accuracy ... snip ... You will note that all three translations of this document -- performed by three different people working independently of each other -- all translate this section almost identically. All three explicitly show that the Iraqi military had ordered a call for volunteers to carry out suicide attacks on American interests, six months before 9/11 and two years almost to the day prior to our invasion." *********** http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006539.php March 16, 2006 Unlocking History At Leavenworth The documents released by John Negroponte and hosted on a military website at Leavenworth promise to rewrite the long history of Iraq and its place in the war on terror. Just the first few documents have shown links between Saddam's regime and terrorism, including a strong reference to the 9/11 attack by Saddam's own intelligence service. ABC News has begun their own translation of the key documents, as have others in the blogosphere. Let's start with the document that mentions 9/11, a report from the IIS regarding a conversation with a Taliban official: Our source in Afghanistan No 11002 (for information about him see attachment 1) provided us with information that that Afghani Consul Ahmad Dahestani (for information about him see attachment 2) told him the following: 1. That Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan are in contact with Iraq and it that previously a group from Taliban and Osama Bin Laden group visited Iraq. 2. That America has proof that the government of Iraq and Osama Bin Laden group have shown cooperation to hit target within America. 3. That in case it is proven the involvement of Osama Bin Laden group and the Taliban in these destructive operations it is possible that American will conduct strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan. 4. That the Afghani Consul heard about the subject of Iraq relation with Osama Bin Laden group during his stay in Iran. 5. In light of this we suggest to write to the Commission of the above information. Please view… Yours… With regards Signature:……, Initials : A.M.M, 15/9/2001 Foot note: Immediately send to the Chairman of Commission Immediately after 9/11, the US suspected that al-Qaeda had masterminded the attacks, confirming it within days. Until the 20th, when Bush made his speech, the government had not clearly and publicly stated its position to the Taliban. However, the IIS reported four days after the fact that the Taliban believed the US had proof of cooperation between Iraq and Osama bin Laden to attack American targets. The Taliban went out of its way to warn Saddam that the US would retaliate against Iraq when we got the proof together. That explicitly shows cooperation between the two governments. Moreover, the same people who sheltered and sponsored Osama bin Laden turned immediately to Saddam after the attacks for coordination on their response. They would have had no reason to do so -- except knowing that Osama and Saddam had a working relationship in fostering terrorist attacks against America. *************** So you see, ferret, you were wrong about those being examples of me lying. Just as you are wrong about Saddam having no connection to al-Qaeda or 9/11. Just as you are wrong about bombs in the WTC and what damaged the Pentagon.
#92. To: BeAChooser (#91)
(Edited)
I want none of your baitful, egotistical posts that are just spam vehicles. We are done talking 9-11, and I have no interest in your strange delusions that have been thoroughly debunked that Saddam and al Qaeda are linked. You lie, refuse to answer what you don't want to answer, answer with leveraged responses, and post tons of spam that make it impossible to decypher what you are getting at. Your games are tiresome, and you have a new nick, 'pinfish' to play with in LP. Go toy with that. I would love to chat with a person of opposing viewpoint operating in good faith. You do not such a person. I have examined in depth your tactics and modus operandi, you are a sleazy operator, a liar, and a fuckwit. You have no intention of conducting dialog in good faith or with reciprocity of respect or with a desire to achieve effective communication with whom you post with.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#5. To: AGAviator (#3)
This energy is equivalent to that released by an explosion of 367 tons of TNT.
#33. To: Critter, AGAviator (#5)
What always gets left out is flame speed.
#34. To: richard9151 (#33)
#35. To: AGAviator, Critter (#34)
And heat is measured in *BTU's*, which means that a gallon of diesel fuel or kerosene produces more heat than a gallon of gasoline.
#36. To: richard9151, Destro, YertleTurtle (#35)
(Edited)
Because of flame speed, that heat is released over a much, much longer period of time, leading to an overall much, much lower tempature
Oh, that´s right! I do know! I have worked a lot of construction, generally, as the BOSS, if you understand the word
NEVER ONCE HAD A 55 GAL. DRUM MELT!!!
#43. To: AGAviator, Critter, Destro, YertleTurtle (#36)
Because of flame speed,
#66. To: richard9151 (#43)
I do not have to be a scientist to understand basic facts
#82. To: angle (#66)
It's a shill posting talking points
#83. To: richard9151, angle, ALL (#82)
It's a shill posting talking points
Yeah, I caught on. Thanks for the note. I wonder if him and BeAC are posting from the Pentagon, Langley, or some Jewish group in New York..... inquiring minds want to know.....
#86. To: BeAChooser (#83)
27. To: GO65, goldi-Lox, all
(#10)
I think the answer is obvious.
#87. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#86)
#89. To: BeAChooser (#87)
"You don't know that. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence now to suggest Saddam's regime was not only aware that 9/11 was coming ... and the form it was going to take ... but actively aided al-Qaeda in that effort through funding, if nothing else. And you still haven't explained the atta/al-Ani meeting away. You still haven't explained documents that show Saddam's regime was helping train al-Qaeda and that they warned al-Qaeda and afghanistan that they would be attacked after 9/11."
#91. To: Ferret Mike, ALL (#89)
"You don't know that. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence now to suggest Saddam's regime was not only aware that 9/11 was coming ... and the form it was going to take ... but actively aided al-Qaeda in that effort through funding, if nothing else. And you still haven't explained the atta/al-Ani meeting away. You still haven't explained documents that show Saddam's regime was helping train al-Qaeda and that they warned al-Qaeda and afghanistan that they would be attacked after 9/11."
From post #277 in this thread: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=146686&Disp=277&Trace=on#C277
So BAC, why is it nobody but you and the Neocon garbage in the Bush Administration repeats such tired, debunked crap?
You claim you only post facts and the truth, but here we have two instances of lies of convenience by you.
Care to explain yourself?
"There is plenty of circumstantial evidence now to suggest Saddam's regime was not only aware that 9/11 was coming ... and the form it was going to take ... but actively aided al-Qaeda in that effort through funding, if nothing else."
And you still haven't explained the atta/al-Ani meeting away.
You still haven't explained documents that show Saddam's regime was helping train al-Qaeda and that they warned al-Qaeda and afghanistan that they would be attacked after 9/11.
Replies to Comment # 91.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 91.