Who actually committed the crime on 9/11?

[HawksFan]

I wonder if iAmerican has reconciled the fact that JFK, whom he seems to have a rather unhealthy attachment to, was Roman Catholic as well and therefore part of that so-called Fifth Column he rants on about?

Oh, and how about those manifests and 757 parts, iAmerican?

 

[Dave Rogers]

One thing I know for sure is Gen. Mehmood Ahmed wired the funds to atta. The Wall street journal, times of india, and indian intelligence all confirmed Gen. Mehmood Ahmed did wire the money to atta. whether the CIA had anything to do with it I just don't know.

Someone else might have looked deeper into it than me on this site who does know.

As usual, 911myths has some useful information and links on this one.

http://www.911myths.com/html/pakistan_s_isi_link_to_9_11_fu.html

It's not as certain as you suggest that Ahmad himself either wired money to Atta or ordered it done, but there's certainly a significant uncertainty here as to what actually happened and what it proves. There's certainly grounds for suspicion that the ISI, or agents within it, may have been supporting al-Qaeda, but the evidence trail back to the CIA is by no means established.

Dave

 

[lisabob2]

The collapse of building 7 wasn't from "fatigue" whatever that is supposed to be. It was from a combination of damage from debris from the collapse of 1 & 2, and unfought fires raging inside it for hours. How it "looked" is immaterial.

how it "looked" is part of the evidence and thus not immaterial. any scientific investigation looks at all evidence.
Jonathan Barnett, PhD. Fire Protection Engineer charged with investigation of WTC7-collapse debris-field said:

"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to
have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures,"

 

[SDC]

how it "looked" is part of the evidence and thus not immaterial. any scientific investigation looks at all evidence.
Jonathan Barnett, PhD. Fire Protection Engineer charged with investigation of WTC7-collapse debris-field said:

"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to
have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures,"

Actually, it is how it "looked" to whom. I can look at a debris pile and see nothing because I have no expertise.

It's like another language. Most people in the US, UK (wherever JREF'rs live) will look at Polish and see nothing but J's and Z's. I can read it and tell you what it means.

As for this Barnett quote it is hard to take seriously "might have been able," "would not explain" and "appear to have been" statements, in a discussion which necessarily relies on technical expertise and mathematical proofs.

I say, give me the indicative voice!

 

[T.A.M.]

One thing I know for sure is Gen. Mehmood Ahmed wired the funds to atta. The Wall street journal, times of india, and indian intelligence all confirmed Gen. Mehmood Ahmed did wire the money to atta. whether the CIA had anything to do with it I just don't know.

Someone else might have looked deeper into it than me on this site who does know.

WRONG!!!!!

The Times of India reported this as allegedly relayed to them by an ANONYMOUS contact with Indian Intelligence.

The Wall Street Journal, and others, merely re-reported the original story from the "Times of India". The WSJ almost did so word for word.

So what you "know for sure" is a report from a single source.

Funny how you will take that as DEFINITE PROOF, convincing enough so that you know for sure, but all of the other proof, numerous, multisourced, and plentiful, confirming the official story about 9/11 you HAVE DOUBTS about.

Have fun in trutherland.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Let me put it like this I detest jason bermas. Espeically when he tried to act like a structural engineer in his debate with marky roberts who by the way crapped all over him because he had actually read the whole entire nist report.

So you are a truther who detests his leaders/public reps, because they suck at their job of pushing the truth movement properly...you would like to do it yourself, much better than Bermas...does that about sum it up???

TAM

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

how it "looked" is part of the evidence and thus not immaterial. any scientific investigation looks at all evidence.
Jonathan Barnett, PhD. Fire Protection Engineer charged with investigation of WTC7-collapse debris-field said:

"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to
have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures,"

Please do not let this person be involved in investigating any crime I am unfortunate enough to be accused of in the future... pleasepleaseplease...

"Well, he was standing next to the deceased holding a knife, so it looked like he had just committed murder. He's guilty your honour."

 

[Dave Rogers]

how it "looked" is part of the evidence and thus not immaterial. any scientific investigation looks at all evidence.
Jonathan Barnett, PhD. Fire Protection Engineer charged with investigation of WTC7-collapse debris-field said:

"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to
have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures,"

Careful, lisabob. I've pointed out to you that Barnett was talking about corrosion taking place in the rubble pile after the collapse, and that this corrosion could not possibly have any bearing on the collapse mechanism, as it's simply the effect of steel being exposed to heat and sulfur for long periods of time, and the heat was due to the fires in the rubble pile that were an inevitable consequence of a burning building collapsing. I've given you the links that prove that this was what Barnett was talking about. You haven't actually claimed that Barnett disputes the NIST collapse mechanism, but you're implying it, and that's close enough to an outright lie that there's very little difference. You know Barnett isn't challenging "the official story", yet you're skirting round the edge of claiming that he is. How can you be a member of a "truth" movement when you're that dishonest?

Dave

 

[GStan]

Careful, lisabob. I've pointed out to you that Barnett was talking about corrosion taking place in the rubble pile after the collapse, and that this corrosion could not possibly have any bearing on the collapse mechanism, as it's simply the effect of steel being exposed to heat and sulfur for long periods of time, and the heat was due to the fires in the rubble pile that were an inevitable consequence of a burning building collapsing. I've given you the links that prove that this was what Barnett was talking about. You haven't actually claimed that Barnett disputes the NIST collapse mechanism, but you're implying it, and that's close enough to an outright lie that there's very little difference. You know Barnett isn't challenging "the official story", yet you're skirting round the edge of claiming that he is. How can you be a member of a "truth" movement when you're that dishonest?
Dave

Apparently its a condition of membership. But they always bury that kinda crap among the fine print.

 

[GStan]

how it "looked" is part of the evidence and thus not immaterial. any scientific investigation looks at all evidence.
Jonathan Barnett, PhD. Fire Protection Engineer charged with investigation of WTC7-collapse debris-field said:

"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to
have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures,"

How it looked to you, or millions of truthers is irrelevant. The observed collapse has been shown to have been possible without the use of CDs. What the collapse 'looked like' is just as much evidence of a debris and fire damage collapse as it is for CD. And in actuality, the 'looks like a CD' only applies to the edited video of the north face collapse without the sound. None of audio evidence supports CD. None of the ear/eyewitness testimony supports CD. None of the videos that show the FULL observed collapse support CD. None of the subsequent investigation at the scene supports CD.

'Looks like' is poor evidence. Try again.

 

[proxywar]

As usual, 911myths has some useful information and links on this one.


It's not as certain as you suggest that Ahmad himself either wired money to Atta or ordered it done, but there's certainly a significant uncertainty here as to what actually happened and what it proves. There's certainly grounds for suspicion that the ISI, or agents within it, may have been supporting al-Qaeda, but the evidence trail back to the CIA is by no means established.

Dave

Thanks for the extra info I never checked 9/11 myths for this I always thought they were more about providing info on Wtc structual engineering and missquotations.

 

[proxywar]

So you are a truther who detests his leaders/public reps, because they suck at their job of pushing the truth movement properly...you would like to do it yourself, much better than Bermas...does that about sum it up???

TAM

I'll be honest with you.

Wrong, I came in here to play devil's advocate to attain infromation I could not find on my own. All I had to do was go against you guys to get what I wanted. I'm on your side... Infact I've been taking down the truth movement on other websites were they pose as shills and try to create fear. it makes me sick to my stomach people like them exists.

 

[proxywar]

WRONG!!!!!

The Times of India reported this as allegedly relayed to them by an ANONYMOUS contact with Indian Intelligence.

The Wall Street Journal, and others, merely re-reported the original story from the "Times of India". The WSJ almost did so word for word.

So what you "know for sure" is a report from a single source.

Funny how you will take that as DEFINITE PROOF, convincing enough so that you know for sure, but all of the other proof, numerous, multisourced, and plentiful, confirming the official story about 9/11 you HAVE DOUBTS about.

Have fun in trutherland.

TAM

Thanks man. You're being helpful finally.

 

[1337m4n]

"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to
have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures,"

Great, now the steel's not only molten, but EVAPORATED?

Please put forward an alternative theory that explains how the steel evaporated.