PDA

View Full Version : more 911 stuff



itsnino
09-20-2006, 06:54 PM
:: i got this email from a friend, its kind of a stretch but if youre bored its an amusing read ::




This Will Shock You!!!.....9-11 Trivia (What's even more amazing is that some took time to figure this all out!)

This is actually really freaky!! (mainly the end part, but read it all first)

1) New York City has 11 letters

2) Afghanistan has 11 letters.

3) Ramsin Yuseb (The terrorist who threatened to destroy the Twin Towers in 1993) has 11 letters.

4) George W Bush has 11 letters.

This could be a mere coincidence, but this gets more interesting:

1) New York is the 11th state.

2) The first plane crashing against the Twin Towers was flight number 11.

3) Flight 11 was carrying 92 passengers. 9 + 2 = 11

4) Flight 77 which also hit Twin Towers, was carrying 65

passengers. 6+5 = 11

5) The tragedy was on September 11, or 9/11 as it is now known. 9 + 1+ 1 = 11

6) The date is equal to the US emergency services telephone number 911. 9 + 1 + 1 = 11

Sheer coincidence..?! Read on and make up your own mind:

1) The total number of victims inside all the hi-jacked planes was 254. 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.

2) September 11 is day number 254 of the calendar year. Again 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.

3) The Madridbombing took place on 3/11/2004. 3 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 4 = 11.

4) The tragedy of Madrid happened 911 days after the Twin Towers incident.

Now this is where things get totally eerie:

The most recognized symbol for the US, after the Stars & Stripes, is the

Eagle. The following verse is taken from the Quran, the Islamic holy book:

"For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The

wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah while some

of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced: for the wrath of the

Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah and there was peace."

That verse is number 9.11 of the Quran.

unconvinced about all of this Still ..?!

Try this and see how you feel afterwards, it made my hair stand on end:

Open Microsoft Word and do the following:

1. Type in capitals Q33 NY. This is the flight number of the first plane to

hit one of the Twin Towers.

*

2. Highlight the Q33 NY.

3. Change the font size to 48.

4. Change the actual font to the WINGDINGS

What do you think now?!!

mangoes
09-20-2006, 07:15 PM
wow.. pretty freaky stuff. i tried the thing at the end too. but, i dont believe this is credible!? i dont think q33 ny was an actual flight #. oh well, pretty interesting.

kcross
09-20-2006, 07:55 PM
omg the number 11 masterminded the wtc attacks. EVERYBODY PANIC!!!!111oneoneone...

Chris in SD
09-20-2006, 08:02 PM
Ramsin Yuseb??

This alone makes this thread completely retarded... No such person. Did you mean Ramzi Yousef? Fuck, idiocy pisses me off...

itsnino
09-21-2006, 05:32 PM
Ramsin Yuseb??

This alone makes this thread completely retarded... No such person. Did you mean Ramzi Yousef? Fuck, idiocy pisses me off...

hahaha, bro, i didnt write it. i was bored so i just posted this. no need to get worked up about it =)

itsnino
09-21-2006, 05:33 PM
:: i got this email from a friend, its kind of a stretch but if youre bored its an amusing read ::

whooosaaaa!

Chris in SD
09-21-2006, 06:43 PM
Too many retards on this board believe we did it to ourselves on 9/11. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard... Even Osama posted a video of him with the hijackers from before 9/11. What is that? A hologram produced by the US Govt? Fucking idiots... :crazy2:

itsnino
09-22-2006, 06:08 PM
enough about politics, nice avatar.. yum

Eckolaker
09-26-2006, 12:56 PM
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/260906venturaquestions.htm

Eckolaker
09-26-2006, 12:59 PM
Chris,


Here is a special link just for you. Pretty sure his security clearence is higher then yours.

http://infowars.net/articles/September2006/260906Chavez.htm

Chris in SD
09-26-2006, 01:04 PM
Chris,


Here is a special link just for you.Â* Â*Pretty sureÂ* his security clearence is higher then yours.

http://infowars.net/articles/September2006/260906Chavez.htm


Actually his clearance ISN'T higher than mine (and I have a dozen more compartments). Anyway, it just says that he was "on air"... More of this Internet fluff crap. I know some crazy shit that would get people knocking down my door, and if I mixed that with some BS I made up, and then posted it, it would be 1000x more believable than this "US Govt caused 9/11" crap. Fucking attention whores are what these "whistle blowers" are.

Like I said, keep believing this shit if it helps you sleep at night. Abdul, Mohammed, and Mustafa still want to put every single one of us in an orange jumpsuit...

Eckolaker
09-26-2006, 01:41 PM
Here is the "On-Air" interview.

http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/260906chavez.mp3

and for the record....Im not worried about Abdul, Mohammed, and Mustafa. The same fucks were Officially at war with Russia during the 80's. I dont remember any Muslim suicide bomber's at the Kremlin, or hijacked planes crashing into Red square.

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death."
- Adolf Hitler

Chris in SD
09-26-2006, 03:40 PM
Here is the "On-Air" interview.

http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/260906chavez.mp3

and for the record....Im not worried about Abdul, Mohammed, and Mustafa.Â* Â*The same fucks were Officially at war with Russia during the 80's.Â* Â*I dont remember any Muslim suicide bomber's at the Kremlin, or hijacked planes crashing into Red square.

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death."
- Adolf Hitler


Your on-air interview is not a validated source of information. It's some asswipe spouting off on the Internet. If I recorded Bevo and put his skater talk here, it would have as much weight or validity.

If you're not worried about them attacking, then you need to WAKE THE FUCK UP. Do you not recall Chechen MUSLIM terrorists taking over a Russian theater, Chechen MUSLIM terrorists taking over the Beslan school and killing children by the hundreds, Chechen MUSLIM terrorists blowing up two airliners over Russia, or maybe even the Chechen MUSLIM terrorists that blew up a whole apartment complex in Russia. All in the name of jihad. But I guess that never happened because some fucking traitor didn't say it on "prisonplanet.tv". Or maybe Russia did it to their own people. :roll:

Go on, remain a moron. Don't say I didn't try to help.

kcross
09-26-2006, 04:10 PM
haha. eckolaker is using the miltary equivalent of the geeksquad to back up his theory.

Eckolaker
09-26-2006, 04:12 PM
Here is the "On-Air" interview.

http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/260906chavez.mp3

and for the record....Im not worried about Abdul, Mohammed, and Mustafa. The same fucks were Officially at war with Russia during the 80's. I dont remember any Muslim suicide bomber's at the Kremlin, or hijacked planes crashing into Red square.

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death."
- Adolf Hitler


Your on-air interview is not a validated source of information. It's some asswipe spouting off on the Internet. If I recorded Bevo and put his skater talk here, it would have as much weight or validity.

If you're not worried about them attacking, then you need to WAKE THE FUCK UP. Do you not recall Chechen MUSLIM terrorists taking over a Russian theater, Chechen MUSLIM terrorists taking over the Beslan school and killing children by the hundreds, Chechen MUSLIM terrorists blowing up two airliners over Russia, or maybe even the Chechen MUSLIM terrorists that blew up a whole apartment complex in Russia. All in the name of jihad. But I guess that never happened because some fucking traitor didn't say it on "prisonplanet.tv". Or maybe Russia did it to their own people. :roll:

Go on, remain a moron. Don't say I didn't try to help.


I love how you pointed out they were muslim. When in reality they were ex-communicated russian citizens. Brought on by the onset of the cold war. Also you failed to mention that it wasnt in relation to the Afghan war. I guess thats only minor details right?

Muslim extremists are no different then Neo-nazi or skinhead groups. They talk a big game, all ini the name of religion of course. However, we dont see a national call to illiminate these people from the population. One thing they do have in common is that they do not represent the majority. There was a brief time back in the 90's where militia groups were being scapegoated, mostly due to events like Waco, OKC, etc.

Clearly you wont listen to the people chris, maybe you will listen to "your" people. Although since you think that "LJ" Chavez is lying, its hard to tell what you consider proof.

http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.c o.uk%2FIraq%2FStory%2F0%2C%2C1881071%2C00.html

Or are top Army General's moron's too?

Chris in SD
09-26-2006, 05:09 PM
I brought up the fact that they were Muslim because you said it:Â*


I dont remember any Muslim suicide bomber's at the Kremlin, or hijacked planes crashing into Red square.

Sound familiar?

As for the other comments, ANY can say ANYTHING and that doesn't mean it's true.Â* How hard is that logic to understand?

kcross
09-26-2006, 06:17 PM
come on chris we all know why we believe these crazy official stories... its the flourine in the water, it lets the government use mind control on us. they control it from the sound stage that the jews (like mr. silverstein) own that they used to fake the moon landing, where they hold all the captured alien bodies, the flight 93 passengers, and osama bin laden (theyre just waiting for the elections to say they captured him). good thing they got all that insurance money from the wtc to finance it...

gevo
09-26-2006, 06:33 PM
come on chris we all know why we believe these crazy official stories... its the flourine in the water, it lets the government use mind control on us. they control it from the sound stage that the jews (like mr. silverstein) own that they used to fake the moon landing, where they hold all the captured alien bodies, the flight 93 passengers, and osama bin laden (theyre just waiting for the elections to say they captured him). good thing they got all that insurance money from the wtc to finance it... :2funny: :2funny:

Chris in SD
09-26-2006, 08:55 PM
come on chris we all know why we believe these crazy official stories... its the flourine in the water, it lets the government use mind control on us. they control it from the sound stage that the jews (like mr. silverstein) own that they used to fake the moon landing, where they hold all the captured alien bodies, the flight 93 passengers, and osama bin laden (theyre just waiting for the elections to say they captured him). good thing they got all that insurance money from the wtc to finance it...


How could I have been so foolish? I should be quiet now before the black helicopter comes and they take me to Area 51 to perform tests on me... ;)

thisxguy
09-27-2006, 04:44 PM
i found this on someones myspace.Â* lol

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e122/professorcc/factsabout911vx8nn5.jpg

Terry S
09-28-2006, 12:03 PM
#2: fails to account that noone had flown a 767 (or whatever it was) into a highrise steel frame building. Maybe that's why it's never happened before, not because of a controlled explosion.

#3: a common reprinting of false information.

#4: no time to refute this but I'm pretty sure those planes weren't in the air for two hours (from the time they were hijacked to when they hit the towers/pentagon)

#5: I cant refute that with a clip of official protocol from the secret service (they keep those pretty secret!) but I can guess (just like the maker of this crap) that they probably just wanted to confirm the story before removing him EVEN IF that is a real protocol that was broken.

#6: Again, no time to confirm otherwise but I'm guessing this is just massive speculation or if by chance it did happen (unlikely) then it was coincidental (or just maybe it was one of the Al Qaeda personel making money the same way they always had...)

#7: Reprint of false information

#8: "Neocon Hawks"... hilarious. Anyone who uses the phrase "Neocon" needs to be killed for mass ignorance & gross stupidity. But besides that, that little caveot is ALWAYS used when describing things of that nature. "Oh this and this will happen baring some unforseen catastrophy..." See?

#9: Commonly reprinted false information. Very very false.

#10: What the hell does that have anything to do with anything? That is just a pointless numerical fact. Lame.

#11: Maybe it didn't point to "offical complicity" because it didn't exist?

Would people just let this go and quit trying to see crap in nothing?

Terry S

Terenus
09-28-2006, 03:14 PM
I have to agree with Terry S on #2, it's a WHOLE plane that got got lodged into the building. I really doubt the heat + the weight of the plane was never integrated into the design of the twin towers.

Chris in SD
09-28-2006, 03:15 PM
I have to agree with Terry S on #2, it's a WHOLE plane that got got lodged into the building. I really doubt the heat + the weight of the plane was never integrated into the design of the twin towers.




When they built the WTC, they tried to account for a 707 (the largest at the time). The 767 was heavier and traveling faster AND had a full load of fuel onboard. But GW and his posse did 9/11 to us... :roll:

Terenus
09-28-2006, 03:28 PM
I have to agree with Terry S on #2, it's a WHOLE plane that got got lodged into the building. I really doubt the heat + the weight of the plane was never integrated into the design of the twin towers.




When they built the WTC, they tried to account for a 707 (the largest at the time). The 767 was heavier and traveling faster AND had a full load of fuel onboard. But GW and his posse did 9/11 to us... :roll:


Got me there!

kcross
09-28-2006, 04:11 PM
they also were designed to be struck by a nearly empty(fuel) 707, making an error on approach at landing speed. not a nearly full(fuel) 767/757, with a full load of fuel, at full speed...

Chris in SD
09-28-2006, 05:08 PM
they also were designed to be struck by a nearly empty(fuel) 707, making an error on approach at landing speed. not a nearly full(fuel) 767/757, with a full load of fuel, at full speed...


That's the point I was trying to make in my post. The kinetic energy was incredible - any physics majors out there want to calculate the impact of a fully-laden 767 moving at 586mph? (My source is "The Age of Sacred Terror" by Benjamin and Simon [2 former Clinton NSC terrorism chiefs], not teh interweb]

Eckolaker
10-02-2006, 01:24 PM
When they built the WTC, they tried to account for a 707 (the largest at the time). The 767 was heavier and traveling faster AND had a full load of fuel onboard. But GW and his posse did 9/11 to us... :roll:



That is incorrect.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html (707-320B is the 707 on record in 1964 when the towers were designed.)

Compared to a 767
http://flyaow.com/planes/767aircraftspecifications.htm

One of the WTC design engineers was quoted as saying a plane hitting the WTC tower would be no greater then a pencil peircing a mosquito net. That quote can be found here...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries

Pretty much everyone in the last few posts is completely wrong about the planes specifications. Thats what you get for listening to what people tell you instead of researching it.

If the plane impacts effected the structural integrity of the towers, you would have seen that immediately. Instead the building did exactly what it was designed to do. Secondly, the Outer "curtain wall" did not support the gravitational load of the WTC towers. So, an impact and removal of curtain wall beams will not effect the towers ability to support its weight.

Secondly, NIST said the steel core collumns did not reach temperatures over 525 degrees F.

To put that in simple terms, your average kitchen stove gets that hot. Now if fires that hot could weaken steel, than why doesnt the pan you cook with disform/bend/flex/melt/etc?

I think we can all agree Structural steel is much stonger then your average steel cooking pan.

Terry S
10-02-2006, 02:04 PM
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/images/767exteriors.jpg

So lets see.... Per this image from the Boeing site (instead of your flyaow.com reference), the 767 could be one of three different sizes and per your Boeing reference the 707 could be one of two different sizes. And regardless of which combination you use, the 767 is larger. Depending on the style they designed around and the style that hit the buildings, the difference in size could be as large as 40 more feet in wingspan and 73 feet in length (767 larger than 707). I'm to lazy to figure out how much more volume that is (someone here could maybe calc that for me?) but it's definitely a large percentage.



Pretty much everyone in the last few posts is completely wrong about the planes specifications. Thats what you get for listening to what people tell you instead of researching it.


Looks like everyone's last few posts were right afterall.

Terry S

Eckolaker
10-02-2006, 02:11 PM
Since when does wingspan have to due with overall takeoff weight.

If anything a Boeing of a later model will weigh less due to use of lighter weight materials.

By the way, if you pay attention to the flyaow site, they link to the 767 homepage on boeing.

Nice try Terry

Absinthe
10-02-2006, 02:17 PM
feul tanks are in the wings, bigger plane, bigger wings, bigger feul tanks, feul is heavey.

what does this mean?

that one has reason to assume a larger plane might well be heavier.

Absinthe
10-02-2006, 02:18 PM
oh and can we change the title of this to 9/11

so that I stop clicking on it hoping to read about porsches

Terry S
10-02-2006, 02:37 PM
Since when does wingspan have to due with overall takeoff weight.

If anything a Boeing of a later model will weigh less due to use of lighter weight materials.

By the way, if you pay attention to the flyaow site, they link to the 767 homepage on boeing.

Nice try Terry


Fair enough. I'll try it again then.

I dont understand where flyaow.com is getting the takeoff weights for the 707 and 767. The 707 weight is higher than the quoted maximum on the plane manual on the boeing website. And for the 767, the takeoff weight is about 25% lower than the stated maximum on the boeing website...

When looking directly at the plane manual on the boeing website, the numbers work out to be:

707 Operating Empty Weight: (avg.) 142,600 lbs
767 Max Takeoff Weight: (avg.) 400,000 lbs

But for the sake of argument, we'll take off 20% from the max takeoff weight since I doubt it was flying at 100% but it did have a full payload of fuel.

So about 320,000 lbs for the 767 compared to 143,000 lbs for the 707... Even if you add 20% to the 707's weight, you still get the 767 as about 100% bigger than a 707.

I think thats enough of a difference to cause unforseen results.

Terry S

Terry S
10-02-2006, 02:38 PM
oh and can we change the title of this to 9/11

so that I stop clicking on it hoping to read about porsches


LOL I bet porsche has something to with 9/11 too...

Terry S

Eckolaker
10-02-2006, 04:10 PM
You cannot use the Prototype 707 for anything. That design never saw service.

The info I posted about the 707 is straight off the Boeing site.

Chris in SD
10-02-2006, 05:30 PM
Eckolaker - I'm surprised you didn't say the planes were remote controlled, and Dick Cheney had the controller...

I didn't even get into the airspeeds... Next you're going to tell me a biplane is faster than an F-16 and show me some college kid's link to a bullshit website. My eyes hurt from rolling so much.

Terry S
10-03-2006, 07:48 AM
You cannot use the Prototype 707 for anything. That design never saw service.

The info I posted about the 707 is straight off the Boeing site.


I'm not using the prototype. The 142,600 weight is for the -320/-420 variant. I could use the -320B weight if you want but thats only 148,800 at the max which is only a few percent larger.

Terry S

Eckolaker
10-03-2006, 11:07 AM
You cannot use the Prototype 707 for anything. That design never saw service.

The info I posted about the 707 is straight off the Boeing site.


I'm not using the prototype. The 142,600 weight is for the -320/-420 variant. I could use the -320B weight if you want but thats only 148,800 at the max which is only a few percent larger.

Terry S



Where are you getting this 142,600 weight?

Certainly not here...
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html

As for the plane that hit the Towers according to NIST, it was a 767-200ER. So please do not use any other figures other then the one provided by boeing on the 767-200ER.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf page 74 section 2.2

Terry S
10-03-2006, 02:07 PM
You cannot use the Prototype 707 for anything. That design never saw service.

The info I posted about the 707 is straight off the Boeing site.


I'm not using the prototype. The 142,600 weight is for the -320/-420 variant. I could use the -320B weight if you want but thats only 148,800 at the max which is only a few percent larger.

Terry S



Where are you getting this 142,600 weight?

Certainly not here...
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/product.html

As for the plane that hit the Towers according to NIST, it was a 767-200ER. So please do not use any other figures other then the one provided by boeing on the 767-200ER.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf page 74 section 2.2


I was using this link (page 3 of 22 in adobe) for the 140k reference. See the "operating empty weight" section.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/707sec2.pdf

For numbers of both the 767 and 707, I was using the technical specification sheets on the boeing website. (there's a 767 one on the same page you can get the 707 from)

And I see that from your NIST report that the plane was only 1/3rd full of fuel which would make the plane about 100k less than maximum takeoff weight.

So i'm trying to remember why we were arguing weight of the planes here and if i'm remembering correct, its because you were trying to show that it shouldn't cause any damage to the building because one of the building designers mentioned it shouldn't?

What about the NIST reference you provide that shows the building had a quarter of its internal pillars severed due to the plane impact. Wouldn't that really make the designers comment moot? And besides, when are designers and engineers ever correct in real world physics?

Terry S

Edit: Oh and to respond to the 767-200ER comment, then replace my 400k figure with 380k.

genrec
10-03-2006, 07:43 PM
Why don't you guys stop all this bullshit..nobody is going to convince anyone of anything. Just leave it that our government created 911 for the good and future of America. Survival of the fitest mentality. Conquer and destroy. Expand our vast empire, and move towards globalization. At first I was upset and wanted heads to roll when i realized our own government did this, and wanted to spread the truth. Now I ust keep my mouth shut. Now I'm glad they did it, it feels good to be on the end of the iron fist. No place I'd rather be, God Bless America!

Chris in SD
10-04-2006, 03:20 AM
I am still flabbergasted that people STILL think the US killed its own citizens under the guise of starting a "holy war". Why haven't UBL and his crew said, "We didn't do it!"?? Why do they have videos of the planning, training, and post-execution of the attacks? Simple - BECAUSE THEY DID IT.

Terry S
10-04-2006, 08:18 AM
Why don't you guys stop all this bullshit..nobody is going to convince anyone of anything. Just leave it that our government created 911 for the good and future of America. Survival of the fitest mentality. Conquer and destroy. Expand our vast empire, and move towards globalization. At first I was upset and wanted heads to roll when i realized our own government did this, and wanted to spread the truth. Now I ust keep my mouth shut. Now I'm glad they did it, it feels good to be on the end of the iron fist. No place I'd rather be, God Bless America!


We cant leave it alone because its human nature. When someone is wrong and attempts to convince others that they are right, then that person must be corrected and/or stopped from spreading stupidity.

Terry S

Eckolaker
10-04-2006, 11:00 AM
I am still flabbergasted that people STILL think the US killed its own citizens under the guise of starting a "holy war". Why haven't UBL and his crew said, "We didn't do it!"?? Why do they have videos of the planning, training, and post-execution of the attacks? Simple - BECAUSE THEY DID IT.



Once again, parroting the official myth.

Bin Laden said he didnt do it. He said it on September 12 2001 He said in october the same year.

What you want proof? Okay

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/index.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001/09/12/binladen-happy.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3618762.stm
http://www2.jsonline.com/news/nat/sep01/binladen-denial.asp

How about the Taliban in october of 2001 on world wide television stating that they would turn Bin Laden over the US for extradition if we could provide proof that Osama was directly responsible for carrying out the attacks?
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=1600#a091601talibanagree


Seruously Chris, you need to do some research. You are very uninformed for someone who claims to know everything about everything.

kcross
10-04-2006, 03:33 PM
oh, i bet they wouldnt lie. thatd be absured. theyre totally upstanding groups...

Eckolaker
10-04-2006, 04:18 PM
oh, i bet they wouldnt lie. thatd be absured. theyre totally upstanding groups...


Well if they were bluffing, we'll never know. We went in there, bombed the shit out of the country in the name of capturing those responsible. We let Osama escape in Tora Bora, then Dubya told the american people Osama "wasnt important" and that "he doesnt spend much time on him".


"There is no doubt in our mind Osama Bin Laden is responsible for 9/11"
"There is no doubt in our minds that Iraq has WMD"

:2funny: :2funny: :2funny:

Chris in SD
10-04-2006, 08:17 PM
I am still flabbergasted that people STILL think the US killed its own citizens under the guise of starting a "holy war".Â* Why haven't UBL and his crew said, "We didn't do it!"??Â* Why do they have videos of the planning, training, and post-execution of the attacks?Â* Simple - BECAUSE THEY DID IT.



Once again, parroting the official myth.Â*

Bin Laden said he didnt do it.Â* Â* He said it on September 12 2001 He said in october the same year.

What you want proof?Â* Â*Okay

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/index.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001/09/12/binladen-happy.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3618762.stm
http://www2.jsonline.com/news/nat/sep01/binladen-denial.asp

How about the Taliban in october of 2001 on world wide television stating that they would turn Bin Laden over the US for extradition if we could provide proof that Osama was directly responsible for carrying out the attacks?
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&startpos=1600#a091601talibanagree


Seruously Chris, you need to do some research.Â* Â*You are very uninformed for someone who claims to know everything about everything.


That is the dumbest thing I have EVER read. Do you not watch the news? Did you not see Osama running around with the 9/11 hijackers? WTF...

Finally, you have NO idea what I do for a living. If I was wrong about this, I would have no job... Why the hell do you think I am always traveling (and for that matter, moved to VA in the first place). For the last time, believe what you want - however stupid it might be.

Eckolaker
10-05-2006, 08:13 AM
Chris, one thing I have always given you is benefit of the doubt.

That being said, you should know the history that pertains to your job, right?

So, would you agree that Bin Laden was recruited by the CIA in the late 70's to lead the mujahadeen?

Would you also agree that the CIA used the Pakistani ISI to channel funding through the mujahadeen?

Al' Qaida was originally coined by the CIA, in arabic rougly translated it means "The Database". Which is a direct reference Bin Laden and his mujahadeen fighters?

Chris in SD
10-05-2006, 01:59 PM
Chris,Â* one thing I have always given you is benefit of the doubt.

That being said, you should know the history that pertains to your job, right?

I do

So, would you agree that Bin Laden was recruited by the CIA in the late 70's to lead the mujahadeen?

Not true - he wasn't a known person until the late '80s

Would you also agree that the CIA used the Pakistani ISI to channel funding through the mujahadeen?

That is absolutely true. In fact, the ISI supported the Taliban until we told them to pick sides.

Al' Qaida was originally coined by the CIA, in arabic rougly translated it means "The Database".Â* Which is a direct reference Bin Laden and his mujahadeen fighters?

Al Qa'ida means "the base". The "database" is a stretch. Also, the phrase was coined by Ayman Al-Zawahiri when he split from the Muslim Brotherhood. Realistically, Al-Zawahiri was the founder of the organization and Bin Laden was a benefactor before taking charge.



See bold above...

Eckolaker
10-06-2006, 10:27 AM
My research on Bin laden shows he was an asset or at least know about as early as 1980. However, he wasnt officially considered as a "terrorist" until the late 80's when the Saudi's denounced him as a citizen.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&timeperiod=1979%20-%202000
(Third Article down)


Apparently Pakistan never picked sides...
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&geopolitics_and_9/11=isi

Especially Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad(head of Pakistani ISI before 9/11), who ordered the Wire Transer of $100,000 to Mohammad Atta the week before 9/11.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&the_isi:_a_more_detailed_look=mahmoodAhmed


I use the cooperative research site because it has all the important MSM articles in an ordered timeline fashion. It makes for easy referencing, but all the articles are supported.

Of course none of the above was mentioned in the 9/11 commission report.

Chris in SD
10-06-2006, 12:02 PM
I do agree that Pakistan has not picked sides in truth (even though they "committed" to the war on terror). They are harboring those Al-Qa'ida assholes even now...

Eckolaker
10-06-2006, 01:53 PM
Who was Lt. Gen. Ahmad meeting with on the morning of 9/11?

nine
10-25-2006, 12:44 AM
THE FOURTH REICH http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=819311653024404206&q=immortal+technique :twisted: