The horror of Sept. 11th, 2001

Clarke says that as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.

Clarke suggests the idea took him so aback, he initally thought Rumsfeld was joking.

...

After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-607356.html

Until you address where they ended up, the most likely resolution is that they were on a flight that hit the Pentagon.

Putting together disparate facts that contradict each other when used to support your claim doesn't create support for your extraordinary claim. It is only an attempt to discredit what is the most likely result of looking at the evidence and then using that confusion as evidence when it is not.

Just one question to you Parados. It's late here in Australia. I will get back to this.

Your key installation for global military control, that being the Pentagon, currently has one camera that takes a still every second, right? No video capability at all? Right?

Your key military installation also has no air defense capability at all, right?

All that hardware and personell attached to keeping your country safe, and there is no airstrike defense, and no ADG support whatsoever? Right?

You think anyone but the most gullible dropkick would believe that?

Oh, but hang on, you did. Right?

I believed what? That the Pentagon had no defenses and only one camera? No, I don't believe that. That you would suggest it shows your lack of any logical thinking.

I don't believe that an airliner hit the pentagon.

I don't believe that the impact of an airliner crashing into either of the twin towers resulted in their demolition.

"Melted" Steel

Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics

Flight 77 Cockpit Door Never Opened During 9/11 “Hijack”

By Sheila Casey / Rock Creek Free Press

Pilots for 9/11 Truth has reported that the data stream from the flight data recorder (FDR) for American Airlines flight 77, which allegedly struck the Pentagon on 9/11, shows that the cockpit door never opened during the entire 90 minute flight. The data was provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which has refused to comment.

The FDR is one of two “black boxes” in every commercial airliner, which are used after accidents to help determine the cause of a crash. One black box records flight data, the other records voice data (everything said in the cockpit during the flight). With those two sets of data, NTSB investigators can usually piece together the events that led to a crash. The status of the door to the cockpit is checked every four seconds throughout a flight and relayed as a simple 0 or 1, where 0=closed and 1=open, with approximately 1,300 door status checks performed during AA77’s 90 minute flight. Every one of those door status checks shows as a 0, indicating that the door to the cockpit never opened during the entire flight.

http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/285492999/flt77fdr

Your key installation for global military control, that being the Pentagon, currently has one camera that takes a still every second, right? No video capability at all? Right?

Your key military installation also has no air defense capability at all, right?

All that hardware and personell attached to keeping your country safe, and there is no airstrike defense, and no ADG support whatsoever? Right?

The evidence is that 20 young men, members of Al Qaeda,

At Least 7 of the 9/11
Hijackers are Still Alive

A lingering question is why the passenger loads on the four planes hijacked in U.S. skies are being described by industry officials as "very, very low.'' ... Through July, airlines in the United States reported flights on average were 71 percent capacity this year. [CNN 9/20/2001]

The total passenger seating capacity of the four 9/11 airliners was 762 people. There are 229 passengers and crew members on the four death lists issued by CNN (although this figure varies). The total number of passengers on the four airliners was only 26 percent of capacity.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html

Sunday, 23 September, 2001, 12:30 GMT 13:30 UK

Hijack 'suspects' alive and well

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

Three of the four succeeded in that goal

Extraordinary though the story of Flight 93 is, under closer scrutiny we find it is highly problematic. Many aspects are questionable, and this is perhaps most apparent when we examine the scene where Flight 93 supposedly crashed. Although the plane was reportedly "heavily laden with jet fuel" when it "slammed at about 575 mph almost straight down into a rolling patch of grassy land," examination of the soil and groundwater around the crash site found no evidence of contamination by jet fuel. [4]

NO JET FUEL AT THE CRASH SITE
Six days after 9/11, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) began taking soil samples around the Flight 93 crash site, to test for jet fuel, hydraulic fluids, and other hazardous materials. At least three test wells were sunk to monitor groundwater for signs of contamination. [5]

According to the National Transportation Safety Board, Flight 93 had about 37,500 pounds of fuel remaining when it crashed, which was around 77 percent of its fuel load on takeoff. [6] Yet the DEP tests found no evidence of this huge volume of jet fuel at the crash site. Two weeks after the tests began, DEP spokeswoman Betsy Mallison reported that "no contamination has been discovered." [7] She said that, "whether it burned away or evaporated," much of the jet fuel assumed to have spilled at the site "seems to have dissipated." [8]

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/1312816/1/

You think anyone but the most gullible dropkick would believe that?

Oh, but hang on, you did. Right?

Criticism of the 9/11 Commission


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission

NTSB data indicates Flight 77 never dropped below 273 feet! Therefore, Flight 77 could not have crashed into the Pentagon. The Pentagon is only 71 feet tall. Secondly, according to the black box data, Flight 77 could not have damaged the light poles. 77 was much too high (the poles are only 40 feet) and on the wrong trajectory. Dare we hope that this is the wooden stake driven into the heart of vile, evil, official lies about 911?

Data released by the NTSB in response to an FOIA request by Pilots for 911 Truth are nothing less than the raw "black box' file, the official 'flight data' recorded from Flight 77. It's a digital record of everything that happened on that flight from take off. Additionally, altitude and position are confirmed by the beacon at nearby Reagan National Airport.
After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001 .According to the 9/11 Commission Report, which relied heavily upon the NTSB Flight Path Study, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon at 9:37:46 AM on the morning of September 11, 2001 . However, the reported impact time according to the NTSB Flight Path Study is 09:37:45 . Also according to reports, American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon and by doing so, struck down 5 light poles on Highway 27 in its path to the west wall.

The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon.
--OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT'S OWN DATA, Pilots for 911 Truth

http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2008/08/ntsb-flight-data-flight-77-could-not.html

I'm of the opinion that you conspiracy theorists are the most gullible.

How vast is this conspiracy? And who is in charge of it?

I don't either. It was the intense fire resulting from the collision that resulted in their demolition: