World Trade Center bombing of 1993 In the World Trade Center bombing (February 26, 1993) a car bomb was detonated by Arab Islamist terrorists. The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef. They received financing from al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle, who would later allegedly admit to planning the September 11, 2001 attacks. Osama bin Laden, declaring: the ruling to kill the Americans and their allies civilians and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it. According to interviews by Al-Jazeera as well as United States interrogations of al-Qaeda members Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (captured in 2002 and 2003 respectively), Khalid Mohammed was the instigator and prime organizer of the attacks.They also indicated bin Laden's direct participation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11,_2001_attacks Why Did It Collapse? Tim Wilkinson, Lecturer in Civil Engineering The structural integrity of the World Trade Center depends on the closely spaced columns around the perimeter. Lightweight steel trusses... It appears likely that the impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire system. as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material. As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel. strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination. Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards. Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete storey at the level of impact. Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor progressively "pancaked" to the ground. This section added 14 January 2006 This website generates many queries from people in response to some of the other theories that are put forward relating to the collapse - namely that it was a controlled explosion. The initial impact/further weakening by fire reasoning is based on uncontestable knowledge about the behaviour of structures in general, and the weakening of steel under fire conditions, plus video footage of the events and examination of the steel afterwards. The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength. The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was. Why did the building fall so quickly? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance. The author respects people's right to question theories, but at the present time the author does not believe there is enough evidence for him to change his views on this incident. http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
you forgot Roswell, squibs, Bin Laden body doubles, Stonehenge, Atlantis, the grassy knoll, back and to the left, Bavarian Illuminati, the NWO, the Lizard King, cold fusion, and the International Zionist Bankers. I like how you characterize yourself as someone avoiding the 'mainstream' and seeking the truth. Yes... you're definitely a little left of centre.
The big question. If we are so sure that Osama Bin Forgotten was responsible for 911, why doesn't the FBI even mention it on his rap sheet? http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
Like I said, you have no clue..... The 9/11 commission was about finding why the intelligence communityfailed in stopping 9/11. It was NOT about exposing some ridiculous conspiracy theory. So we'll stick to Able Danger then, since you seem unable to do more than 1 thing at a time.... Able Danger identified some of the terrorists a year BEFORE 9/11. But the info was destroyed by the Clinton Admin.... The 9/11 comm - which had Jamie Gorelick (who was instrumental in creating the 'stovepipe' for the intelligence community) on the 9/11 comm - said " they did not learn of ANY US govt knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohammad Atta or of his cell. Had we learned of it, obviously it would've been a major focus of our investigation' - Lee Hamilton, Dem co-chair of the 9/11 comm. 2 days later, he changed his story, admitting the comm HAD been told about AD, but claimed they didn't mention it in their report because it wasn't 'historically significant'. What do you think of that? And how is this mainstream mud? It's facts, not opinion.....
Why doesn't bin laden turn himself in and clear his good name? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Laden Although bin Laden has not been indicted for the September 11, 2001 attacks, he has taken responsibility for the attacks,[3][4][5] He has been indicted in United States federal court for his alleged involvement in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, and is on the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list. It has also been said that he is linked to the 2000 USS Cole bombing, the Bali nightclub bombings, the Madrid bombings, as well as bombings in the Jordanian capital of Amman and in Egypt's Sinai peninsula. [5] CBC News Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States. The militant Islamic group decided "we should destroy towers in America", said bin Laden. In the 18-minute message, parts were played on Qatar-based Al-Jazeera.
actually i am quite conservative. hmmmm, lets see.... how many of the above topics have i ever touched upon? lets try zero. nice try lil nicole. now go watch your langan video and fume... LOL LOL LOL:eek:
you are a sad little sheep aren't you? the only reason i would pay attention to this garbage is to see what type of theatrics they had chosen to pursue. able danger is minor compared to some of the "classified" evidence they have. you sit at home watching fox news and sean hannity, high "fiving" yourself thinking you are cutting edge? dude, get a grip. you and tradernicole are exactly the kind of stooges they prey on. it wasn't a failure of intelligence communicating with each other... it was hierarchy putting the brakes on. tell me, what did the 9/11 ommission have to say about wtc7 and why it magically came down?
7 World Trade Center National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted a three-year, US$24 million investigation into the structural failure and progressive collapse of several WTC complex structures, including 7 World Trade Center. The study included not only in-house technical expertise, but also drew upon the knowledge of several outside private institutions, including the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE), the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY).[6] NIST has released video and still photo analysis of Building 7 prior to its collapse that appears to indicate a greater degree of structural damage from falling debris than originally assumed by FEMA. Specifically, a large 10-story gash existed on the south facade, extending a third across the face of the building and approximately a quarter of the way into the interior.[1] A unique aspect of the design of 7 WTC was that each outer structural column was responsible for supporting 2,000 square feet (186 square meters) of floor space, suggesting that the simultaneous removal of a number of columns would lead to a severely compromised structure. Consistent with this theory, news footage shows visible cracking and bowing of the building's east wall immediately prior to the collapse, which started from the penthouse floors.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center
yet.... nothing in the 9/11 ommission report huh? LOL LOL LOL too funny. yeah, i have heard all about the magic photos that are so called "classified".. if the gash is that big then release the photos. thats all we ask for..... just release them, what are they afraid of? funny how the atf bldg had the chit blown out of its side yet half remained standing. oh wait, larry didn't own that one.... LOL LOL LOL:eek: