Why is it considered so bad to suggest that Osama detonated the WTCs?

[savemefromdumbya]

This is puzzling since the WTC and #7 were obviously denoted and brought down. WTC in 8 seconds. Why is it so bad to suggest this? Why couldn't have Osama have done this? He was supposed to have bombed it in 1993. Why only are we allowed to think that the planes did it? If anyone suggests that the WTCs were detonated they are screamed at! This is not about conspiracy theories it is about terrorists and blowing up buildings.

[Gman]

1. Probably because it just didn't happen

and it annoys other people when people keep repeating it in spite of the fact it didn't happen.

[Warpy]

18. They know what failed

and how the cascade failure happened when it did. They just haven't mentioned why it failed, nor have they mentioned how so many huge fires on so many floors away from the main WTCs got started.

It wasn't a controlled demolition, though. It takes WEEKS to drill supporting columns, place explosives, and wire the whole business up to detonate in sequence to do a controlled demolition.

There are still a few unanswered questions about #7, but the explanations out there mostly involve suspending the laws of physics, miraculous prescience, or the activities of a platoon of Supermen.

[DoYouEverWonder]

28. Here's some of the info on WTC 7 that I've been working on

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x117497

I think I have a pretty good idea about how they brought down the building. The system for collapsing the building was installed has part of the renovations for Rudy's OEM bunker.

[savemefromdumbya]

29. but terrorists do

it is not unlikely that terroroists could get in there especially if they were helped out.

[Fredda Weinberg]

2. I guess you had to see it. 8 seconds? It was a lifetime to me.

Why don't you take heed of the Popular Mechanics people, who interviewed the experts, who corroborate what I saw ... that the failure began in each tower at the point of impact. No one has to scream or shout.

[LSK]

7. take the time and watch this

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/11/1345203

[savemefromdumbya]

30. it was 8 seconds

[Make7]

41. That is actually wrong

[greyl]

43. lol! nt

[petgoat]

50. How does failure at impact point refute cd? Planes could have

targetted radio beacons planted in the buildings.

Demolition charge sequences could have been re-set
after impact.

[greyl]

52. Do you honestly think that's a reasonable possibility?

Also, can you add the number of people involved in this aspect of CT to the total number?
I think that would make it 751,487.

[petgoat]

56. Of course radio beacons in the buildings is a reasonable

possibility. What makes you think it's not?

Of course reprogramming detonation sequences is a reasonable possibility.
Under computer control it's easy. Did you never find time to learn
to program a computer? It's easy!

[Sinti]

68. I think if you take out the center columns, which support the gravity load

the towers would fall without touching the outer structure. The outer structure supported lateral and dynamic loads. Done this way it would, of course, fail at its weakest point first.

Edited to add - that doesn't really explain the energetic explosion and destruction of concrete fully, though. I'm still thinking RDX or a sibling, it's high power, thermally stable, can be detonated by electrical pulse within a very narrow signal range - that's what I'd have used. It would definitely cause the kind of destruction witnessed in the two towers - 7 looked different to me.

[Nozebro]

59. Your post indicates you may have a future in low-brow comedy work.

The number you cited is more likely the number of shills hired to pretend to be offended by the truth in order to suppress legitimate debate and the search for the truth about how such an inside job as 9/11 was carried out.

[DoYouEverWonder]

58. Actually, in WTC 1 the collapse did not start at the point of impact

The impact zone was between the 94th - 97th Floor. The collapse of WTC1 began at the 92nd Floor.

In WTC, 2 the building failed at the 81st Floor which was in the impact zone. However, the 81st floor was not like most of the other floors. The 81st floor was taken up mostly by the machine room for the dozen 24-ton elevator hoists. To hold the 600,000-pound weight of the elevator hoists, the beams supporting the 81st floor were twice as big and four times as heavy as those on the 79th floor. Amazing they managed to hit the one floor that you would have to take out to bring down the building.

[Swamp Rat]

3. "Why is it considered so bad to suggest..." - Strawman

:)

[Bucky]

13. Wikipedia has a similar catch phrase for this technique

But it's not a nice thing to say (or use)

[savemefromdumbya]

31. except that this isn't a conspiracy theory but a terrorist attack

[KFC]

4. It is not so bad

Just so stupid

[rinsd]

5. Probably because the controlled demo is a farce

So it doesn't really matter who is said to have done it.

[doublethink]

6. Watch this .... connect the dots ...... that is all ......

Press For Truth. link here ..... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1016720641536424083&q=press+for+truth Peace. :)

[librechik]

8. the implication is Osama didn't do it--he was just the patsy

as such a plan would have to be carried out over weeks perhaps with previous knowledge of the owners and FBI and others--nobody wants to face up to that--easier to say an evil raghead did it.

[bettyellen]

9. because these dumb ideas make the rest of us look stupid.

what do you think, the planes were window dressing? an elaborate ruse? makes no frigging sense, never did.

[savemefromdumbya]

33. that wasn't the question

[petgoat]

51. Planes as window dressing makes plenty of sense.

Firstly because obvious CD would implicate Marvin Bush's
security company.

Secondly because bombs in the building are not as terrorizing
as planes-in-the-building. People in Kansas can't imagine
Muslims blowing up their skyscrapers. But they can imagine
Muslim suicide pilots flying planes into their skycrapers.

[TheWraith]

10. Demolition is only obvious if you listen to the tin-foilers.

If you examine the structural details, the critical temperature of the steel columns, the weight of the towers, and how they collapsed, it pretty quickly becomes obvious that the collapse happened exactly the way that it appeared. Massive structural damage, followed by jet fuel fires, resulting in catastrophic loss of structural integrity.

Think of it this way--of Osama had the ability to do a controlled demolition on the towers, why use planes at all? Why not demolish the buildings suddenly, in the middle of a workday, when it would have killed more like 30,000 people instead of 3,000?

[LSK]

12. not

Obviously you have not studied these things.

[TheWraith]

45. Certainly more than you have.

Otherwise you'd be presenting evidence rather than unfounded assertions.

[John Q. Citizen]

32. Where does anyone present evidence that the critical temperatures

of the steel column reached high enough to cause failure?

If you read the NIST report. they say plainly they have some steel from the fire floors, but they have no steel that shows exposure to temperatures as high as what would be needed to cause the failures.

I listen to NIST not the tinfoilers. They say they have no steel that shows exposure to the time and temperatures needed for failure. At this point, they are only guessing as to the cause of failure.

Sorry to be nit picky here, but misrepresenting the NIST report does no one any good. It just spreads unfounded rumors.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

NIST's New Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel (WTC)
Highlights:

1) No WTC-7 steel was recovered or analyzed.

2) No unprocessed, intact floor trusses were recovered or analyzed.

3) No testing for explosives (or sulfidation or other residue of any kind) was performed.

4) Only 12 total core columns were recovered from WTC-1 & WTC-2 combined.

5) Of the recovered core pieces, none showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C.

6) Of 170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels, only three showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C and for one of these three forensic evidence indicated that the high temperature exposure occurred AFTER the collapse.

7) No recovered steel showed any evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.


http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf

[TheWraith]

44. Thanks for making my point for me.

NIST only analyzed about 1% of the steel from the towers. Already, the odds of getting the steel from the impact zone is at best 1 in 20 or so. On top of that, the steel which was damaged worst in the fire would be the least likely to be recovered, since it was largely destroyed.

NIST also didn't find any evidence of demolitions on the steel, but that doesn't stop the tin foilers. Cutting charges aren't exactly subtle things.

And by the way, the critical temperature for steel is around 560 C. At that temperature, it loses its loadbearing capability, and the structure collapses. So of course the steel wouldn't show exposure to temperatures above that--by the time the steel got that hot, the building would be collapsing.

[John Q. Citizen]

46. You haven't read NIST, have you? Why not just admit that and quit

making stuff up as you go along.

The steel would have been destroyed? ha ha ha ha. How would that be?

This is NIST the people in charge of the structural investigation. They can't get steel to inspect? Why would that be? If they can't get steel to inspect, and they didn't bother to test for any other causes than a predetermined outcome, then how would they know if some other cause did or didn't cause the collapse?

You can believe in fairy tales, spinning them and buying into them, but I'll take scientific evidence and a real crime scene investigation over fairy tales any day.

Thanks for the laugh.

[Carefulplease]

47. You haven't read the report either, have you?

If you had, you would know that they did investigate the sulfidation issue.

[John Q. Citizen]

62. Oh yeah, as I recall they said something like,

there is sulpher in tires, and plastics, and we don't really know how it ended up in concentrated form on that piece of steel that we estimate showed heating to 1000 degrees c.

Like so much of the entire "investigation" they didn't answer the questions, they just blew it off.

I don't recall why they didn't find sulpher concentrations on other steel or in other places, just there on that piece.

Perhaps you remember what reason they gave for that?

[Carefulplease]

66. You don't recall well...

You most definitely haven't read the NIST report. They didn't say any one of those things. If you did read it, then maybe it is time to go back and refresh your memory.

[TheWraith]

71. No, making stuff up as you go along sounds like this:

The World Trade Center was destroyed by thousands of controlled demolitions charges which were somehow placed on all the critical beams of every story of the building without a single person noticing or questioning it.

THAT is making things up as you go along.

"The steel would have been destroyed? ha ha ha ha. How would that be?"

Asked and answered.

"This is NIST the people in charge of the structural investigation. They can't get steel to inspect? Why would that be?"

Perhaps because they only inspected 1% of the steel?

"If they can't get steel to inspect, and they didn't bother to test for any other causes than a predetermined outcome, then how would they know if some other cause did or didn't cause the collapse?"

If NIST is in on the conspiracy, in your world, how is it that they said none of the steel got hot enough to become compromised? If this conspiracy is so all-powerful, where does a little detail like that escape them? Or is it more likely that NIST's 1% of the steel simply didn't include the supports that DID reach failure temperatures?

"You can believe in fairy tales, spinning them and buying into them, but I'll take scientific evidence and a real crime scene investigation over fairy tales any day."

Then what are you doing here? Controlled demolition is nothing but one big fairy tail with a bad ending.

[petgoat]

54. You're making up your facts to support your complacency.

I did that once. Assumed that the planes hit so fast NORAD never had
a chance to respond, and the whole thing was over in 20 minutes.

Wrong. There was no air defense for 100 minutes. When I learned that,
my compacency was shattered.

the steel which was damaged worst in the fire would be the least likely to be recovered

How's that? Are you claiming it was vaporized?

NIST also didn't find any evidence of demolitions on the steel

They didn't examine the steel for explosive residue, and apparently did
not consider firemens' reports of explosions to be evidence.

the critical temperature for steel is around 560 C.

And the significance of this factoid is what? NIST has not one piece of
core steel showing heating above 250 degrees C.

[TheWraith]

70. You have a lot of gall to say that about someone else.

"Wrong. There was no air defense for 100 minutes. When I learned that, my compacency was shattered."

That's not exactly accurate. For starters, it's true that by the time the ATCs informed NORAD, it was too late to do anything about the first plane.

"How's that? Are you claiming it was vaporized?"

Nope. But it would have been broken, twisted, shattered, blackened, and generally almost unrecognizible as part of the supports. So it's less likely to be recovered.

"They didn't examine the steel for explosive residue, and apparently did not consider firemens' reports of explosions to be evidence."

As I said earlier, cutting charges leave a distinctive signature. They're nearly impossible to miss, and don't really look like anything else.

"And the significance of this factoid is what? NIST has not one piece of core steel showing heating above 250 degrees C."

Sigh. See my previous messages.

[savemefromdumbya]

34. no

[petgoat]

53. "It pretty quickly becomes obvious "

What becomes obvious is that NIST has not one piece of core steel showing heating
above 250 degrees C. Why not? Because the steel was recycled too quickly to
take proper samples.

Massive structural damage

And your evidence for this is what? The planes were shredded by the perimeter columns.
How much structural damage can fist-sized chunks of aluminium do? Dr. Eagar likened
the impacts to "A bullet hitting a tree."

if Osama had the ability to do a controlled demolition on the towers, why use
planes at all?

Because bombs in the building aren't as scary as planes in the building.

Why not demolish the buildings suddenly, in the middle of a workday, when it
would have killed more like 30,000 people instead of 3,000?

You could raise the same issue about the airplane attack. Why strike before
9:00, when the buildings were minimally populated?

[Bucky]

11. Among other problems is the fact that they were not detonated

It's not bad to suggest it, only inaccurate. A nice place to start understanding how the planes did in fact destroy the WTC is the recently republished Popuar Mechanics article (now about to be issued as a full fledged book) debunking a lot of the "more than meets the eye" bunk propagated by well meaning people who need to believe something as terrible as 9/11 had to be done by a bigger monster and more complicated forces than what's available to cave-dwelling throwbacks like bin Laden.

But small men with big dreams, the right tools, and excellent positioning at the right time can do all sorts of damage to our civilization. Case in point is the relatively small number of neocons who've hijacked the American government and shredded our basic civil liberties.

[LSK]

17. see post 7

[savemefromdumbya]

35. Popular Mechanics!

LOL!

[LSK]

14. Dungeon in 3 . . 2 . . 1. .

[arcane1]

15. I'm perfectly ok with the claim that planes brought the towers down

though it doesn't explain bldg 7, nor does it rule out a LIHOP scenario

[savemefromdumbya]

36. why?

[whistle]

16. Ahummmm, 5 years later, the administrations official version

...is going to revert to Osama did after-all get into those buildings three to four eeks before the attacks, unnoticed, wired and planted all the massive explosives, has access to military style thermite explosives, installed sophistical ed detonation sequencing triggers, wired three separate systems/networks of computers for the detonation sequences along with all of the communications devices and just sat waiting for the planes to go into those buildings. This is beyond incredible, it would be preposterous.

No, the building did come down by controlled detonations, but not by a band of terrorists. This was an inside job, with experts, coordinated by a professional group with a deliberate objective, which I believe has to do with the over-throw of the American form of democracy. Beyond that, I have no further information as to who, what or how such a group could do such a thing except that looking back at the five years which has elapsed and the group given the authority and resources to set all of this straight, it most definitely does not appear that Americans best interests have been served, nor have the interests of peace and freedom in the rest of the world been served. In fact, it smells pretty bad!

[savemefromdumbya]

37. terrorists can do

terrorists with a little help from other governments?

[Sinti]

75. They could do it. They were in pretty tight with the ISI, an intel org.

Many of the older terrorists were trained by our CIA, as well. They could definitely get in there and plant explosives. It's not exactly rocket science. Anyone who says that's impossible is really living in school-book world. I wish I had that much faith in building security.

I have no idea why they have a problem with Usama may have planted explosives as well. If those buildings were still standing after the planes hit, in a sense, we would have won that particular staring contest. If he were a real enemy, we're letting him win right now, running scared, burning the Bill of Rights in an effort to ward off the cold fear of bearded men with jet obsessions. It's ridiculous and insane.

[savemefromdumbya]

76. Terrorists can do sophisticated things too

with a little help from their friends!

[longship]

19. Yup, it's because it never happened.

How many seconds was it really?

WTC 1 ~13 seconds.
WTC 2 ~14 seconds.

WTC 7

Measured from the time of the collapse at the roof level is going to be wrong since the collapse did not start at the top, but at the bottom. Firemen in the area were pulled out because of the sounds of apparent column and beam failures at the lower levels. Witnesses nearby relate how the collapse began at the lower NE corner which then precipitated the general collapse.

Of course, the carefully cherry-picked data of the conspiracy crowd ignores all these in-person accounts. All they screech about is the interpretation of the the word "pull" which even professional building demolition experts say is not part of their vernacular. Pretty thin evidence if you ask me.

Claims of squibs is almost certainly wrong since in any collapse debris is pushed out of the sides of the building as the floors collapse. So claims that these puffs of debris definitively mean squibs is outright wrong.

We don't know what exactly caused the collapse of WTC 7 but most people who can think rationally seem to think that it might have something to do with the tons of steel that rained down on the building during the collapse of the two nearby towers. This also was documented by rescue workers on the scene. Conspiracy people ignore this information, too.

[FoxOnTheRun]

23. You said 12,5 once

It's getting more and more, in month the buildings will still stand... :shrug:

[longship]

24. The symbol ~ means "approximately"

12.5 happens to be approximately 13.
That's why.

Unlike the conspiracy people, I don't make stuff up, nor do I mistate data.
If you would prefer the more accurate (but again approximate) ~12.5 seconds, so be it. Both are nearer the actual value than the oft-stated wild guess of 10 seconds (or is it 9 seconds) of the conspiracy crowd.

[FoxOnTheRun]

25. I know the kean hamilton 911 commission conspiracy

I had math at university, I was just joking, you could have said ~12.

The trend seems to always go up.

[longship]

26. Then you'll know that it is convention to round .5 *up*

So it would be *incorrect* to state 12.5 as approximately 12.

BTW, I have taught mathematics at high school and college level for years.
I choose my words fairly carefully.

[FoxOnTheRun]

27. Yes you round up at 5

[savemefromdumbya]

38. not conspiracy?

it's easy for people to accept the official version

[petgoat]

55. "claims that these puffs of debris definitively mean squibs"

The squibs were ejected from particular sets of windows far below the collapse zone.

tons of steel that rained down on the building during the collapse of the two nearby towers.

Have you any evidence for this?

documented by rescue workers on the scene.

What rescue workers? Are you talking about Boyle and Hayden?

[Poppyseedman]

20. WTC and #7 were obviously denoted and brought down.

I would love to see your definition of "obviously"

The towers were "obviously" hit by jet airplanes.

Anything beyond that is either proved by science or lunacy.

[savemefromdumbya]

39. proved?

except that the information given by the government for some reason is wrong.

[longship]

42. So that must mean that *all* of it has to be wrong??????

I can't accept the logic that one must either accept fully the conspiracy nutcases *OR* that one must accept *everything* about the official report.

That is a straw man.

First of all, the conspiracies are complete wacko bullshit.

Second, there is much in the official report that *is* based on fact.

Third, the problems all of us have with the official report is the part which assigns no responsibility to ChimpCo for his remaining on vacation during August, 2001 while his administration spent its entire first seven months ignoring all warnings which were coming from all quarters, and especially after receiving the 6 Aug PDB.

But it is a considerable leap of logic to presume that these facts mean that ChimpCo *planned* and *executed* the attacks. And only a lunatic would jump to those conclusions.

[FoxOnTheRun]

57. No one says "Bush knew"

Bush knows nothing. He can be glad if doesn't fall from his bike.

Do you think the media wants to uncover the truth or is the media just reacting and spinning it to "incompetence"?

Have we been told by the media about the insider trading and the path were it leads to?
Have we been told by the media about all the war games on 911, and what it means to the air defense?

To understand that there was no real president since a century except Kennedy brings more light into how the whole system works.
I urge everybody to look how the whole financial scam works, ask your politician about the CAFR or other things, he probably won't answer you.

Or watch this movie
http://www.freedomtofascism.com/

[Make7]

21. That is actually wrong

[savemefromdumbya]

40. wrong?

[Make7]

49. Are you suggesting that I actually explain myself?

An explanation hardly seems like something that you would consider necessary.

 savemefromdumbya (1000+ posts)

Fri Sep-15-06 3:49 PM 
Response to Reply #21 

 39. That is actually wrong

 

I believe that my previous statement ("That is actually wrong") is sufficient. I am quite sure that you would agree.

- Make7

[FoxOnTheRun]

22. because it was the fbi in 1993

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00617FE3A5C0C7B8EDDA90994DB494D81

THE NEW YORK TIMES

* * * * *

Thursday October 28, 1993 Page A1

"Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart
Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast"

By Ralph Blumenthal

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building
a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center,
and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting
harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after
the blast.

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb
and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by
an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer,
Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said.
<snip>

http://100777.com/node/97

[greyl]

48. You mean by the CTists, don't you?

Everyone finds it plausible that terrorists plant bombs in buildings.

[Nozebro]

60. Got proof that any terrorists have done so in the USA?

Everyone knows that OCTists would like the entire world to believe that Osama's Terror Squad regularly plant bombs in NYC apartment buildings, Kansas City office buildings, and even facilities where right-wing OCTists are trained to do their thing.

Taint so.

[AZCat]

61. Whew!

As long as they're avoiding the facilities where the left-wing OCTists are trained, I'm safe!

[Nozebro]

64. LEFT-wing OCTists? Unhuh. Sure thing. You couldn't refute, so you

gave my post a boot kick. Thanks, and have a nice dog.

[AZCat]

65. Your post doesn't really make sense.

Were you trying to be confusing?

Maybe they skipped the lesson on translating gibberish at my left-wing OCT training center. The schedule was pretty full, what with all that logical physics crap we had to learn...

[Nozebro]

67. Sounds like a personal problem. Hope you get better soon - before that

all-important quiz on how to spot fallacies and how to use them against 9/11 Truth Seekers.

Best wishes.

[Make7]

69. Do you feel that it is detrimental to the truth...

Edited to add width parameter

... to attempt http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=117909&mesg_id=118571">to point out what one believes are fallacies in someone else's argument and/or hypothesis?

 Nozebro (289 posts)

Sat Sep-16-06 11:35 AM 
Response to Reply #54 

 58. Pathetic post. Strawman fallacy. EOM

 

N/T

 

:) Make7

[AZCat]

72. We didn't have quizzes on that.

It sounds like you and I didn't attend the same institution. There wasn't such a thing as the "9/11 Truth Movement" yet when I was in training, so it would have been impossible for such a quiz to have been given.

[Nozebro]

73. That's unfortunate. No wonder OCT'ers have to resort to so many

aggressive truth suppression tactics: lack of proper & complete training & testing.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

77. Hmmm - I'm confused.

Please point out where I've engaged in the "truth suppression" tactics you claim are used by the "OCTers" because I think your statement is a load of unsubstantiated bullshit. This crap gets thrown around this forum with the weight of proven fact when claims like this are merely another method for suppressing opposing opinion (oh, the irony).

[Nozebro]

78. Confused? That's not an acceptable excuse. But, I AM sorry to hear it.

n/t

[AZCat]

79. So you DON'T have any evidence these tactics are being used?

That's what I thought.

[Nozebro]

81. I don't claim to know all the details. It was an INSIDE job & the perps

control the evidence. I never said they also are behind the "Parliament of Truth Suppressors", so why would you expect to see evidence of that from ME? I could suggest a few people for you to ask, but I don't think that would be proper.

[AZCat]

82. You seem to have trouble understanding my question.

Do you have any evidence that I (a poster labelled as a "OCTer") have engaged in the "aggressive truth suppression tactics" that you claimed in your post upstream? I don't know what all this fucking babble about the details or the perps is, but if you don't have any evidence at all about what I asked then your claim is just unsubstantiated bullshit.

[Nozebro]

83. Nice try, but you're wrong, rude, disrespectful, and should be ashamed.

I think I know enough now about your style to say adios, gato. Good luck to you in the future.

[AZCat]

84. Another post that doesn't answer my question.

I'm not really surprised, nor am I ashamed - I think it is evident who here has been rude and disrespectful.

As for wrong, you have yet to post any evidence backing your claim. Perhaps that's why you have chosen to cut and run rather than apologize and admit you were wrong?

[Nozebro]

63. It's bad because it's immoral to try to smear someone

without evidence to support your claim, and it's doubly immoral to do so whenever you DO have evidence that someone else was responsible. In this case, you're talking about a man that has served the interests of the U.S. for many, many years. Unlike the more likely perp who was busying himself committing crimes invovling illegal narcotics and insider trading, perjury (lying to the SEC) etc., during those same years. Oh, and yes, there was that caper when he committed treason by deserting the military during a time of war. And you think it's more important to try to smear the CIA asset than this GUY? Please. That's beyond ridiculous.

[FoxOnTheRun]

80. UBL said he had nothing to do with it

The Al-Qaidah group had nothing to do with the 11 September attacks on the USA, according to Usama bin Ladin in an interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat. Usama bin Ladin went on to suggest that Jews or US secret services were behind the attacks, and to express gratitude and support for Pakistan, urging Pakistan’s people to jihad against the West. The following is the text of an interview conducted by a "special correspondent", published in the Pakistani newspaper Ummat on 28 September, place and date of interview not given.

http://www.911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html

Maybe he is lying, but maybe Bush is lying, too

[Nozebro]

85. This is the new limited hangout, right? EOM

thanks merv.