PE "also dirge what the hell your entire tangent made no sense scramble your password and log out"

FU you PE.

I can't find any sources describing the state of the pipeline negotiations on 9/10/01, but I think the fact that there was no deal despite 5 years of off-and-on negotiations suggests that there were some major points of contention. But Karzai signed the deal almost instantly, in January of 2002. Unocal may have preferred the Taliban to Rabbani (who never would've been able to deliver the stability needed for a successful pipeline in any case), but that doesn't mean they had the Taliban in their pocket by any means.

"Karzai never worked for Unocal. Neither he nor Unocal say that he ever worked for them. So where does this come from? "

It would be interesting to see the wording of the official denials. My original source was the L.A. Times, circa November or December of 2001. And google gives up plenty of other news stories datelined from that same time period (http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html , for instance) saying the same thing.

"Then why the aid for poppy destruction? "

Appearances, perhaps. It wasn't much money, anyway. Maybe it was a bribe to get them to be less thorough.

"why not make the false flag operators Iraqi in order to avoid a costly occupation of a country that could cause serious difficulties between the US and its friends? "

It could have been as simple as not being able to find eight Iraqi pilots willing to commit suicide to provide a justification for invading their country.

"I can't find any sources describing the state of the pipeline negotiations on 9/10/01, but I think the fact that there was no deal despite 5 years of off-and-on negotiations suggests that there were some major points of contention"

Yes, the major issue being the fact that Osama bin Laden was given permission to reside in Afghanistan, who was believed to be linked to Al Qaeda attacks in Africa and elsewhere against US interests. If the Taliban had handed over OBL, there was nothing getting in the way of a deal, a deal that the Taliban was very interested in reaching. After all, it wasn't the Taliban who halted negotiations on the pipeline in 1998, it was the US government and Unocal. A more likely scenario is that OBL, sensing that his sanctuary in Afghanistan was about to be jeopardized, authorized an attack via his associates in Al Qaeda to forestall the Taliban handing him over to US authorities in exchange for normalizing ties. Either that or the Al Qaeda agents operated of their own accord for the same purpose.

Launching a false flag operation to oust the Taliban in order to root out OBL and his Al Qaeda affiliates in the country seems completely counterproductive, especially so in light of the fact that no progress has been made on the pipeline, despite the agreement in 2002. As you said, one thing any pipeline requires is stability. How does removing the Taliban aid in stability? Since the whole experience of 1992-1996 demonstrates how difficult it was for any faction in Afghanistan to gain enough control of the country to govern. Nothing in the Taliban's behavior either before or after 9-11 indicated an unwillingness to negotiate or even an unwillingness to control the activities of OBL. Putting pressure on the Taliban to disassociate themselves from OBL had a good possibility of working.

"Karzai signed the deal almost instantly, in January of 2002."

In May of 2002, in the presence of relatively few occupying US soldiers and before the Taliban had regrouped and launched their insurgency, which only began after the invasion of Iraq. At the time, there was no indication that Afghanistan would be unstable. In fact, it was the remarkable speed with which normalcy seemed to return to Afghanistan that led Bush admin officials to believe that the same thing would occur in Iraq.

"It would be interesting to see the wording of the official denials"

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2001972076_fahrenheit05.html

"A Unocal spokesman denies it. "Karzai was never, in any capacity, an employee, consultant or a consultant of a consultant," Barry Lane said.

i have been away for too long. and do not have the desire to read and respond to everything... but this one was kind of funny

"All the physical evidence leads to the conclusion it was just planes hitting buildings."

how many times do i have to bring up the fact that building 7 was never hit by a building (even assuming the plane crashes could have cause the first two to fall, which even nist says is not true).

now that i think about it, half of americans believe the official fairytale. half of americans do not know about building 7. coincidence?

on the subject of bin laden, how stupid can some people be who were lied to so many times, and yet still believe the media. all those leaked photos of dead bin ladens, including ones shown to congress to say that he was killed.

and then thanks to science and the alternative media they were all proven to be fakes.

and then that shot in the white house of everyone looking very serious supposedly watching live shot of the raid.

and then later admitted that there was no live feed, and that photo op was staged.

or all those bin laden videos where the people in the tapes looked nothing like bin laden...

seriously... how many lies do you need before you stop assuming everything they say is true?

"how many times do i have to bring up the fact that building 7 was never hit by a building (even assuming the plane crashes could have cause the first two to fall, which even nist says is not true)."

Here is what NIST says:

"The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NIST NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. ****This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces****."

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

Incidentally - 123,000 ASCE members support the NIST report; as do 80,000 AIA members; 120,000 ASME members; 370,000 IEE members; 40,000 AlChE members; and 35,000 AIAA members.

I think they have better knowledge of the situation than a handful of bloggers.

"how many times do i have to bring up the fact that building 7 was never hit by a building"

It was on fire for seven hours on 10 of its floors after being hit from debris from building 1. Buildings are not meant to withstand such a duration of fire, and WTC 7's sprinkler system didn't work because of damage to the other WTC buildings.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

"how many lies do you need before you stop assuming everything they say is true?"

What's more probable, the entirety of the engineering field is lying or a handful of people on the internet who have no background in these fields?

http://www.ae911truth.org/

I don't think THESE guys are just whack job bloggers/conspiracy theorists. The official narrative asks us to accept something that has never happened before in the history of structural engineering happened THREE times on that fateful day, but has never happened since. Ok, if you say so.

I do. Especially since those who have looked into these petitioners' technical background have found that there is little actual record of their technical background.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2706951&postcount=363

Furthermore, some of the experts his group claims "agree" with their theory don't agree with their theory at all.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2706951&postcount=363

So does Popular Mechanics, who debunked the claims of AE911 in detail.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842


So does the AIA, who repeatedly warned the leader of this group to stop trying to insinuate the AIA has anything to do with that group. So do peer reviewed engineering journals.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf

Popular Mechanics?!? LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOL! Fucking shill rag.

Look, I've studied 9/11, debated it, studied it some more, debated it some more, to ad nauseum for over a FUCKING DECADE. If you cannot look at the evidence and see the fatal flaws in the "official story", or if you cannot see the "who benefits" going on with the story, I pity you.

If you MUST hold out faith that the laws of metallurgy and physics were temporarily suspended in three separate locations on that fateful day, so be it. If you cannot look at those towers coming down and see that they were imploded, so be it. I was once like you, but I am not anymore. I've studied to too much, debated it too much, and as Rooster Cogburn said, "I don't believe in fairy tales, sermons, or stories about money baby doll..."

""I don't believe in fairy tales, sermons, or stories about money baby doll...""

But you're willing to dismiss published peer reviewed work in established reputable journals, not to mention NIST's report, the 9/11 Commission's report, Popular Mechanics, in favor of work that is publicly disowned by professional architectural and engineering associations? The Journal of Engineering Mechanics, is that a shill rag?

Put together a complete argument, MM. That's another problem with all of these theories - they all hinge on the "do you actually believe that bullshit the government tells you?" line instead of the "look here, I know how it happened!"

@Putin,

I am dismissing peer reviewed studies, NIST, and the 9/11 Commission because they're lairs who have something to gain, or protect, by lying -- just the Warren Commission lied about the JFK assassination. They were either paid or threatened to propagate the "official story.

Look here bo_sox, the buildings (all three of them) were brought down with controlled demolitions. Not only is it obvious by simply watching the buildings collapse into their own footprints, but there is no possible way jet fuel could cause ALL the structural members to fail at the EXACT same time to cause such a perfect implosion, THREE TIMES in a row. Further, Building 7 wasn't hit by anything, yet it somehow fell in the same way as Towers. If anyone says otherwise, they're either a liar, or an idiot, IMO. I am 100% sure of this.

Now, what I am less sure about is the circumstances surrounding the jets striking the Towers and the Pentagon. There are some very strange things surrounding this aspect of the incident, but it's not worth discussing with you guys as you have already made up your minds and anything I say or try to show you will be met with snark.

I would much rather discuss it with someone that has a clue than be left in the dark about it. I'm on the fence. No one has yet given me a theory of any kind that can't be shot down, though, so I'll believe the one that sounds unbelievable.

I have a serious clue bo_sox, trust me. I always find the "debunking" thing to be funny. A story is told, people (the conspiracy theorists) come out and say they story has holes, then the MSM "debunkers" come out as say those theories don't work, and everyone goes back to their happy place where they believe the official story.

Hidden in plain sight bo_sox...hidden in plain sight.

If you wanna talk about it, shoot me a PM and we can talk.

"They were either paid or threatened to propagate the "official story."

And your evidence for these supposed payoffs/threats is?
Also how much is AE911 and affiliated groups making from their campaign? What do they gain out of it? Why is the standard of evidence for their claims so low?

" but there is no possible way jet fuel could cause ALL the structural members to fail at the EXACT same time to cause such a perfect implosion, THREE TIMES in a row."

There is a possible way, especially in combination with the stress of the impact of the planes on the columns, which has been extensively documented and tested. It's called total progressive collapse. See the Journal of Engineering Mechanics article for details.

"Further, Building 7 wasn't hit by anything"

It was hit by Building 1.

No, building 7 was NOT hit by Building 1. AE911 isn't making anything, and they're risking their professional reputations in speaking out.

There is NOT way all the structural members could fail at the exact same time with such perfection as to cause all three tower to fall perfectly into their own footprints -- at least not without controlled demolitions. Total progressive collapse is bullshit science that was concocted to explain the official story -- it has NEVER been seen anywhere, nor since.

Hey MM, how 'bout those moon landings?

What about them?

Nothing, just commenting on how they actually happened.

No you didn't, you asked me about them.

What light source did the Apollo astronauts bring with them?

Holy shit, he's back... Why did no one tell me?
... Hi blankm...
... Hi blankflag...

Bye...

The sun. You may have noticed it in the sky. Sometimes, it might reflect light off your tinfoil hat.

"No, building 7 was NOT hit by Building 1."

So you claim that no debris hit Building 7 and it wasn't smoldering in flames for 7-8 hours?

" it has NEVER been seen anywhere, nor since."

Actually it has. Ronan Point, London apartment building in the 1960s, Oklahoma City Federal Building in 1995, New World Hotel in Singapore in 1986, the Commonwealth Ave building in Boston in 1971.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded in their report on Building 7: "While debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7."

NIST admits that Building 7 is the first time a building over 15 stories tall has EVER collapsed due to fires.

NIST admits to a free fall acceleration over 2.25 seconds.

The official 9/11 Commission Report does not discuss Building 7

Fell neatly into its own footprint

NIST refuses to release data inputs for their computational collapse model, saying it "...might jeopardize public safety."

The model was built without physical evidence. "In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the [FEMA] BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S." -Joseph Crowley, U.S. Congressman, Committee on Science, 2002.

$200 million was spent "...cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space," in 1990.

Collapse is symmetrical.

Cracking middle folds downwards precisely as in a controlled demolition.

NIST declined to test for chemical explosives used in demolition.

BBC reported the collapse hours before it happened, twice.

Experts agree it is a textbook case of controlled demolition, before being told the building collapsed on 9/11.

Barry Jennings, the Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority, was trapped inside Building 7 when the first plane hit. He has repeatedly told his story of hearing explosions on the 20th and 22nd floor while trapped inside. He did mysteriously in 2008, days before the release of the final NIST report. The cause of death has not been made public.

With rare exceptions, the media does not discuss building 7.

Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC complex, famously made the command to 'pull it', in reference to building 7.

Multiple reports made by professionals of molten steel beneath the rubble that lasted for weeks.

Since AE911 is a non-profit, what they make from the campaign is a matter of public record. According to public records, AE911's revenue for 2011 was just under $470,000, of which they spend $155,000 on salaries. Not a bad gig.

"NIST admits that Building 7 is the first time a building over 15 stories tall has EVER collapsed due to fires."

This list of statements you got is copied and pasted from reddit, and the statements don't have sources listed.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1korgs/the_official_megalist_of_911_suspicious/

"The National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded in their report on Building 7: "While debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7.""

I've never said otherwise. But you denied the building was hit by anything.

"NIST admits that Building 7 is the first time a building over 15 stories tall has EVER collapsed due to fires."

Other large steel frame buildings have collapsed due to fire, and after a much shorter duration. See: McCormack Center in Chicago.

"The official 9/11 Commission Report does not discuss Building 7"

The report mentions the evacuation of WTC 7 on page 305.

"NIST admits to a free fall acceleration over 2.25 seconds."

It admits to no such thing. It calculated the fall of the roofline from 18 stories to be 5.4 seconds, 40% longer than free fall time.

"Fell neatly into its own footprint"

No it did not. It damaged other buildings - including the Verizon building.

"Collapse is symmetrical."

See above.

"NIST declined to test for chemical explosives used in demolition."

Because they wouldn't have been conclusive. But NIST did investigate whether an explosion caused the collapse, this is their response:

"Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.
Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.
Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.
To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.
It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.
Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.
An emergency responder caught in the building between the 6th and 8th floors says he heard two loud booms. Isn't that evidence that there was an explosion?
The sound levels reported by all witnesses do not match the sound level of an explosion that would have been required to cause the collapse of the building. If the two loud booms were due to explosions that were responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the emergency responder-located somewhere between the 6th and 8th floors in WTC 7-would not have been able to survive the near immediate collapse and provide this witness account."

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

"BBC reported the collapse hours before it happened, twice."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/03/part_of_the_conspiracy_2.html

Because they kept getting reports that it was in the process of collapsing from American media sources.

"Barry Jennings, the Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority, was trapped inside Building 7 when the first plane hit. He has repeatedly told his story of hearing explosions on the 20th and 22nd floor while trapped inside. He did mysteriously in 2008, days before the release of the final NIST report."

NIST addressed this. No other witnesses heard such explosions, and had it been a demolition, the witness would not have survived.

"With rare exceptions, the media does not discuss building 7."

I don't know what counts for sufficient discussion of building 7 for you.

"Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC complex, famously made the command to 'pull it', in reference to building 7."

With reference to pulling the firefighters from the area. And he didn't say that he gave the command, but that the firefighters gave the command. Firefighters don't demolish buildings.

""BBC reported the collapse hours before it happened, twice.""

It also was not hours, they initially reported its collapse around 5pm and it occurred a half hour later.

too long, not reading...You're wrong, I am right...end of debate. Enjoy your fantasy world. I am not sure why you're so invested in the official narrative.

In terms of this building 7 issue, what seems like the logical course of events here is that the two towers get hit, building 7 incurs debris damage and ignites, firefighters and rescue teams rush onto the scene, which turns probably pretty quickly into desperate search-and-rescue attempts within the rubble of the collapsed buildings. Concern was probably not paid nearly as much to the building still standing, and thus you have a building on fire not getting attention and it eventually crumbles under the fire damage that isn't being treated. This having rarely if ever happened before to a building is likely due to most 15-story burning buildings getting a lot of attention and aid, unlike this case where the focus was on managing and rescuing people from the collapse of the Twin Towers. No?

you try to explain everything away in this weird Stockholm Syndrome like need to protect the very people that used this event to overthrow the Republic. It's a mass brainwashing. It's the inmates policing their own prison. But but but, MIST said...Popular Mechanics said, blah blah blah. Or should I say, Baaaa Baaaa Baaaa!