I’m glad there seems to be a general consensus on the credibility of Robert Baer… he also wrote this (mentioned in the wikipedia article directly before the quote that has already appeared in the thread)

“Did Bin Laden act alone, through his own Al-Qaida network, in launching the attacks? About that I’m far more certain and emphatic: no.”

There’s plenty to suggest he’s telling the truth.

To answer that I’m going to quote 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland…

“I’m not going to be part of looking at information only partially. I’m not going to be part of just coming to quick conclusions. I’m not going to be part of political pressure to do this or not do that. I’m not going to be part of that. This is serious.”

Bearing in mind of course that Cleland’s replacement on the 9/11 commission, Bob Kerrey, made the astounding claim that it was a 30 year conspiracy:

Some things aren’t oh so simple…

That’s fine… let’s remember, I’ve made it clear that I’m not really focused on how the buildings collapsed, more on if anyone was in on it.

So, for those that don’t know, a quick run down of Robert Baer:

Robert Booker “Bob” Baer (born July 1, 1952) is an American author and a former CIA case officer who was primarily assigned to the Middle East. He is Time’s intelligence columnist and has contributed to Vanity Fair, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. Baer is a frequent commentator and author about issues related to international relations, espionage and U.S. foreign policy. Currently he is a reality television host on the History Channel’s program “Hunting Hitler.” He is an Intelligence and Security Analyst for CNN.

Sounds like a pretty credible guy all told…

Do you know who Robert Baer is?

Yes or no will do, but if you’re feeling industrious, feel free to google and report back.

Was John O’Neill a politician?

How about Mohammed Atta, Rudi Dekkers, Wally Hillard, Michael Brassington?

Not forgetting Ali Soufan and Abu Zubaydah…

Or Omar Al-Bayoumi

If you want to know the full story of 9/11, all of these people are relevant, but there is much to tell, so a bit of patience wouldn’t go amiss.

As I’ve said, I’m not straying into conjecture, but I have noticed that you’ve failed to provide any facts, or indeed answer any questions throughout the thread, just relying on a tired cocktail of derision, repetition and guff.

If you don’t have any facts to provide, or knowledge on the subject, I’m confused as to why you’re so eager to join in the discussion.

I’m not straying into conjecture… I’m sticking to facts

How those facts are interpreted is up to the individual…

I can see you’re all enjoying this, so who can guess who one of George W Bush’s earliest advisors on Foreign Policy was, before he even ran for president…

From an engineering perspective, the Deviate is a thing of beauty…

I’ve always been a sucker for a high single pivot with an idler and am well impressed by their approach to the tensioner; though systems such as the Zerode are unlikely to come a cropper in the real world, the Deviate is a cut above.

That said, I’d be tempted to slacken the head angle a bit and stealth the graphics, but all in all, seems to be a top job and I wish them the best of luck.

The question is what does any of that prove?

Well it certainly proves that a lot of the folk on here don’t check my posts very thoroughly… the orignal post contains the links to the sources.

It also proves, through no fault of their own, that people don’t know nearly enough about the Carlyle Group or the backgrounds of the people involved…

2. You’re still trying to disprove science with politics.

9/11 was a political event

Back to the flights… 1st up, lets take a look at information provided by snopes:

The claim that bin Laden family members (and other Saudis) were allowed to secretly fly out of the U.S. and back to Saudi Arabia while a government-imposed ban on air travel was in effect, all without any intervention by the FBI, has since been negated by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the “9/11 Commission”)

Doesn’t sit particularly well with:

One of the commissioners, Max Cleland, even resigned because the commission had been “deliberately compromised by the president of the United States.”

Expanding on the source from reputable publication vanity fair (link to which you can find in the original post)

When he and Perez met at the terminal, a woman laughed at Grossi for even thinking he would be flying that day. Commercial flights had slowly begun to resume, but at 10:57 A.M. the F.A.A. had issued another notice to airmen, a reminder that private aviation was still prohibited. Three private planes violated the ban that day, and in each case a pair of jet fighters quickly forced the aircraft down. As far as private planes were concerned, America was still grounded. “I was told it would take White House approval,” says Grossi.

Then one of the pilots arrived. “Here’s your plane,” he told Grossi. “Whenever you’re ready to go.”

Unbeknownst to Dan Grossi, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the 52-year-old Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, had been in Washington orchestrating the exodus of about 140 Saudis scattered throughout the country who were members of, or close to, two enormous families.

One was the House of Saud, the family that rules the Royal Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and that, owing to its vast oil reserves, is the richest family in the world. The other was the ruling family’s friends and allies the bin Ladens, who, in addition to owning a multi-billion-dollar construction conglomerate, had spawned the notorious terrorist Osama bin Laden.

(Craig Unger The Journalist who penned the piece for Vanity Fair wrote an extremely well researched book ‘House of Bush, House of Saud‘ detailing the extensive links between the Bush family and Saudi Arabia)

From House of Bush, House of Saud:

But in fact, the Bush-Carlyle relationship began eight years earlier when the Carlyle Group put George W. Bush on the board of one of its subsidiaries, Caterair, in 1990. In 1993, after the Bush-Quayle administration left office and George H. W. Bush and James Baker were free to join the private sector, the Bush family’s relationship with the Carlyle Group began to become substantive. By the end of that year, key figures at the Carlyle Group included such powerful Bush colleagues as James Baker, Frank Carlucci, and Richard Darman. Because George W. Bush’s role at Carlyle had been marginal, the $1.4 billion figure includes no contracts that predated the arrival of Baker, Carlucci and Darman at Carlyle. With former Secretary of Defense Carlucci guiding the acquisition of defense companies, Carlyle finally began making real money from the Saudis, both through investments from the royal family, the bin Ladens and other members of the Saudi elite, and through lucrative defense investments.

Now, let’s not forget that Bandar Bin Sultan was personally thanked by Osama Bin Laden for helping bring American (CIA) support during Operation Cyclone (when ex CIA director George H.W. Bush was vice president, under Ronald Reagan)

Still sticking to facts and fear not, there is PLENTY more

OK, now all of that bollox has been cleared up, can any of you explain which of the facts contained in this post you’re refuting?

Regardless of debates on the physics of building collapse, do find it a bit odd that New York Police Commissioner on 9/11 Bernard Kerik went on to play a role in the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority…

When you start looking into the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority, things get interesting…

For example, Chief Spokesman for the CPA was Dan Senor…

Before going out to Iraq, Dan Senor had been working for the Carlyle Group.

That’s the same Carlyle Group that had received extensive funding from the Bin Laden Family, and Al-Waleed Bin Talal, both alleged by multiple sources to be involved in the funding and training of Al-Qaeda.

It’s also the same Carlyle Group who were holding their annual conference on 9/11, among the guests of honor was one of Bin Laden’s brothers… One of Carlyle groups key figures, who had multiple dealings with the Bin Laden family, George HW Bush had been in attendance the previous day

Of course, Bin Laden has many siblings, but what makes this more mysterious is the way several members of the Bin Laden family and the House of Saud were evacuated on a private flight whilst airspace was still closed in the wake of 9/11.

The repatriation of the Saudis is far more than just a case of wealthy Arabs being granted special status by the White House under extraordinary conditions. For one thing, in the two years since September 11, a number of highly placed Saudis, including both bin Ladens and members of the royal family, have come under fire for their alleged roles in financing terrorism.

You can probably guess who was responsible for authorizing those flights…

One of the commissioners, Max Cleland, even resigned because the commission had been “deliberately compromised by the president of the United States.”[/quote]

And Ali Soufan, who questioned Abu Zubaydah…

A New Yorker article in 2006 described Soufan as coming closer than anyone to preventing the September 11 attacks, even implying that he would have succeeded had the CIA been willing to share information with him. He resigned from the FBI in 2005 after publicly chastising the CIA for not sharing intelligence with him, which could have prevented the attacks

Let’s not forget that Abu Zubaydah was in regular contact with Bandar Bin Sultan.

I did answer that already…

why destroy a building to destroy any evidence, it was 2001, are we saying the CIA didnt have a network and back ups?

Plausible deniability?
We’re getting back into conjecture here though…

Going back to this:

The thing is it really doesnt matter if it was a controlled explosion or if it was just the planes.

The only question is: Was anybody in on it?

And Ali Soufan, who questioned Abu Zubaydah..

A New Yorker article in 2006 described Soufan as coming closer than anyone to preventing the September 11 attacks, even implying that he would have succeeded had the CIA been willing to share information with him. He resigned from the FBI in 2005 after publicly chastising the CIA for not sharing intelligence with him, which could have prevented the attacks

[/quote]

However, thinking back to 2001, at the time, I was working as the supervisor for industrial and commercial gas infrastructure design for the whole of Wales… whilst some of our systems were computerised, the majority still relied on paper and were all stored in the same building.

A bit more background information[/url]… admittedly, there is some highly questionable conjecture in this piece, but there is also a vast amount of facts that aren’t generally publicized.

Building 7 was not hit by a plane, but there were fires raging on Floors 8, 11, 12, 13, and 18. Those floors, in order: the American Express Bank, the Securities and Exchange Commission, Standard Chartered Bank and City Group. Those are four financial institutions. Is that a coincidence?

That Building also had the offices of the Secret Service, the IRS, and the clandestine home to the New York branch of the CIA. I mean, imagine… imagine what kind of incriminating evidence went down in those buildings. That branch of the CIA was the headquarters for the joint FBI-CIA investigation into Al Qaeda. Standard Chartered Bank was used by Omar Shiekh Saeed to wire 100,000 dollars to hijacker Mohammed Atta. Those offices of the SEC were ground zero for preemptive investigation into pre-9-11 insider trading. According to officials from the SEC, most of those cases were either scrapped or postponed for a great length of time.

So what about the investigation into Al Qaeda? That was being headed by FBI Agent John O’Neill

Back to John Bredenkamp for a moment…

Investigators are probing multimillion pound payments from Britain through secret accounts to a key ally of President Robert Mugabe

Britain’s BAE Systems, the world’s fourth biggest arms company, has paid over £25 million (US$49.5 mn.) to a company whose majority Zimbabwean shareholder is a long-time business ally of President Robert Mugabe’s regime. The multiple investigations into BAE’s role in the affair, which appear to be nearing conclusion, are likely to have serious political repercussions in Britain and South Africa.

The recipient of the payments was British Virgin Islands-registered Kayswell Services, whose signatories include majority shareholder John Bredenkamp, Jules Pelissier and Graham Andrews, according to company records seen by Africa Confidential. BAE made the payments in mid-2003 through its Red Diamond Trading subsidiary, also registered in the British Virgin Islands. Within a year, Kayswell had transferred more than £10 mn. to Bredenkamp.

BAE’s secret agents
Through his network of military equipment companies, such as Aviation Consulting Services and Raceview, Bredenkamp became an important supplier to the Zimbabwe Defence Force and a supporter of Emmerson Mnangagwa, the Chairman of the Joint Operation Command (AC Vol 49 No 15). Bredenkamp has indefinite leave to remain in Britain. ACS, which is registered in both Britain and Zimbabwe, was the Southern African agent for BAE and Italy’s Agusta military aviation company.

Red Diamond Trading… now that rings a bell

Interesting that Mugabe was visited by Nicholas Soames earlier this year…

In an exclusive briefing The Herald got from President Mugabe yesterday, Sir Nicholas carried messages of goodwill from establishment figures, Prince Charles and Lord Carrington, who presided over the Lancaster House conference in 1979.

Recalling the conversation, President Mugabe said Sir Nicholas told him that “there are some good people who still are your friends in Britain.”

Apart from being chairman of Aegis Defence Services (a private military company with deep connections to the SAS) and Prince Charles’ Equerry at around the time Lord Mountbatten introduced Jimmy Savile to the Royal Family, he is also the son of Christopher Soames, who was the last governor of Southern Rhodesia, before it became Zimbabwe.

He (Mugabe) also reminisced over his reaction when Lord Soames told him to form a Government after resoundingly winning elections in 1980. President Mugabe said Lord Soames told him that in constituting his Government, he should bear in mind there were “good white Rhodesians”.

This meant the likes of David Smith (late), Chris Andersen (late), Dennis Norman and Dr Timothy Stamps.

“But I said I have not run a Government,” President Mugabe said.

“So I said stay on for some time (as Governor) so you can usher me into this other sphere. When I made that request, Lord Soames exclaimed three times ‘Really, Really, Really’ whereupon he swivelled his chair and immediately rang Lord Carrington.”

President Mugabe said Lord Carrington told him to “stay on but not for more than three months”, a response which made him happy. On a lighter note, President Mugabe said he invited Sir Nicholas to test the seat that his father once occupied, ceding his own chair to him.

“He said, No! It’s now your seat,” President Mugabe said.

The President said he also talked about the Lancaster House Agreement, the commitment the British Government made in respect of the land question and how the American Jimmy Carter administration had chipped in with assistance.

Unlike in the past where officials wanted to keep their visits under wraps, Sir Nicholas insisted on meeting President Mugabe in the full glare of publicity. He promised to publicise details of the meeting in the British media.

I’ll stick to facts, you stick to conjecture…

Regardless of debates on the physics of building collapse, do find it a bit odd that New York Police Commissioner on 9/11 Bernard Kerik went on to play a role in the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority…

When you start looking into the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority, things get interesting…

For example, Chief Spokesman for the CPA was Dan Senor…

Before going out to Iraq, Dan Senor had been working for the Carlyle Group.

That’s the same Carlyle Group that had received extensive funding from the Bin Laden Family, and Al-Waleed Bin Talal, both alleged by multiple sources to be involved in the funding and training of Al-Qaeda.

It’s also the same Carlyle Group who were holding their annual conference on 9/11, among the guests of honor was one of Bin Laden’s brothers… One of Carlyle groups key figures, who had multiple dealings with the Bin Laden family, George HW Bush had been in attendance the previous day

Of course, Bin Laden has many siblings, but what makes this more mysterious is the way several members of the Bin Laden family and the House of Saud were evacuated on a private flight whilst airspace was still closed in the wake of 9/11.

The repatriation of the Saudis is far more than just a case of wealthy Arabs being granted special status by the White House under extraordinary conditions. For one thing, in the two years since September 11, a number of highly placed Saudis, including both bin Ladens and members of the royal family, have come under fire for their alleged roles in financing terrorism.

You can probably guess who was responsible for authorizing those flights…

One of the commissioners, Max Cleland, even resigned because the commission had been “deliberately compromised by the president of the United States.”

But what does this have to do with the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority?

And what does it have to do with the death of FBI Al-Qaeda Expert John P O’Neill?

All in good time…

Interesting, seems like Emmerson Mnangagwa’s transfer to power was advocated by John Bredenkamp long ago…

Bredenkamp became something of a power behind the scenes in the ruling ZANU-PF party. It is claimed that he sought to facilitate the early retirement of President Mugabe in 2004 and his replacement by Emmerson Mnangagwa, former Security Minister and Speaker of Parliament. This displeased rival factions in ZANU-PF, and government investigations were started into the affairs of Bredenkamp’s Breco trading company concerning tax evasion and exchange control violations. The matters under investigation were transactions between Breco in Zimbabwe and offshore companies controlled by Bredenkamp.

You can read more on John Bredenkamp in the Panama Papers thread…

I’ve just seen that John Bredenkamp was a client of Mossack Fonseca:

Bredenkamp, on the firm’s books since 1997, had been described in 2002 by a United Nations expert panel as “experienced in setting up clandestine companies and sanctions-busting operations.” In 2008, months before Mossack Fonseca cut ties, Bredenkamp was sanctioned by OFAC for allegedly being a “crony” of Zimbabwe dictator Robert Mugabe and a “well-known Mugabe insider.”

Bredenkamp did not respond to requests for comment, but he has consistently denied allegations concerning him and his companies and has denied having supported President Mugabe. In 2012, Bredenkamp successfully overturned European Union sanctions against him and his companies.

One company, Tremalt Limited, purchased equipment for armies in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the United Nations alleged. It took seven years before a Mossack Fonseca employee reported internally that an Internet search implicated a separate company the law firm said was owned by Bredenkamp “in a series of allegations concerning arms deals.”

But who am I to question the morality of such activity…

For years, the records show, Mossack Fonseca has earned money creating shell companies that have been used by suspected financiers of terrorists and war criminals in the Middle East; drug kings and queens from Mexico, Guatemala and Eastern Europe; nuclear weapons proliferators in Iran and North Korea, and arms dealers in southern Africa.

Reminds me of David Cameron’s visit to South Africa in 1989 for some reason…

Regardless of debates on the physics of building collapse, do find it a bit odd that New York Police Commissioner on 9/11 Bernard Kerik went on to play a role in the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority…

For some reason, that reminds me of AIG (American International Group)’s role in the 2008 global financial collapse, but that’s not likely to be relevant here, is it…

Thing is though, surely if fire does cause damage to the steel, at best it will only cause localised buckling of the steelwork, which would mean only a small portion of the structure would be likely to collapse…

Even with the additional damage sustained from debris and seismic shock, such complete collapse is surprising, if nothing else.

However, let’s not forget:

The thing is it really doesnt matter if it was a controlled explosion or if it was just the planes.

The only question is: Was anybody in on it?

Just to clarify, this is the president of the united states they’re referring to…

Goodness me, is this thread still going?

Well as regards the commission report, let’s not forget:

The 9/11 Commission – The myth that the 9/11 commission report represents an adequate investigation into the events of 9/11 is perhaps best exposed by the commissioners themselves, 6 out of 10 of whom have questioned the commission and its conclusions personally (namely Kean and Hamilton, Kerrey, Roemer, Lehman and Cleland). Commission co-chairman Thomas Kean once famously remarked that the Commission was “set up to fail.” Commission members considered bringing criminal charges against Pentagon officials who had deliberately lied to them about the military’s complete lack of response on that day. One of the commissioners, Max Cleland, even resigned because the commission had been “deliberately compromised by the president of the United States.”

why destroy a building to destroy any evidence, it was 2001, are we saying the CIA didnt have a network and back ups?

Plausible deniability?

We’re getting back into conjecture here though…

Going back to this:

The thing is it really doesnt matter if it was a controlled explosion or if it was just the planes.

The only question is: Was anybody in on it?

And Ali Soufan, who questioned Abu Zubaydah…

A New Yorker article in 2006 described Soufan as coming closer than anyone to preventing the September 11 attacks, even implying that he would have succeeded had the CIA been willing to share information with him. He resigned from the FBI in 2005 after publicly chastising the CIA for not sharing intelligence with him, which could have prevented the attacks.

Since you’ve googled the passport, perhaps you should google John P O’Neill…

Or Ali Soufan

Away from all the conjecture, back to facts[/url]:

On July 3rd, 1979, the CIA gave birth to Islamic fundamentalism when President Carter signed a directive for United States intelligence to provide radical Islamic thinking and arms to Afghan fighters, before the Soviet Union invaded

John O’Neill: Maverick counter-terrorism expert in the FBI. O’Neill tracked Osama bin Laden since 1995. He knew more about Osama than anyone in the world. He tracked him past the Embassy bombings in 1998 and the Cole bombing in 2000. He knew more about Osama and al Qaeda than anyone in the world.

Then O’Neill got in some trouble. His investigation into terrorism were blocked from up on high.

Blocked by whom?

In the summer of 2001, he resigned as Deputy Director of the FBI. At the same time, he was publicly opposed to the anti-terrorism policies of President George W. Bush. On September 10th, 2001, he started his new job, with a company called Kroll Associates, as head of security at the World Trade Center. A day later, he was dead, a victim of the September 11th terrorist attacks. He died at the World Trade Center.

The FBI’s top counter-terrorism expert, who after chasing bin Laden for six years happened to take a job in the private sector,is murdered in an internationally-televised terrorist attack blamed on his arch nemesis? Killed by his arch nemesis. How ironic.

Why did O’Neill start working at the Trade Center? Why were his investigations into al Qaeda stopped? Who arranged for him to get his new, ill-fated job?

We know the answers to these questions now, and none of them have to do with Osama bin Laden. The more you look at the whole, and not just the pieces, the more you understand what really happened.

John O’Neill is the key. Look into John O’Neill.

Kroll Associates, Brian Jenkins, Jerome Hauer. Look for John O’Neill. He is the key. Michael Cherkasky, ever looked into the LAPD? Why don’t you go back to the FBI, Robert Mueller?

John O’Neill’s investigations through the New York City offices of the FBI were run in concert with the CIA. The offices were in World Trade Center building number 7. World Trade Center building number 7. Floors 23 through 26 were the federal bunker offices of all the federal agencies in New York City, Set up by Jerome Hauer. Jerome Hauer was the guy who got John O’Neill his job at the World Trade Center.

Who killed John O’Neill, and why?

To understand what happened to John O’Neill you have to know what happened on 9/11.

It’s also a well known phenomena that eye witness accounts to dramatic incidents are highly un-reliable. Confusion on the ground is rife. After the event, it’s easy, with the benefit of collation and hindsight to say “oh yeah, a plane flew into the building and it fell down” but i bet if you were in it at the time, an weren’t looking out the window to see the approaching plane you’d not have a clue what had occured.

Anyone who thinks a video of some firefighters describing a build collapsing as “an explosion” and somehow gets to “a bomb was deliberately set off” is a moron.

The silly thing is, I actually agree with you on those points… I was even going to edit the original post to point out the mention of bomb in the caption could be misleading, but was worried someone would jump down my throat in the usual forum fashion.

To get to the bottom of this though, we need to establish if they came out after the complete collapse of the building (I’d be very surprised if that was the case, but stranger things have happened)

Pics or it didn’t happen 😆

(Just jealous really)

I’d have to be pretty mental to regularly mention Bandar Bin Sultan’s links to the hijackers and Mohammed Atta at Huffman Aviation if I didn’t think planes flew into the WTC towers.

But as I’ve said, there are many anomalies…

Cheekyboy’s video is a good example:

Of course, it doesn’t prove anything outright… but it’s reasonable to imagine experienced firefighters have a grasp on the difference between an explosion and structural collapse or any other phenomenon which would’ve bought the lobby down.

I’d highly recommend watching this film:

In addition to covering a lot of ground, it goes a bit more into the background of the security arrangements of the buildings.

On top of that, it’s really well made, entertaining and in some parts funny. Brilliant work considering it’s all just the one guy and jam packed with plenty of solid research.

Interesting, though at the time the programme was broadcast time Roger Carr, chairman of BAE Systems and Centrica was not on the board of the BBC trust (he didn’t assume his role as vice chairman of BBC Trust until 2015), Patricia Hodgson was, whilst being deputy chair of Ofcom.

She is now the chair of Ofcom

wonder if there were any similar conflicts of interest in the BBC Trust?

(Which has now been replaced by the BBC Board)

C) There are many anomalies surrounding 9/11 VOTES: 1

In isolation, many of the theories regarding the towers collapse as a result of plane impact and fire do seem perfectly reasonable, all we’re ever likely to have on that front is informed conjecture from either camp

That said, when looking at cases which bear some similarities, it’s not unreasonable to question not only the mode of collapse, but the factors which led to it.

(disclaimer: no responsibility taken for 3rd party material and external websites)

Seems there may be some positive developments as regards the shelved Al-Yamamah investigation:

Al-Yamamah deal being re-examined after Saudi prince’s arrest

The arrest of Turki bin Nasser could see new scrutiny on the dubious $56bn arms deal between the UK and Saudi Arabia

There is likely to be new scrutiny into the controversial Al-Yamamah arms deal with Saudi Arabia, the largest ever conducted by the UK, after one of the leading architects of the deal was arrested as part of the Kingdom’s alleged corruption crackdown.

Prince Turki bin Nasser was among the hundreds of princes and businessmen arrested this week at the direction of Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Mohammed bin Salman in what critics have seen as a major power grab.

Turki bin Nasser was central to the $56bn deal with the UK which, due to numerous irregularities and allegations of corruption, sparked an investigation in 2004 which was later shut down by then prime minister Tony Blair in 2006 after pressure from the Saudis.

Over the course of the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher’s government supported the sale of huge quantities of military equipment to Saudi Arabia. But the sales were highly controversial, with stories of middlemen such as Turki bin Nasser, having their palms greased.

An anonymous source told the Times newspaper on Saturday that with the arrest of Turki bin Nasser, the case was being re-examined.

“It is accumulation of many corruption cases dealt with in one night,” the source told the newspaper, referring to the Saudi purges.

“Some are known but have been ignored for years, like the al-Yamamah scandal, and Prince Turki bin Nasser.”

Opposition politicians expressed their support for the reopening of the investigation and for the involvement of the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

“I hope the SFO will offer its full co-operation with any new investigation and I would urge them to become involved,” said Labour MP Ann Clwyd, who has pursued the case since the 1990s.

“We have been waiting for many years for someone to finally lift the lid on this.”

My homework question is why he edited the post, adding that bit afterward… Not that I can be bothered to reply if he won’t watch valid youtube links.

Expanding a little further[/url] from earlier this week:

According to a new report by Middle East Eye, Prince Bandar bin Sultan – Saudi Arabia’s most famous arms dealer, longtime former ambassador to the US, and recent head of Saudi intelligence – was among those detained as part of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s (MBS) so-called “corruption purge” that started with the initial arrests of up to a dozen princes and other top officials last weekend.

If confirmed, the arrest and detention of Bandar would constitute the most significant and high profile figure caught up in the purge – even above that of high profile billionaire investor Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal – given Bandar’s closeness to multiple US administrations and involvement in events ranging from Reagan’s Nicaraguan Contra program (including direct involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal), to making the case for the Iraq War as a trusted friend of Bush and Cheney, to directing US-Saudi covert operations overseeing the arming of jihadists in Syria.

Okaaaaaay…

So, remember this guy?

Again, these have all been answered with detailed and logical responses. You’ve failed to give any reasoning why you disagree with these explanations or highlighted factual errors in the rebuttals. You just make the same unsupported assertions. why is this?

That’s nonsense… everyone is focusing on the collapse of the towers (with conjecture, admittedly from both camps), as if it’s the be all and end all of the situation, without taking into account any of the additional factors.

Well for one, the towers were designed for impact by planes, with forces exceeding those encountered.

Then we have the combustion temperature of available materials…

That’s long before you look into the bigger picture of events on the day and the people involved.

If I fire a bullet at a melon, do you agree that the air around the melon and past it has a lower resistance to objects passing through it than the melon?
Will the bullet arrive at the melon and get its calculator out and decide that conspiracy fysics says I should follow the path of least resistance, I am going to go around the melon.
No the vector is into the melon, and in I shall go.
The bullet has such energy that the melon just gets destroyed.

That’s reasonable…

And this whilst reasonable:

It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5).

Is still conjecture

Why should it?

That’s how stuff works…

That’s a lot of words, none of which explain this:

So why didn’t it follow the path of least resistance?