US Intelligence warned India, even mentioned some places by name...

Damocles

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6368013&page=1

U.S. Warned India in October of Potential Terror Attack
NSA Now Tracking Captured Phones, U.S. Connections

By RICHARD ESPOSITO, BRIAN ROSS and PIERRE THOMAS
December 1, 2008

U.S. intelligence agencies warned their Indian counterparts in mid-October of a potential attack "from the sea against hotels and business centers in Mumbai," a U.S. intelligence official tells ABCNews.com.

A second government source says specific locations, including the Taj hotel, were listed in the U.S. warning.

One month later, Nov. 18, Indian intelligence also intercepted a satellite phone call to a number in Pakistan known to be used by a leader of the terror group, Lashkar e Taiba, believed responsible for the weekend attack, Indian intelligence officials say.

The Indian intercept also revealed a possible sea-borne attack, the officials say.

More at link...
 
The US was warned about 9/11 BEFORE the event happened by Russia, Germany, and Egypt.

Strange?

At least the Taj Hotel didn't melt from small fires .. and the terrorists didn't hijack large luxury liners and pilot them to India .. without knowing how to pilot large luxury liners.
 
blackascoal said:
The US was warned about 9/11 BEFORE the event happened by Russia, Germany, and Egypt.

Strange?

At least the Taj Hotel didn't melt from small fires .. and the terrorists didn't hijack large luxury liners and pilot them to India .. without knowing how to pilot large luxury liners.
Click to expand...

Are you saying what I think you're saying?
 
ib1yysguy said:
Are you saying what I think you're saying?
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that there are no exceptions to impossible.

Large buildings do not collapse into their own footprints from fire .. especially small fires.

Why?

Because it is impossible.

People who can't fly a Cessna cannot climb behind the cockpit of large heavy aircraft, fly them flawlessly, and execute manuevers seasoned combat pilots could not do.

Why?

Because it is impossible.

People are free to believe whatever they're told .. but there are no exceptions to impossible.
 
blackascoal said:
What I'm saying is that there are no exceptions to impossible.

Large buildings do not collapse into their own footprints from fire .. especially small fires.

Why?

Because it is impossible.

People who can't fly a Cessna cannot climb behind the cockpit of large heavy aircraft, fly them flawlessly, and execute manuevers seasoned combat pilots could not do.

Why?

Because it is impossible.

People are free to believe whatever they're told .. but there are no exceptions to impossible.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call the volume of jet fuel that was carried by that aircraft a small fire.

Also, the beams of the WTC buildings do not have to melt, only reach their annealing point, which makes them flexible enough to fail. Once one floor falls the next is overloaded to the point of failure, and so on and so on.

I do not believe it would be something that could be kept quiet.
 
Solitary said:
I wouldn't call the volume of jet fuel that was carried by that aircraft a small fire.
Click to expand...

Jet fuel is essentially kerosene and it does not burn hot enough to melt or alter steel. Go in your backyard, pour some kerosene on a column of steel and let it burn for six years .. six years later the steel will be unaffected.

ADDITIONALLY, no plane hit WTC7, yet it collapsed into it's own footprint just as the towers did .. none of which has ever happened before in the history of planet earth. WTC7 only had small localized fires.

Buildings collapsing from ANY weakening catalyst .. other than implosion .. do not uniformly collapse into their own footprints at free fall speed.

Why?

Because it is impossible.

Also, the beams of the WTC buildings do not have to melt, only reach their annealing point, which makes them flexible enough to fail. Once one floor falls the next is overloaded to the point of failure, and so on and so on.
Click to expand...

That would not lead to uniform collapse at free fall speed .. because it would be impossible.

I do not believe it would be something that could be kept quiet.
Click to expand...

That only demonstrates that you do not know how many gag ordfers have been issued by the FBI since 9/11 regarding 9/11.

Google: Sibel Edmonds

There are lots of people talking, but only those who seek truth can hear them.

One would have to be one of two things to believe the fairy-tale of 9/11
1. An American
2. A moron
 
There is one other MAJOR and GLARING DIFFERENCE between the events in India and 9/11 .. people got fired and government officials were forced to resign over their failures and the Indian people demanded accountability

NONE of which occured in the land of the Matrix.
 
bac, i kinda of like you, but I think you have taken the title of well meaning nut case from desh by a mile and a half.
 
Grind said:
bac, i kinda of like you, but I think you have taken the title of well meaning nut case from desh by a mile and a half.
Click to expand...

I kinda' like you to my brother .. but the beauty of being me is that I don't care about titles or what others may think of me. The beauty is in the clarity, not the popularity.

Would you also give that title to many well-seasoned multi-decorated combat pilots as well?

Would you give that title to Col. Robert Bowman who headed the Star Wars program for two presidents, flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam, holds a PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, is the President of the Institute for Space and Security, and has medals and awards on top of more medals and awards?

He doesn't believe the fairy-tale either .. and I'm betting he knows a thing or two about flying, engineering, and national security.

Should such a man be listened to .. or should we just give him the "tin-foil hat" brush-off?
 
blackascoal said:
Jet fuel is essentially kerosene and it does not burn hot enough to melt or alter steel. Go in your backyard, pour some kerosene on a column of steel and let it burn for six years .. six years later the steel will be unaffected.

ADDITIONALLY, no plane hit WTC7, yet it collapsed into it's own footprint just as the towers did .. none of which has ever happened before in the history of planet earth. WTC7 only had small localized fires.

Buildings collapsing from ANY weakening catalyst .. other than implosion .. do not uniformly collapse into their own footprints at free fall speed.

Why?

Because it is impossible.



That would not lead to uniform collapse at free fall speed .. because it would be impossible.



That only demonstrates that you do not know how many gag ordfers have been issued by the FBI since 9/11 regarding 9/11.

Google: Sibel Edmonds

There are lots of people talking, but only those who seek truth can hear them.

One would have to be one of two things to believe the fairy-tale of 9/11
1. An American
2. A moron
Click to expand...

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

This is a pretty detailed account of how it could indeed be taken down by a combination of the events that transpired. I am not a scientist and am simply posting this as something that I found rather informative. I do not claim to be an expert. Hopefully this is enough of a disclaimer for Darla, Dung and Lorax
 
Superfreak said:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

This is a pretty detailed account of how it could indeed be taken down by a combination of the events that transpired. I am not a scientist and am simply posting this as something that I found rather informative. I do not claim to be an expert. Hopefully this is enough of a disclaimer for Darla, Dung and Lorax
Click to expand...

I found that about as useless as Popular Mechanics .. unless I need to fix my toliet.

Impossible is simply that .. IMPOSSIBLE .. and on that day, the impossible happened many times.

No building has EVER collapsed from fires .. but happened three times on that day .. all in the exact same manner.

C'mon brother .. you're almost there .. take the red pill.

I give you a completely impossible scene ... that only .. make that ONLY a moron would believe.

stool.jpg


This right next to the impact site .. which you can't even see where the small 16x14ft hole is.

The roof didn't collapse until 30 minutes after the impact and even then it came down in one whole piece .. even though a 757 is about as tall as the Pentagon.

There are no indications of where the wings .. where the fuel is carried .. must have hit the building

On one floor you can clearly see an open PAPER book sitting on a WOPDEN stool .. right next to the crash site .. and neither seems burned or damaged at all .. keep in mind this is the same type plane that melted giant buildings but couldn't burn a paper book

On the above floor you can clearly see a PLASTIC monitor sitting on a file cabinet UNBURNED and UNMELTED

Look at the walls of the room .. stiil white, not covered in soot and/or ash.

Only the moron would believe that a plane carrying 8,600 gallons of fuel would not generate enough heat and fire to burn the pages of an open book only feet away .. or to melt the plastic case of a monitor .. or to destroy the roof on impact .. or to create burn and skid marks in an almost unblemished lawn .. or to have the large plane magically disappear leaving no traces of passengers, luggage, big ass 7ft tall engines, wings, fuselage, or identifying markings.

The Pentagon was hit by a missle or Global Hawk. Now, perhaps Bin Laden has long range missles he could fire from Afghanistan to hit the Pentagon. Makes about as much sense as the belief that small fires melt giant buildings.

There are no exceptions to impossible
 
Last edited:
If you found that as useless as popular mechanics, then our conversation is over. Because it gave a very good explanation as to how your so called impossible event occured.
 
"The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. 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). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down. "
 
Superfreak said:
"The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. 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). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down. "
Click to expand...

Actually Popular Mechanics did one of the better and more thorough jobs of debunking the 9/11 conspiracy theories. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
 
blackascoal said:
What I'm saying is that there are no exceptions to impossible.

Large buildings do not collapse into their own footprints from fire .. especially small fires.

Why?

Because it is impossible.

People who can't fly a Cessna cannot climb behind the cockpit of large heavy aircraft, fly them flawlessly, and execute manuevers seasoned combat pilots could not do.

Why?

Because it is impossible.

People are free to believe whatever they're told .. but there are no exceptions to impossible.
Click to expand...

:foil:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top