World Trade Centre

My friend, who is a civil engineer, had these further comments to make about the WTC:


"Prolonged heating can get steel to its melting point.

But what's important is the mode of failure of a particular structure.

The towers in question had an inner concrete core which carried the bulk of the vertical loads, and an outer steel frame which are good for resisting lateral loads - like wind or earthquake.

When the plane struck the building, one side of the outer steel frame of 3 or 4 stories was knocked out.

No problem, the building 'stood', as expected.

It is possible for the concrete core to lose strength with prolonged heat at the affected levels.

But it is highly unlikely for the whole core to crumble vertically straight downwards, as had happened over there.

The upper part of the structure should have 'tumbled over' laterally, with the lower part remaining relatively unscathed."

The Facts Behind 9/11

I got this e-mail from my friend who is a civil engineer:

"the melting point of mild steel is approx 1300 degree Celsius (2400 F).

It boils at 3000 C (5400 F).

Jet fuel has ignition point of 200 deg C (400 F).

Thermite is a reaction by which the steel itself is used as a fuel and its melting point is lowered.

This reaction has explosive effects.

Jet fuel does not induce thermite reactions."

Yet architects and engineers have found evidence of thermite reaction in ground zero (see ae911truth.org).

The many deaths of OBL

Has Osama Bin Laden been dead for seven years - and are the U.S. and Britain covering it up to continue war on terror? | Mail Online: "In his book, Professor Griffin also endorses this theory. He says Bin Laden was treated for a urinary infection, often linked to kidney disease, at the American Hospital in Dubai in July 2001, two months before 9/11. At the same time, he ordered a mobile dialysis machine to be delivered to Afghanistan.

How could Bin Laden, on the run in snowy mountain caves, have used the machine that many believe was essential to keep him alive? Doctors whom Griffin cites on the subject think it would have been impossible.

He would have needed to stay in one spot with a team of medics, hygienic conditions, and a regular maintenance programme for the dialysis unit itself.

And what of the telling, small news item that broke on December 26, 2001 in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Wafd? It said a prominent official of the Afghan Taliban had announced that Osama Bin Laden had been buried on or about December 13.

'He suffered serious complications and died a natural, quiet death. He was buried in Tora Bora, a funeral attended by 30 Al Qaeda fighters, close members of his family and friends from the Taliban. By the Wahhabi tradition, no mark was left on the grave,' said the report.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"


I hate to pur cold water on a hot subject but it would appear that news of the death of Osama bin Laden has been wildly exagerated - his second death, that is, the one at the hands of brave US soldiers in Abbotabad.

Here is further news from an old edition of the Guardian: "Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent, according to the French newspaper Le Figaro.

The disclosures are known to come from French intelligence which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.

Bin Laden is reported to have arrived in Dubai on July 4 from Quetta in Pakistan with his own personal doctor, nurse and four bodyguards, to be treated in the urology department. While there he was visited by several members of his family and Saudi personalities, and the CIA."

Naturally, the American hospital denied having him there; after 9/11, they would. But he was an already wanted man.

How could he have survived 11 years on dialysis? End-stage Renal failure (ESRD) doesn't give you many months to live - and it seems from the Mail Online report that he has been dead for some time.

Then again, there are the videos: look at the pictures. The one on the left shows a man with a Semitic, straight nose, while the other guy has a flat nose; and the ring proves the impostor for Wahabbi men strictly do not wear gold. There are other signs in the article.

What to make of all this? They say he was buried at sea to prevent his grave from becoming a rallying point. Rallying point for whom? His followers? Then a man dumped in the sea would have even angrier followers.

Therefore, he does have a following - and a very powerful following, too. Therefore, al-Qaeda is no longer headless; indeed, if his followers are so emotionally close to him, they will redouble their efforts after his 'death'.

No, that cannot be the real reason.

He was buried at sea because America's cover-ups have tied that lying country in knots.

"And what of the telling, small news item that broke on December 26, 2001 in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Wafd? It said a prominent official of the Afghan Taliban had announced that Osama Bin Laden had been buried on or about December 13.

'He suffered serious complications and died a natural, quiet death. He was buried in Tora Bora, a funeral attended by 30 Al Qaeda fighters, close members of his family and friends from the Taliban. By the Wahhabi tradition, no mark was left on the grave,' said the report.

The Taliban official, who was not named, said triumphantly that he had seen Bin Laden's face in his shroud. 'He looked pale, but calm, relaxed and confident.'"

Now, why would the Taliban lie about his death? To save him from US wrath? To save themselves from US wrath? After all, they were being bombed day and night. That's a good reason to lie.

But then, the US would ask to see the body? And they would had to produce it, otherwise the pounding would go on. Then why lie? What good would it have done them?

And bin Laden denied again and again that he had nothing to do with 9/11. Maybe the 'Architects and Engineers for 911truth' are on to something. They claim to have found evidence of bomb-making material on the site of the WTC building 7 - which was not hit by a plane. Check it out, please.

Osama lives

Where is the corpus delicti? Where is the evidence of his death? Must we believe American sources? They say he was buried at sea: why?

America would have tried to get as much mileage out if his dead body as they could: instead they discreetly give him a watery burial in keeping with 'Muslim practice'. Really!

No Muslim will ever believe that he's dead; and even if they do, does it matter? The man is a cause, and the cause lives on.

Prior to 9/11 the US killed 1.7 million Iraqi children through sanctions. How much is 1.7 million minus 3,000 (the US casualty)? : that's how many at least remain to be avenged.

And how much is 3,000 divided by 1.7 million? : that's the proportion of grief that should be expended on the victims of 9/11.

Osama lives.

Oriana Fellatio

Oriana Fellatio, better known perhaps as Oriana Fallaci, was an Italian journalist who made a second career out of loudly hating Muslims.

"The increased presence of Muslims in Italy and in Europe is directly proportional to our loss of freedom."

That's one of her milder diatribes.

It is surprising that Ms. Fellatio found the events of 9/11 so outrageous: only 3,000 Americans had been killed. And that was promptly made up for by killing an equal number of civilians in Afghanistan.

There's one thing people like her can't stand: it's the fact that, for the very first time, the South had struck a blow in the heart of the North.

People like Ms. Fellatio though it was only the North's privilege to murder people in the South. For 500 years, the North did just that: crime after crime was visited on the hapless South. Did they think it could go on forever?

It was Nemesis at work on 9/11, and what pathetic nemesis at that, too. Whereas the North kills people by the millions - in seven digits - the South could kill only in four digits. That's pathetic.

But you have to look at the competition. The South (meaning the Muslim world in this case) has amateurs at work, whereas the North has expert bureaucracies and professional spy networks attacking the Muslim jihadis. Yet what a wonderful job Muslims have done in Afghanistan - they have brought the combined military might of the North to its knees. Who cannot but admire these people?

"The Muslims refuse our culture and try to impose their culture on us. I reject them, and this is not only my duty toward my culture-it is toward my values, my principles, my civilization."

Muslims do not try to impose their culture on anyone. They don't tell French women not to strip half- or even fully naked on the beaches. And Ms. Fellatio could perform as many as she liked. Muslims have their own culture, just as other civilisations do. No, she was projecting her culture's hegemonic tendencies on to Muslim civilisation.

And what kind of civilisation did Ms. Fellatio have? As stated, a murderous, genocidal monstrosity.

nine-eleven versus nine-one-o-one

"Health Ministry Statistics say that the incidence of abnormal births has increased 400-fold since 1991. The Iraqis also say that, all told, 1.7m children have died because of the various effects of UN sanctions."
- The Economist, September 14th 2002, p 39

Notice the date: a year after 9/11, the Economist decides to publish a piece of the utmost interest in a casual and disinterested manner. What has been brewing under Bill Clinton, John Major and Tony Blair between 1991 and 2001 appears as though it had been the work of the previous year. Furthermore, the article occupies only three-quarters of the page, whereas the Economist constantly prints surveys of a dozen pages and briefings of three to four pages. Why this extreme economy? The Economist was a rabid supporter of the 'war' against Iraq: its willful neglect of the subject wears the aspect of a fig-leaf. Moreover, by placing the article in an issue before 9/11 in a style suitable to the gravity of the subject, the newspaper would have thrown light on why 9/11 occurred: 2,700 Americans died because nearly 2 million Iraqi children were killed. While we hear constantly about 9/11, we never hear about '91/'01 – nine-eleven versus nine-one-o-one.