Path to Persia

[MustafaMc]

I have often wondered if the so-called 'Arab Spring' that has thus far progressed from Tunisia>Egypt>Libya>Syria was not as it seemed to be in the best interest of the Muslim populations of those countries. I thought that it was all just the machinations of the West to destabilize and defang each of these countries by removing their established governments however unjust they may have been. The article in the link provided and the brief quote below makes one wonder who, if anyone, can be trusted today. My opinion is that Iran stands alone in opposition to complete global hegemony and the establishment of the New World Order. It goes counter to what most Muslims believe, but could there be truth in the article that presumes that the Saudi, Israeli and American governments and ruling elite all have the same agenda?

"The Muslim Brotherhood is a Tool of US-Israeli-Saudi Machinations.

The Muslim Brotherhood is often portrayed as being anti-Israeli, anti-US, and anti-West in general. In reality they are a creation of and have been ever since servants of expanding Wall Street and London's corporate-financier hegemony across the Islamic World. In Hersh's 2007 report, it is made clear that the Brotherhood was the tool of choice of the US, Israeli, and Saudi elite - with the US and Saudis reported as even then directly funding and backing them - backing that continues to this day, not only in Syria, but in Egypt as well.

The Muslim Brotherhood's rank and file surely believe in what they are being told by their leaders, but their leaders are professional demagogues peddling anti-Israeli and anti-American rhetoric solely for public consumption while being fully complicit in the West's designs against the Arab World." http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/20...r-prequel.html

[Futuwwa]

What, pray tell, is this New World Order? You tell me. No links to walls of text.

[Independent]

The article in the link provided and the brief quote below makes one wonder who, if anyone, can be trusted today

This conspiracy theory flatly contradicts the one currently running in the thread on Egypt, where the Muslim Brothers are still the heroes.

What's the point of this? You can draw wholly different conclusions from the same set of events. You can reverse your theory completely, if events don't turn out the way you expect.

[MustafaMc]

The issue of the NWO is global domination by only a few 'elite' people to exploit the natural resources of the world in an accelerating manner of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. One can speculate where this development is headed, but for the masses of humanity I venture to say that it will be less than good. The point of my post is for people to consider the possibility that things may in actuality be quite different from how they appear. Did you read the article "Syrian War: The Prequel"?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[جوري]

I disagree with your first post akhi- I wouldn't pay much attention to the subsequent two either none of them are embroiled in this to have a clue!
I'll expand on the topic tomorrow but in fact the counter revolutions that are going on now in Egypt and Tunisia are indeed western/ Safavid (Persian) related and I'll support that for you tomorrow the only problem is many of my sources are written in Arabic!
Let's put it this way even if the 'Arab springs' were western initiated they weren't western perpetuated I. E the folks on the streets were genuine - what happened later ergo Lieberman/ suwaris/ McCain and funded by money from emirates and manifests in the oh so concerned 'opposition' quite a different story - the Persians indeed have been working and according to my readings as far back as 1973 where sheikh Qaradwi wanted to bridge the gap so he enabled many Shiites to come in foster their agenda write books in fact all the nonsens in Egypt which I have often wondered where it manifest from in an Islamic country who came 300 yrs under Shiites rule unfazed and believe me when I say they still want that dream but Egypt's identity has always been Sunni and Islamic!

Now, mursi has to work with what he inherited and for a country under military rule for so long he hasn't made himself charming to either the army or police force least of which after removing many of them as well he should any new president has a right to his own cabinet members!

There was going to be a coup last week but it was foiled - I assure you the west and especially now after mursi's position with Khalid mishaal in Gaza they're looking to have him dead, removed couped against the same style as Chavez - but they don't want an Islamic Egypt even though the current conditional model is quite secular and 72 model with a few tweaks the trouble on the ground should give you a clue to the depth of their fear and hatred!

In closure I apologize for any iPhone funnies my computer is down - tomorrow ill try to link you with done reading :ia:

[MustafaMc]

Assalamu alaikum, ukhti. I have a contrarian way of thinking and often try to look at things from a point of view opposite that of the majority of people. My goal is to arrive at deeper understanding of what is truly going on in the world. I look forward to reading what you have to write as I know you are knowledgeable and not shy to point out where you disagree.

[جوري]

At the end if the day it's indeed an ideological war!
And since the fall of communism Islam is the only ideology left to dismantle and unfortunately the most brilliant tool of satan is media!
The hatred that folks have in Egypt for the so called Islamists be they 'salafis' or brotherhood is staggering and the agenda to down with Islam is so deeply rooted in these so called Muslim majority nations money is being poured into Egypt from Iran Israel emirates and the U.S to make this counter revolutions successful its their swan song basically and after the Israeli humiliation in Gaza and especially after Gaza received recognition in the Y.N they're really out with vengeance against Muslims - Muslim brotherhood especially has spent most of its existence behind bars as political prisoners - the fact that they're out of prison to a presidency really doesn't appeal to anyone - last week there was going to be a coup meant to have el baradi America's man in the ME solely responsible for the death of 1.5 million Iraqis take power I'll tell you how that was foiled but it cost 6 Muslim brotherhood members their lives - Iran's man is saba7i very heavily funded by them and they too wanna exact their revenge as they're fast losing Syria but they're working on Bahrain and Kuwait bit sure if you know what's going on there- all the tribulations mentioned in ahadiths well they're happening now one by one

[جوري]

I think we're headed toward a WWIII - today British & American fleets are ready to enter Syria under the guise of saving the syrians from chemical weapons.. that is of course after they watched gayly the death of 40,000, 250,000 political prisoners can also be presumed dead, and the rest refugees.. they were sad and concerned then but now that the Sunni army is about to get Bashar they're oh so concerned that he'll use chemical weapons- any excuse to make sure an Islamic sunni majority don't take rule. This won't bode well though without having Turkey enter which is allied with NATO and on Bashar's side Iran and Russian involvement possibly Korea..
With American all time war fatigue and where they can barely get out of Afghanistan and Iraq (although they did manage to divide it to three groups put a puppet shiite in charge) they hadn't counted on the Kurdish problem against their boy al malki.. so much greed and lust for blood it is disgusting

[Independent]

Did you read the article "Syrian War: The Prequel"?

I did read the article. I find it difficult to understand how anyone could find it convincing. Any article that quotes the ludicrous Webster Tarpley as a source immediately sets the alarm bells ringing.

Why do we need these wild theories at all? The world is completely intelligble without them. If we are to disbelieve the declared motives of practically all the participants in world affairs, then surely we need something better than mere conjecture?

The problem with the idea of a mysterious elite is not they explain too little, but they explain far, far too much. Anything and anyone can be made to fit. Any prediction can be made – and quietly reinvented if it turns out to be inaccurate.

The Syrian rebels are the good guys - or are they really the bad guys? Bin Laden is a Muslim hero - or is he a CIA agent? Morsi is a devout freedom fighter - but then again, maybe he’s a western stooge? If the same theory can be used to make such wildly different analyses, what value does it have?

Your fellow conspiracist (who has made yet more of her customary deranged contributions to this thread) is using the same ‘secret elite’ theory to come up with totally opposite conclusions. In her case, everything must support her favourite Sunni imperialism viewpoint, so everything must fit that prejudice. In your case, I don’t see an agenda, but it’s still wild thinking.

Of course this is an anonymous forum but you do get an impression of people from what they write. When talking about genetics/evolution you come across as a fair-minded, moderate, reasonable guy. We may disagree, but I understand where you’re coming from and you’re never aggressive. That’s why it’s so disappointing that you give this fantasy the time of day.

If it were just speculation maybe it wouldn’t matter. But the ‘secret elite’ theory has a very nasty side to it. In following it, you’re keeping company with a profoundly unattractive range of Neo Nazis and other extreme right wing groups. This theory comes straight out of Nazi anti-semitism, as well as other racist/genocidal polemicists who laid the ground for them. Is that the place you really want to be?

[جوري]

more of her customary deranged contributions to this thread) is

isthat the place you really want to be?

Between adhoms/ smarmy ingratiation to his rational mind and the usual pseudo intellect style bullying what choice have we but to subscribe to your bury your head in the sand approach to the world? Just for the record I don't disagree with him in his alleged conspiracy FACT save to highlight Iran's very heavy involvement!
I don't think the world of the brotherhood but I promise that the alternative will not bode well for the west in a region seething!
In fact the brotherhood really is the middle road whether I agree or not I'd rather them than a western sponsored governance which differs not from the old save for a change of face but what they don't understand is that there's no going back to what was and it's indeed in their best interest to work with the cards they're dealt as the alternative is going to bite hard!
Lucky while we conjecture Whichever style to your dislike it's the folks on the ground making the decisions and defining the terms rendering you as irrelevant as ever!
You can sit and watch more of your turds returning in body bags more of your tax money to zionists your country in economic ruins and write memoirs on the colorful folks you encountered on an Islamic board and how anti Semitic and deranged they're while consulting Webster on the meaning of the term Semite!

Best of luck with all that!


,

[Scimitar]

question: has Morsi given any of you a reason not to trust him yet?

No?

Good, then trust him... until he slips up - and that, only if Allah exposes him to be a fraud. If Allah doesn't - then trust the man. He's the closest thing to an Emir for the Muslim world at the moment.

Scimi

[جوري]

The problem with Dr. Musi is that he inherited corruption so deeply rooted that despite his best efforts he's met with so much opposion - any president has the right to choose his own cabinet members with him any association with the brotherhood is met with such vile resistance and yes outside conspiracies to overthrow him every which way you should read about the American ambassador to Egypt Anna Patterson her previous work in Columbia and Pakistan her meeting with el Baradi on dec 2nd and again today and el Baradi admission to using old regime thugs to prevent the Islamists whose agenda is unknown as he put it before you decide if our western pal above has any valid political insights outside the crap he's fed on his evening news which is aimed at audience with a certain intellect as is!
Of course Mursi has our full support and I appreciate that the transition is difficult considering the loyalties of the armed and police forces and foreign tentacles everywhere in the country! We don't expect him o go from 0 to 60 in three seconds question is can he get anywhere at all with all the concession he's making?

[Independent]

The Muslim Brotherhood is often portrayed as being anti-Israeli, anti-US, and anti-West in general. In reality they are a creation of and have been ever since servants of expanding Wall Street and London's corporate-financier hegemony across the Islamic World.

Whilst I disagree with the ‘secret elite’ version of events, I can see why you might question Morsi’s progress so far.

Mubarak was a big ally of the US and had also been an influence for stability in his region. However, to their credit the US administration seemed to recognise fairly early on that it would be so ridiculously ‘undemocratic’ to try and sustain him that even to try would be detrimental. So, they publicly let him go. (Unlike Russia with Assad.) This almost certainly saved the country from the type of civil war that nows engulfs Syria.

The strength of the Muslim Brotherhood was well known beforehand. It was understood that they were well-funded from abroad, well organised, and although not designed to be an electoral machine, they were best placed to benefit from a situation in which all other possible democratic parties had not been allowed to develop freely.

The victory of the Brotherhood in the elections was not a surprise, although it was narrow enough and could easily have gone the other way. If the US wanted to keep the Brotherhood out, their best chance was surely when they had Mubarak and the army on their side. It makes no sense for the US to let him win, see him follow a moderate path, yet then risk all and conspire to remove him again.

In office, Morsi began by being clearly much less radical than the US might have feared. In particular he was astonishingly restrained over the Gaza war. Surely, this was a moment when he should have intervened more strongly. But in practice it’s hard to see he did anything that Mubarak wouldn’t have done.

The US and Israel must have been delighted with him.

Maybe it was because he felt he could now get away with anything in US eyes, that he then made his sudden power grab. But by grabbing all of Mubarak’s power, he has now made himself look like Mubarak.

At the very least, this move was a terrific political blunder. (Which he has more or less admitted by revoking his own power today.) To what extent it was his blunder, or whether he is too much in the pocket of other hardline Brotherhood leaders behind the scenes, he has now reignited all the fires in society.

Personally I think this was, simply, a blunder. But if you wanted to go conspiracy theory on it you could ask, is he destabilising things deliberately? Does he want the excuse to crush all opposition violently right at the start? Or you could go as far as this Paths to Persia theory, and play him as a double agent looking to bring down his own side.

Me, I believe in blunders.

[جوري]

Again incorrect!
The U.S had no choice but to save what they could in a situation that was getting out of hand and there was no putting the wheels in reverse and they tried with such things as pushing their right hand man and CIA agent Omar suliman for vice presidency th ailing old goat already well in his 80's was too slow in bequeathing his kingdom to his much despised son and who had no ties to the army which is the saving grace of most o the predecessors no matter how remote their role- Mubarak himself was a dense cargo plane pilot chosen or his stupidity by Sadat!
So there was nothing the U. S could do at that stage save the little mind games they often play and there's a laundry list oo expansive for me to delve in.
Unlike Syria Egypt has a patriotic army that pointed its tanks at the palace when given h command by Mubarak to aim it at the people also the army is conscript of the people not o in Syria at least as far as the air force is concerned it's composed in its entirety of Alawites!
And there's a famous front page photo of that on most of the already govt. Owned papers. Same ones btw still advocating for Mubarak now!
Lastly because I not wish to labour over frank stupidity - israel has been tooting its own horn for so long with it's incessant threats against Iran and with hopes the U.S would back it up neither of them have the desire to engage in said war and after the hilarious orgasmic moment netyn had at the U.N with his cute far side of the moon toon and where in lieu of the audience being enraptured they had a good laugh both the U.S and the colonial settler wanted someone to hand them the ladder own from the tree so to speak - they'd gone in an area neiher could get out of with some semblance of diplomacy they were extremely vexed by their defeat in Gaza as well Khalid mishaal getting an hour time to speak on Egyptian TV that their defense guy Ehaud resigned and Palestine gained recognition and Hamas more popularity in the west bank while netynyahoo is out licking his wounds so frankly nothing went as they planned but you're welcome to put your own spin to make a miserable defeat more palatable

[Independent]

They had no choice but to save what they could in a situation that was getting out of hand!

They had a choice, the same way Russia had a choice with Syria.

if the destruction of Egypt was a US objective, then sticking with Mubarak was the fastest way to achieve it. Plainly if he had stayed in power the country was heading for civil war - the same war we may yet get now, because of Morsi's unnecessary blunder.

Personally, I would give Morsi time, he has shown great pragmatism in office until this mistake. Nevertheless the crisis he faces now is mostly of his own making (or other Brotherhood leaders behind the scenes).

[سيف الله]

Salaam

Salaam

Yes this is a tricky situation, no easy answers or solutions. I really hope Egypt follows an independent path rather than going back to being a western lapdog.

There’s no doubt that western powers are desperately trying to subvert the revolution. They don’t want another Iran, Russia China Cuba Venezuela etc. By that I mean a country that follows an independent course of development free from outside interference. This is called ‘instability’ in western foreign affairs literature. "Stability" on the other hands means maintenance of specific forms of domination and control, and easy access to resources and profits. Hence Mubarak was a beacon of ‘stability’.

http://www.chomsky.info/books/fateful02.htm

More background on the reasons why the US particularly is so disliked (and that’s being mild) in the Middle East.



On why Mubarak was ‘reluctantly’ dumped by the US. Not a new strategy if you read American history, when there favoured friends and ally’s start to lose control and its quite clear he cant put the people in their 'place', they have a tendency to become ‘expendable’ .



On why America didn’t take a more violent line. Current administration tends to prefer subversion and after the disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan doubt the Americans would have appetite to get directly involved in another war in the Middle East. (Though the ground seems to being prepared for the invasion of Syria).

Tough choices are ahead :phew

[جوري]

They had a choice, the same way Russia had a choice with Syria.

They didn't have a choice in Egypt anymore than Russia has a choice in Syria..and I have already covered that - America wouldn't have ground forces in Egypt believe me the common man there is so thirsty for American blood it isn't even a matter of being armed at this stage and secondly I have already stated that all Iran or Russia can do for the Bashar regime is supply with arms to be used by Alwaites against a sunni majority. No such problem exists in Egypt every family has a son or two or three in the army they're conscript of the people that even if the top commanders gave the orders the army wouldn't and in fact they were given the order and their tanks turned the wrong way- draw your own conclusions!

if the destruction of Egypt was a US objective, then sticking with Mubarak was the fastest way to achieve it. Plainly if he had stayed in power the country was heading for civil war - the same war we may yet get now, because of Morsi's unnecessary blunder.

The U.S is nothing more than a paper tiger if they had the power they'd have completed their mission in Afghanistan where they don't have an organized army but a bunch of rebels in mountains again put things in their proper size!

Personally, I would give Morsi time, he has shown great pragmatism in office until this mistake. Nevertheless the crisis he faces now is mostly of his own making (or other Brotherhood leaders behind the scenes).

He hasn't made any mistakes save concessions- Nothing that wasn't used by Bush or Gamal Abdul Nasser or not mentioned in the french constitution - in fact if they liked him he wouldn't be having this much trouble now!

[جوري]

double post pls remove

[جوري]

a comment about Syria and Just to add to the above that now at the 11th hour and because the free army has gained so much ground (the sunni army) that is the same one the U.S has listed on its terrorist organization list, they want to go in under the guise of saving the people from chemical weapons. So I think it is rather obvious how the game is being played!
Question is how their smarmy souls can do it without being on the ground and without dragging the entire world into a war because Turkish involvement means NATO involvement And U.S involvement means Russian, North Korea/Iran involvement..
let the players play-- Victory is to the most persevering and most God fearing!

[جوري]

I can't stand Noam chomsky btw.. he may say all the right things but I can't stand his liberal agenda!

[Futuwwa]

The problem with the idea of a mysterious elite is not they explain too little, but they explain far, far too much. Anything and anyone can be made to fit. Any prediction can be made – and quietly reinvented if it turns out to be inaccurate.

This.

The basic premise behind the entire "NWO" conspiracy, that there's an ill-defined and invisible but all-powerful group of people cooperating to take over the world and establish themselves as its masters, is utterly worthless as far as theories go. It can't be disproven, it can predict absolutely nothing, and it can be used to explain pretty much anything that happens after the fact.

And if no hypothetical event can prove a theory wrong, then it follows that the fact that the theory manages to explain what has happened does in no way support the notion that the theory is true.

Within the philosophy of science, that's called the problem of induction. For every set of observed facts, there is an infinite number of possible theories that would explain them. Thus, the fact that your particular theory also manages to do it proves, in itself, nothing.

If it were just speculation maybe it wouldn’t matter. But the ‘secret elite’ theory has a very nasty side to it. In following it, you’re keeping company with a profoundly unattractive range of Neo Nazis and other extreme right wing groups. This theory comes straight out of Nazi anti-semitism, as well as other racist/genocidal polemicists who laid the ground for them. Is that the place you really want to be?

This part, however, does you no credit. This is a guilt by association fallacy, and an annoying one at that. As for the rest of your post though, it was full of awesome and win, and something that should have been said a long time ago. I'll grant you reputation for it, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.

[جوري]

and it can be used to explain pretty much anything that happens after the fact.

That's why we have strategists whose names we will remember and it is also the reason no one will remember your name- whereas you waste time refuting alleged conjectures the world unravels as many 'predicted'
Good luck with your belief system!

best,

[Futuwwa]

That's why we have strategists whose names we will remember and it is also the reason no one will remember your name- whereas you waste time refuting alleged conjectures the world unravels as many 'predicted'
Good luck with your belief system!

best,

Care to show some of those successful predictions? As in, predictions that are specific enough that one can unambiguously conclude whether they have succeeded or failed. Not vague, ill-defined BS "predictions" that can be "clarified" after the fact to make them fit. And predictions that specifically require a "NWO" conspiracy to make sense of happenings. Not predictions that can be made from simple, obvious observable facts that nobody contests, such as "there will be war in the Middle East".

[جوري]

Care to show some of those successful predictions? As in, predictions that are specific enough that one can unambiguously conclude whether they have succeeded or failed. Not vague, ill-defined BS "predictions" that can be "clarified" after the fact to make them fit. And predictions that specifically require a "NWO" conspiracy to make sense of happenings. Not predictions that can be made from simple, obvious observable facts that nobody contests, such as "there will be war in the Middle East".

There's nothing 'magical' nor anything that falls into your laughable constructs above- a strategist is just that someone who understands the game, the key players and knows how to not act on the defensive or even three steps ahead but works completely outside the confines of the game. The rest of the stuff by way of 'presictions' comes from our faith and understanding of our religion. Someone like you who understands not wala, wal bara, the first three verses from suret Al-Baqara and finds it amusing to mock our former khalifs for defending the honor of our sisters isn't someone that I'd be otherwise interested in a serious discussion with!

best

[جوري]

There’s no doubt that western powers are desperately trying to subvert the revolution.

A country that doesn't make its own weapons or plant its own foods of course is always gonna be at the mercy of another. And yes they use all kinds of pressure especially economic ones to establish their goals. While the evil ones like khalfan devise how to arm thugs with Molotov and guns to kill civilians and overthrow freely elected presidents with billions that I can think of a million uses of.. if nothing else at all and far away from Egypt to simply save the Myanmar Muslims from a 20 year genocide - but no..All those currently in power in fact share a very similar agenda a globalized agenda

but what can I say except to quote the noble book in its transcendence:

Sahih International
Indeed, those who disbelieve spend their wealth to avert [people] from the way of Allah . So they will spend it; then it will be for them a [source of] regret; then they will be overcome. And those who have disbelieved - unto Hell they will be gathered.

[MustafaMc]

Why do we need these wild theories at all? The world is completely intelligble without them. If we are to disbelieve the declared motives of practically all the participants in world affairs, then surely we need something better than mere conjecture?

I assume that you accept the official 9/11 story as being truthful and completely intelligible. Well, I have studied and tried to make sense of that 'Infamous Day' which started to make sense when I came across the document 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' by PNAC and the website ae911truth.org . I do not know by what means the WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 buildings came down, but 2 planes and jet fuel don't do it for me. Those who dismiss the evidence at hand do so either out of fear of being labeled a 'crazy conspiracy theorist' or blind trust in the patriotic and humanitarian benevolence of the entirety of the US government. The cognitive dissonance of considering anything more than the official story is too much for other people to even entertain the thought that it all might just be a big lie and a coverup.

Bin Laden is a Muslim hero - or is he a CIA agent?

Well, when he was fighting the Ruskies in Afghanistan he was a 'Freedom Fighter' according to Ronald Reagan, but he suddenly became a terrorist on the buildup to 9/11.

Your fellow conspiracist (who has made yet more of her customary deranged contributions to this thread) is using the same ‘secret elite’ theory to come up with totally opposite conclusions. In her case, everything must support her favourite Sunni imperialism viewpoint, so everything must fit that prejudice. In your case, I don’t see an agenda, but it’s still wild thinking.

My intention in opening this thread was to get discussion so I can learn more about what is going on and to get the opinions of others, even those such as yourself, that disagree. The other member here who also expresses a view contrary to what you espouse is most definitely not afraid to speak her opinion which I welcome.

When talking about genetics/evolution you come across as a fair-minded, moderate, reasonable guy. We may disagree, but I understand where you’re coming from and you’re never aggressive. That’s why it’s so disappointing that you give this fantasy the time of day.

Flattery or otherwise get's no points with me.

If it were just speculation maybe it wouldn’t matter. But the ‘secret elite’ theory has a very nasty side to it. In following it, you’re keeping company with a profoundly unattractive range of Neo Nazis and other extreme right wing groups. This theory comes straight out of Nazi anti-semitism, as well as other racist/genocidal polemicists who laid the ground for them. Is that the place you really want to be?

Funny how this exact same sentiment was used against me in the mid 1980's of associating me with suicide bombers just because I was a Muslim. I most definitely don't agree with nor support any suicide bomber NOR do I support any neo-Nazi, white supremacist, skinhead group. I do not accept guilt-by-association, either.

[MustafaMc]

All those currently in power in fact share a very similar agenda a globalized agenda but what can I say except to quote the noble book in its transcendence:

Sahih International
Indeed, those who disbelieve spend their wealth to avert [people] from the way of Allah . So they will spend it; then it will be for them a [source of] regret; then they will be overcome. And those who have disbelieved - unto Hell they will be gathered.

Another ayat comes to mind 8:30 "Remember how the Unbelievers plotted against you, to keep you in bonds, or slay you, or get you out (of your home). They plot and plan, and Allah too plans; but the best of planners is Allah."

[Independent]

I assume that you accept the official 9/11 story as being truthful and completely intelligible.

Broadly yes. There is an astonishing quantity of material about this on the web. You could spend the rest of your life reading it.

If you picked any moment in history, and performed the same kind of obsessive analysis that has been done with 9/11, you would find another set of apparent coincidences and links. That is why, whenever there is a big world event (political, deaths of celebrities or moon landings) a conspiracy theory industry immediately springs up around it.

For example, (more trivially) you may remember the tragic death of Lady Diana, the estranged wife of Prince Charles, heir to the British throne. She died in a car accident in Paris while being pursued by paparazzi. Within 2 hours the first conspiracy theories were circulating in Cairo that this was an assassination because she was perhaps going to marry a Muslim man = Dodi Fayed, who also died in the car.

At such an early stage, almost nothing was known about the incident. In fact she may not even have been dead for the first couple of hours. All the deluge of mysterious 'facts' and 'coincidences' that have come out since, were not known at that time.

This is a giveaway. The desire for the story preceded any possible knowledge of information. Nevertheless you can trawl through the same dreary litany of insane theories that you get with incidents like 9/11.

I always think that, if at this stage you still believe 9/11 was a fake, then there is probably nothing anyone can say to convince you otherwise. But have a look at this website: http://www.911myths.com/indexold.html

If nothing else, it is very clearly laid out and takes the issues one by one.

My intention in opening this thread was to get discussion so I can learn more about what is going on and to get the opinions of others, even those such as yourself, that disagree.

I agree, it's good to look at the root of these things, so much outlandish stuff gets said here without any serious challenge. For instance, it's important that people see that people who hold the same 'world elite' theory don't necessarily agree at all on how it plays out in the real world.

[Independent]

What’s the single biggest reason why the ‘secret elite’ theory is not believeable? You can get bogged down in all the detail, fighting each and every incident. The real giveaway is the lack of first hand witnesses.

If this long catalogue of events (9/11, London bombings, Madrid, countless other Al Quaeda and Taliban attacks, Malala etc) are all to be explained as ‘psy-ops’, that requires a huge supporting cast of active participants. The guys that carried in the explosives for the Twin Towers. The random hospital staff dealing with Malala. And so on. This now amounts to many, many thousands. Yet not one of them has ever come forward to confess.

Not one single disgruntled ex-employee. No one who felt they’d been tricked into helping. Not even some poor Alzheimer’s victim who can’t control what he’s saying any more. Everything gets leaked in the end. Let alone something with as many complex, high risk operations as this.

All this perfect secrecy, over not just decades but even centuries.

I sooooooooo don’t believe this.

[جوري]

It isn't a matter of belief or disbelief - under both circumstances you've failed to show how 'taliban/Al-Qaeda' involvement detracts from amero/Israeli global agenda as evinced by their very presence in the region way before any such attacks took place- In fact all you've done here is cement the idea all the more. A group of freedom fighters on to a global agenda trying to raise awareness in the Muslim world to the dangers of these colonialists .


you ought to work a little harder on the distaillate.. it doesn't matter how you slice this pie the end result is the same!

best,

[جوري]

The U.S indeed is losing its grip in the ME and they're dreading the rise of what they call 'Islamists' i.e the regular majority country folks. So make no mistake if they go in now it isn't because they're afraid Bashar is gonna use chemical weapons the man has already eradicated 40k that we know and 250k POWs assumed dead. If they go in now it is to stop the inevitable -- which is the rise of Muslims in shaa Allah:


http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec...syria-20121208
U.S. now hindered by distance it kept on Syria conflict


Washington's influence in the strategic nation is limited by its weak ties to Syrian rebel commanders who will have a major say in what happens if Bashar Assad is toppled.


December 07, 2012|By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times

• 
  

A rebel fighter with his son after Friday prayers in Aleppo, Syria. As rebels… (Odd Andersen / AFP/Getty…)

WASHINGTON — With the Syrian civil war apparently near a turning point, Obama administration officials are finding their ability to influence the fast-moving events and growing violence hampered by their reluctance to become too deeply involved during the first 21 months of the conflict.
As the opposition has scored major gains against the regime of President Bashar Assad in recent days, U.S. officials have stepped up diplomatic efforts and begun weighing whether to start providing arms or other military assistance to the rebels.

[Jedi_Mindset]

a comment about Syria and Just to add to the above that now at the 11th hour and because the free army has gained so much ground (the sunni army) that is the same one the U.S has listed on its terrorist organization list, they want to go in under the guise of saving the people from chemical weapons. So I think it is rather obvious how the game is being played!
Question is how their smarmy souls can do it without being on the ground and without dragging the entire world into a war because Turkish involvement means NATO involvement And U.S involvement means Russian, North Korea/Iran involvement..
let the players play-- Victory is to the most persevering and most God fearing!

Putin vowed to defend syria to very streets of moscow, and ofcourse the russian move to deploy S-400 missles on the turkish border.

Remember that this WW3 has been planned a long time ago, this major escalation is meant to happen. But its the will of Allah.
This major escalation will sure bring alot of suffering, a trip to the mountains and caves is a good option if not able to, prepare for shuhadah.

Yajooj wa majooj have been released, from hadith and qu'ran you will know their armies will bring fitnah and destruction everywhere. And dajjal has been released, not in psychical form yet, ofcourse this is knowledge you already know sis.


And to be truthfull both turkey and syria are being used as proxy now.

[Independent]

Remember that this WW3 has been planned a long time ago, this major escalation is meant to happen

Who planned it, when did they plan it, what did they say?

You have no first-hand witnesses.

You have no record of any meeting where this conspiracy is ever discussed.

Your theory has no predictive value.

Your theory leads different people to draw entirely opposite conclusions from the same evidence.

There is no secret elite.

[جوري]

You should consult with wiki leaks founder if you're that naive about your expectations of complete transperancy from any world govt. I am somewhat amused firstly by your superficial school boy approach to every topic a hit and run when the going gets tough and more importantly your assertion that absence of evidence is in itself proof of absence - I don't need to see or know of the bee that made the honey! Best,

[Independent]

So, you got nothing.

Let's see if Jedi can do any better. He seems very certain with his statement.

[جوري]

You got to do better than the consistent burying your head in the sand, dodging arguments from which there's no winning per your previous, ingratiating yourself to members, pseudo intellectual bullying and then make all the requests you want.

best,

[Jedi_Mindset]

So, you got nothing.

Let's see if Jedi can do any better. He seems very certain with his statement.

You seem to really doubt the NWO conspiracy however;





NWO is world domination;



Novus ordo seclorum; secularization of the world and world domination.

[Jedi_Mindset]

[جوري]

^^ let's not forget that they killed Al'Awlaqi himself and later his teenage son for thought crimes and his son of course for thought crimes by proxy!

[Independent]

You seem to really doubt the NWO conspiracy however;

Greetings Jedi, I have watched your videos now. In the first two George Bush proclaims a new world order of ‘peace, freedom and the rule of law’. While I may be as cynical as you about that idea, the words themselves are not remarkable and certainly have nothing to do with a ‘third world war’. They in no way provide evidence of a ‘secret elite’ - not least because he is addressing a very public audience of hundreds of people and national tv.

Even Bush couldn't be that stupid if it was a secret.

The last video, Message to the Truthful Journalists, covers a wide range of grievances but again contains no evidence whatsoever of a secret elite.

You make a very firm statement that a Third World War has been planned by this secret elite, starting in Syria. Do you have any hard evidence for this or any direct evidence for the existence of this elite? First hand witnesses, documents, membership, recruitment - any hard evidence at all? It's been a thousand years now. Something should have turned up.

[جوري]

Even Bush couldn't be that stupid if it was a secret.

So glad you unwittingly admitted that a 'secret elite' can't be made so overtly public!
In fact you've set the standards just so that it doesn't matter what evidence is presented will fall into one of the two categories you've preconceived in your mind!
Not much of a dialogue if you've the speech ready for all participants!

Best,

[MustafaMc]

The real giveaway is the lack of first hand witnesses. ...The guys that carried in the explosives for the Twin Towers. ... Yet not one of them has ever come forward to confess. ...All this perfect secrecy, over not just decades but even centuries. ...I sooooooooo don’t believe this.

The incredulity you express about the lack of eyewitness accounts is about as weak of an argument as there can be. Taking the flip side view (contrary to what I believe), Richard Gage may himself be just a CIA operative and the website http://www.ae911truth.org/ could be just carefully crafted misinformation to mislead folks like me. However, the scientific evidence presented there that is contrary to the official story is more than enough to make me accept that Mr. Gage is a bona fide architect who knows what he is talking about and that the AE911 site is an accurate and truthful portrayal of scientific data about 9/11. Merely watching the video of the implosive collapse of the 47-story WTC7 at free-fall acceleration is enough to convince anyone with the least bit of understanding and honesty that the building was intentional brought down or 'pulled' as Larry Silverstein let slip.

[Independent]

The incredulity you express about the lack of eyewitness accounts is about as weak of an argument as there can be.

Eyewitness evidence is valued in Sharia Law as well as western law, I can't imagine why it's not important to you here. Without it, what we have is entirely circumstantial evidence from start to finish.

the scientific evidence presented there that is contrary to the official story is more than enough to make me accept that Mr. Gage is a bona fide architect who knows what he is talking about

‘Disbelieving’ in 9/11 involves a whole lot more than just the architect evidence. However, let’s run with this for a moment.

If 9/11 is indeed a staged event, how do you get from there to a worldwide Zionist conspiracy going back 1,000 years? Why this 'explanation' rather than another? For example, what’s to say this isn’t a Chinese-led conspiracy to bring down the west? The motivation is much simpler and the outcome more likely.

The absence of any causal connection makes it possible for you, or another ‘conspiracist’, to construct entirely opposite conclusions from the same premise. You say your approach is scientific – but this is like conducting an experiment to test a theory, where the outcome always provides ‘confirmation’ no matter what the result. If the US sends ground troops into Syria - that confirms the theory. If they don't send in the troops - that's used to confirm the theory too.

What evidence are you using to make a causal connection between 9/11 and an international Zionist conspiracy going back a 1,000 years or more?

[MustafaMc]

What evidence are you using to make a causal connection between 9/11 and an international Zionist conspiracy going back a 1,000 years or more?

My claim is that the official story is not consistent with a whole list of apparent facts regarding the destruction of WTC1, 2, & 7. The Project for a New America Century's document 'Rebuilding of America's Defenses' (Sept 2000) notes, "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor". Is there any question that 9/11 was a 'catastrophic and catalyzing event' that came as if on que? As the original post here noted, the premise was that things are not always as they appear and it even challenged what most Muslims probably believe about the Brotherhood with: "The Muslim Brotherhood is a Tool of US-Israeli-Saudi Machinations." I am not in a position to explain the how or the who of NYC/WTC on 9/11, but nothing more than 2 planes, OBL, KSM, and 19 'Muslims' with box cutters doesn't suffice for me. Like your disagreeing with me about 'genetics/evolution', even though I undoubtedly have more knowledge of biological science than you do (as Allah has willed), so also you disagree with me here and dismiss me as a 'wild-thinking' conspiracy theorist who gives 'this fantasy the time of day'. You can no better support the official 9/11 conspiracy theory with hard facts than you can support macro, naturalistic evolution.

[Independent]

The Project for a New America Century's document 'Rebuilding of America's Defenses' (Sept 2000)

I’m taking this to be one of the key sources for this conspirary theory, perhaps even the most important. So I’ve spent some time on it. Once something like this gets on the internet it continues to circulate and multiply until no one questions the source any more. So let’s take a closer look at what the PNAC document actually says.

It isn’t what you think.

First, the main phrase: "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor".

This quote usually appears in isolation. What they are actually talking about? A ‘transformation’ of what? If you read the whole document it’s clear that this refers to the need to modernize American military capabilities, especially with reference to information technologies. It's one of the principal themes throughout the document and is referred to again and again. This comes from earlier in the same chapter:

"To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence".

So "transformation" refers to the process of updating the military with better use of information technologies.

How does 9/11 help this agenda? It does not. In fact, the attacks provided powerful evidence that one of the PNAC's own pet schemes - a global missile shield - was a waste of time. And this is exactly how some politicians reacted at the time: “Sen. Carl Levin told Rumsfeld at a June 2001 hearing that we were lavishing money on missile defense and not "putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security ... like terrorist attacks." http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article...NGQ58FN831.DTL

Back to the PNAC and the key "Pearl Harbor" phrase. What exactly does this mean? More clarity comes from the one other place where it’s used in the document:

"Absent a rigorous program of experimentation to investigate the nature of the revolution in military affairs as it applies to war at sea, the Navy might face a future Pearl Harbor – as unprepared for war in the post-carrier era as it was unprepared for war at the dawn of the carrier age".

The reference to ‘Pearl Harbour’ here is as a warning from history. All they're saying here is that ‘the process of updating the US military will take a long time, unless the problems are made apparent by an attack that reveals our technical failings ie a disaster or shock to the system like Pearl Harbour was’. It's pretty obvious why the phrase came to mind - they're talking about the navy.

It most certainly does not suggest that they are proposing to create their own, new Pearl Harbour event as a catalyst for change. In fact it is making the exact opposite point – that if no action is taken, the US will be vulnerable to just such an attack. What has been read into this phrase is simply not there and there is nothing in the document to support this kind of interpretation. In fact the document as a whole is quite boring and unremarkable.

Summary

There is nothing in the document that you wouldn’t expect to find. The authors come from the perspective that the US had become by that time the strongest military force in the world. Their job was to maintain that strength.

Yes, they were looking for increased defence spending – have you ever known a defence review that didn’t? (Or any other government department for that matter). It was their job to look for more money all the time.

It talks about all aspects of the military, and all global theatres, as you would expect. The Middle East does not show up as being of particular interest. It does not predict anything in Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt or Syria but is concerned with the obvious issues of the day – the Gulf region and especially the pressure of maintaining the no-fly zone in Iraq. They are most concerned with the rising threat of China (quite presciently as it turns out).

As far as homeland security is concerned it pushes for its pet project, a missile shield and says this: “The current American peace will be short-lived if the United States becomes vulnerable to rogue powers with small, inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction.” 9/11 made a mockery of spending a fortune on a missle shield, a fact that is still repeated even today.

The PNAC document does not provide any supporting evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy. It’s explicit strategic goal is preserving world stability and peace. What it does not propose is a strategy for smashing world order to pieces. The notion that in the middle of this rather boring review they suddenly propose an attack on their own country is wholly incredible.

Please read it yourself and see. You can download it from here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/pu...onsreports.htm

[MustafaMc]

I’m taking this to be one of the key sources for this conspirary theory, perhaps even the most important.

No, it is of minor importance, but I actually am not putting forth ANY conspiracy theory because I don't know enough about what went on behind the scenes that is not public knowledge. My primary issue is that the official conspiracy story is inadequate to explain the discrepancies noted on ae911truth.org. The present tie-in is that if there was a ruling elite group of people that actually perpetrated 9/11, then they also could be scheming to invade and occupy Syria with American and other forces as a prelude to doing the same in Iran.

[Independent]

No, it is of minor importance, but I actually am not putting forth ANY conspiracy theory because I don't know enough about what went on behind the scenes that is not public knowledge. My primary issue is that the official conspiracy story is inadequate to explain the discrepancies noted on ae911truth.org. The present tie-in is that if there was a ruling elite group of people that actually perpetrated 9/11, then they also could be scheming to invade and occupy Syria with American and other forces as a prelude to doing the same in Iran.

Ok, so you regard 9/11 as a fake. This implies a secret organization behind the scenes to organise it. You are reluctant to speculate who exactly. There are any number of possibilities.

It could be the Chinese, who seek to divide and rule by setting Islam and the West against each other, while meantime they buy up oil, gas, mineral and farmland resources all over the world.

It could be a religious group (Islamic, Christian or another) who believe that in order to fulfill a prophecy they need to reduce the world to chaos or other specific conflicts.

And of course, it could be those ever-popular villains, Zionists and/or the Illuminati.

But by quoting the ‘new Pearl Harbour’ reference and suggesting that Iran is the ultimate objective, you are in fact making choices about what kind of conspiracy is involved.

You have to work really hard to make 9/11 point to Iran. If Iran was the target, why was the evidence constructed to implicate Afghanistan? For that matter, how did they even know the Afghanistan leadership would ‘play along’ by refusing to hand over Bin Laden, and therefore give an excuse for the invasion? How did they know the Taliban resistance would collapse so easily to make a difficult invasion successful? Why didn’t they make Iraq part of the scheme too, instead of having to create the separate ‘WMD’ justification? What’s any of this got to do with the Arab Spring and Syria?

If they’re clever enough, and powerful enough, to achieve these things, why have they made such odd and convoluted choices that don’t seem to lead to the right results?

To return to your original post - how do you get all the way from your declared scepticism about 9/11 to the theory suggested in your landdestroyer link?

[MustafaMc]

If certain key elements in the US government were complicit with the conspiracy to perpetrate the events of 9/11, the resulting actions by the government illustrate the motive for murdering 3,000 of its own citizens. The invasion, regime change and occupation of Afghanistan was in order to gain access to the oil resources of the Caspian Sea through a pipeline the Taliban government would not allow. Since no corresponding linkage could be established between Iraq and 9/11, the hoax of WMD was used to justify doing the same to Iraq for their oil, but again this so-called justification capitalized on the fear resulting from 9/11. My supposition contrary to other Muslims here is that the 'Arab Spring' was just another means for insidious regime change and destabilization of countries in the Middle East. The book by Naomi Klein "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" puts a different spin on certain world events. As I stated earlier, Iran stands alone as a threat to hegemony in the Middle East. All of this could of course be completely wrong, but the pivotal issue is the truth about 9/11. If you can watch this video and tell me it fell only due to damage from the falling Twin Towers and resulting diesel-fueled fires and not as a result of controlled implosive demolition, then I will rest my case. If WTC7 was intentionally imploded, then it doesn't take much imagination to know the Twin Towers could have been intentionally exploded despite the apparent unlikelihood of being able to do so secretly.

[Independent]

If you can watch this video and tell me it fell only due to damage from the falling Twin Towers and resulting diesel-fueled fires and not as a result of controlled implosive demolition, then I will rest my case.

Thanks for this Mustafa. I will look at this video and then answer the evidence it contains to the best of my ability. It might take me a little while.

[Independent]

If you can watch this video and tell me it fell only due to damage from the falling Twin Towers and resulting diesel-fueled fires and not as a result of controlled implosive demolition, then I will rest my case

Hi Mustafa. In order to answer you in a more convincing way I feel obliged to make some quite long posts. I apologise for that in advance, but if I don't include verbatim quotes etc i think you will be less satisfied.

For this reason, and also to spread out the labour of putting this together, I am going to address different claims in the video one by one. Please bear in mind therefore that this argument will be coming in instalments! I am only addressing claims made directly in the video. The first area I want to look at is a 'motive' for the WTC 7 attack specifically. It’s probably not the biggest thing for you but it’s a natural starting point. Feel free to comment at any stage of course.

WTC 7 has a number of unusual features that make it different from the other attacks. For that reason, a number of different motives (besides the big issue ‘world war’ type motive) have been ascribed to this attack.

The strange thing is, WTC 7 is the anomaly that causes the most trouble for all sides - both for the conspiracists and for the official account.

[Independent]

Part 1 of reply - What was the motive for an attack on WTC 7

The video proposes that WTC 7 was a pre-planned target along with the Twin Towers. Why then were planes crashed into the Towers, but not WTC 7? Why did the Towers get a cover story (the planes) but not WTC 7?

In effect, by putting WTC 7 on the hit list, the attackers would be guaranteeing that difficult questions would be asked afterwards.

Even more problematic, they couldn’t possibly be sure that rubble from the Towers would hit WTC 7 at all. (It is a little distance away with other buildings in between.) If it had missed, then when the explosives went off, WTC 7 would have collapsed abruptly in a pristine condition. Total giveaway!

Which begs the question, why risk the WTC 7 attack at all? It didn’t add anything to the shock value of the overall operation (no casualties even). It didn’t buy one extra soldier for the military. All it does is raise difficult questions.

The video you have posted doesn’t offer any motives for the attack. However, it make a point of listing some of the tenants of WTC7 (CIA, SEC etc) which implies a few motives. I answer these below:

1. Was it done to prevent an on-going prosecution?

The is the easiest to debunk because many years have elapsed, and it’s plain that no prosecutions were ever prevented (although some may have been delayed a little). Nor was it ever likely to prevent prosecution, as is made clear by a number of relevant staff:

Wayne Carlin, the SEC’s Northeast regional director, told the Washington Post:

"It will slow us down, and we will need some amount of time to recover….We lost a lot of stuff, though some of it is reconstructible," he said. "Anybody who is under our investigation would be making a mistake if they thought they were in the clear."

An SEC statement said that "we are confident that we will not lose any significant investigation or case as a result of the loss of our building in New York. No one whom we have sued or whose conduct we have been investigating should doubt our resolve to continue our pursuit of justice in every such matters." ("SEC & EEOC: Attack Delays Investigations” by Margaret Cronin Fisk, National Law Journal, September 17, 2001)

"Within two days of the attack, we had retrieved all documents stored electronically and had commenced a review of every single investigation and case currently underway in the office with the twin aims of ensuring that we do not miss any imminent deadlines and of developing a plan for completing our investigations and cases in timely fashion. While our review has not been completed, we are optimistic that we will not lose any significant investigation or case as a result of the loss of our building." (Harvey L. Pitt, Chairman SEC)

Even the Truthers don’t seem to make a big deal out of this one any more. Consider it BUSTED!

2. Was it done to cover up evidence because this was the centre of the CIA WTC attack operation?

This proposes that WTC7 was the nerve centre of the CIA demolition operation, both for planning and actually directing the planes onto their targets. Therefore the building needed to be destroyed to eliminate evidence.

This idea has some serious drawbacks. First, the not-inconsiderable risk that the CIA would risk killing themselves accidentally. Second, far from eliminating the possibility of discovery, blowing the building up seriously raises the risk. Papers and disc drives were in fact recovered from the scene.

Why bother if you have total security in your own office (which is of course a prerequisite of the whole conspiracy theory from beginning to end) and no reason to expect anyone would investigate this building?

3. The Silverstein theory.

This theory is not referred to in the video and has been thoroughly debunked so I won’t dwell on it (unless you want me to). Silverstein was the owner of WTC 7 and it has been alleged that he sought to profit from an insurance policy taken out a few months beforehand. However, as he only insured it for less than the rebuilding cost, it’s not at all clear that he ever made any money. Certainly he could have done better in a few hours playing the hedge fund market at no personal risk to himself.

Fundamentally, in an epic conspiracy about creating long term war between the West and Islam, it seems vanishingly unlikely that they would allow one guy to tack on his own minor private enterprise and risk the whole operation.

In conclusion

I don’t see any credible motive for making WTC 7 a specific target. If it wasn’t a target, than it becomes an accident (‘collateral damage’).

Obviously, the lack of a motive doesn't in itself prove that it wasn't pre-planned so I'll move on to the next part tomorrow.

[جوري]

WTC 7 is the anomaly that causes the most trouble for all sides

Do you have a more cohesive explanation for WTC 7 besides the above? It is hardly satisfactory even to school kids!

[MustafaMc]

The first area I want to look at is a 'motive' for the WTC 7 attack specifically.

You completely missed the point of my posting the video. It was not for you to refute anything that was said in it but merely to provide a visual reference for what most obviously to me is a controlled demolition and NOT a result of 'collateral damage' from the falling Twin Towers. I was wanting to see if you were honest enough to admit the same or if you would offer some red herring (like motive) to distract from the key point.

If you can watch this video and tell me it fell only due to damage from the falling Twin Towers and resulting diesel-fueled fires and not as a result of controlled implosive demolition, then I will rest my case.

Since you state

I don’t see any credible motive for making WTC 7 a specific target. If it wasn’t a target, than it becomes an accident (‘collateral damage’).

it is apparent to me that you deny the obvious and are trying to get me to chase you down an irrelevant rabbit hole.

[Independent]

You completely missed the point of my posting the video. It was not for you to refute anything that was said in it but merely to provide a visual reference for what most obviously to me is a controlled demolition

Yes I did misunderstand you. However, I think it was clear enough what I was going to do:

I will look at this video and then answer the evidence it contains to the best of my ability

So, are you saying to me that the visual evidence is 100% of what I'm supposed to deal with? I just watch the video of that building falling down and I either 'deny the obvious' or agree with you? No one can make that kind of assessment from the video alone. Not even an expert. Even Richard Gage wouldn't dream of relying just on that. You cannot randomly decide to take one single exclusive piece of evidence, refuse to consider anything else, and then tell me that I am 'denying the obvious'.

Have you read all the firemen testimonies? Forget about videos. Those guys were actually there, standing in that building on that day. They all agree, they could see it was coming down many, many hours beforehand. Not just the bosses, the ordinary guys. The same guys who spent the next weeks and months going to the funerals of their dead colleagues. You think they could stand at the graveside and lie to the widows and and families of their own mates? Knowing it could just as easily have been they themselves that died? You think they could do that?

It's 10 years later. The video I want to see is of all the luxury houses these firemen live in today from their supposed bribes.

[جوري]

What is the 'anything' else we're meant to consider just to cut through the crap!

[MustafaMc]

I just watch the video of that building falling down and I either 'deny the obvious' or agree with you? No one can make that kind of assessment from the video alone. Not even an expert.

Yes, of course they can. It was very obvious even to high school physics teacher David Chandler as he analyzed the video per the laws of physics. The FACT that the building fell at free-fall acceleration for 2.5 seconds means there was absolutely ZERO resistance to the collapse and it fell for 2.5 seconds at exactly the same rate as a bowling ball would have fallen if dropped from the top of WTC at the same instant the collapse initiated. The ONLY way for this to have happened is for ALL of the supporting steel columns to be removed at EXACTLY the same instance. It is obvious to me that you are either incapable of scientific thinking or a dishonest person and that you most likely are paid to discredit any attempt to question the official story for the collapse of WTC1,2 & 7. Your jumping on PNAC's document to counter the 'Pearl Harbor' statement and your refusal to acknowledge the obvious implosive collapse of WTC7 per the comment by the reporter (Dan Rather I think) at the end of the video with completely irrelevant motive and emotive (no pun intended) mumbo-jumbo just proves that meaningful discussion with you is pointless. I rest my case with this video.

[Independent]

I’m going to ignore all the personal stuff.

So you watch this video and you have no questions? You just swallow the whole thing, you don’t think maybe you ought to check some of the claims out? And you call that being scientific? Why do you trust Chandler so easily? Do you know him or something?

Is controlled demolition the only possible explanation for what was observed of building WTC7? No it isn’t. The NIST account of the collapse is accepted by the vast majority of industry professionals. You, as a non-professional, can of course choose to believe Chandler rather than them. I don’t see how you have the technical knowledge to make that choice - no more do I.

The more you study Chandler’s claims, the less they stack up. Across the board he has presented evidence selectively, taken quotes out of context, or just simply failed to offer any reasonable explanation. The more I read about this, the more I am convinced that the Truthers – ironic name – cannot be trusted.

When Chandler says the building was falling at freefall speeds, he is lying. He tells you he’s lying within the video itself if you listen carefully enough. More of that in a moment. If this video is still available, then he is also deceiving us by showing and referring to the pre-circulated draft NIST report, not the final published version.

Controlled demolition is not the only explanation, which means there is no irreducible ‘fact’ at the core of his argument. I’m going to give some quotes from JREF, a forum like this one set up in 1996 to examine unlikely claims from a scientific point of view. It’s not a political forum. Members include a wide range of specialists across many fields. Their level of expertise is obvious when you read their posts. Robust views are exchanged, as you might expect. The thread I quote from is massive and goes on for many years – please read the rest of it, it’s very interesting. (It starts here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=128194).

Just to add a bit of spice to it David Chandler himself joined the forum under his own name in order to put his case (not very satisfactorily but there you go). Several blatant ‘Truther’ trolls also intervene at times.

And if you think they’re all liars too, why don’t you join their forum and explain to them why? See how you get on?

Freefall – Chandler’s view

The official account is contained in the NIST report (National Institute of Standards and Technology 2008). Chandler says that NIST makes ‘dishonest claims’ about the rate of acceleration of the fall. In fact NIST was neither wrong nor dishonest, but it doesn’t give enough detail about the variation in the rate. The draft report only gave an averaged rate of acceleration for the whole period of the fall. However, for the first 2.5 seconds it is much faster (close to but not at freefall). Chandler sent them this information at the draft stage. NIST agreed with this and incorporated it into the published version of the document. This added a no more than couple of pages to a 1000 page report, the rest of which Chandler does not dispute. In its final form, there is no significant disagreement between Chandler’s figures and NIST’s on this issue.

However, Chandler is rather less than scrupulous with his own analysis. In the video you post he describes how he calculates the acceleration of the fall, which he says is close to the rate of freefall. This is correct as far as it goes. Because of the poor video quality there is a margin for error of 1 second, as both he and NIST observe. But now Chandler plays some language games: ‘The most accurate way to characterize the result is to say, the acceleration of the building is indistinguishable from freefall.”

No, it is not the most accurate description. He’s just changed the meaning very significantly to allow people like you to say ‘there was absolutely ZERO resistance to the collapse.’

Later in the video he drops the qualifier altogether: “For a significant two and half seconds the building was in literal freefall.” NO IT WASN’T. Both his result and NIST’s give figures somewhat less than freefall rates. His own analysis, because of the margin for error, tells him it’s actually impossible for him to know this one way or the other. In other words, the collapse did meet some resistance from the start, which increased significantly after 2.5 seconds.

He also fails to take account of the prior internal collapse, as discussed below.

Chandler compared with NIST

Essentially, there is surprisingly little difference between the NIST account of the building collapse and Chandler’s. Where they disagree is in the interpretation. As one of the JREF professionals comments:

‘What you have found is an effect. NIST agrees with that effect. What you are now claiming instead is a cause, but you have not demonstrated that your cause is the one and only explanation. Until you do so, our argument remains with you.’

Note also the last quote I give below, where they point out the differences (and fundamental limitations) of trying to apply abstract, classroom physics to real-world, messy engineering problems. There is a reason why physics teachers teach physics and not structural engineering.

As I say the thread is massive but I’ve picked out a few interesting quotes:

1.
What you see on the video is the outside of the building, but that’s only part of the story. The building was already collapsing inside, as confirmed by the seismic record and the prior collapse of the penthouse. The internal collapse began about 10 seconds before the external wall comes down:

“THIS is the core of my (& NIST's) argument, that there was very little of the structural support of the external walls still intact when their collapse began.

The fact that the vast majority of the internal structure of the building had long since (~ 10 seconds) failed is indisputable from the collapse of the penthouses. Sequencing video evidence of reporters on the street hearing the collapse begin with lateral motions of the roofline of the building, you can reliably push the start of the collapse of the internal structure back 18 seconds before the external walls began to fall.”

2.
The term ‘freefall’ is inaccurate. No part of the building fell at pure freefall –however, one part fell at near freefall for 2.4 secs:

“Chandler says that the exterior North Wall falls "at G". He hasn't said a whole bunch that I've seen about the internal collapse process.

Chandler is wrong.

NIST says ONLY that the external walls fall at accelerations that are less than G, but rise for short periods to values that are "approximately equal to G". NIST says that the building as a whole does NOT collapse "from top down", but rather "from inside (column 79 - 81) spreading towards the external walls".

NIST is right. Mostly. They have made a couple of small errors.

NOBODY but you says "the intact top part of WTC7 free falls". This silliness is, no doubt, a bad habit left over from your WTC towers nonsense….….My best estimates of the numbers are:

1. the average acceleration between 1.75 seconds & 4.00 seconds is .94G.
2. the peak acceleration between those two times is .99 G.
3. the time after the start of the collapse of the exterior wall that it took to accelerate from zero G's to .98 G is about 2.6 seconds.”


3. The building does not fall as a single unit, as it might appear to the unqualified observer looking at the video. The collapse starts in one place and progresses:

“The whole top structure does NOT fall as a unit. It fails first near the core columns (79 - 81), and the failure wave moves horizontally outward towards the walls. It takes almost 7 seconds for this wave to reach the outer walls. CLEARLY proving that upper floors of the structure did NOT fall as an intact unit…….The internal structure does NOT fall in free fall. The pieces & parts collide with elements below, and are thereby slowed far below "free fall" acceleration.”


4. David Chandler is a high school physicist, not a practicing structural engineer. This is how one professional views him:

“You are frankly incompetent in the field of structural engineering, structural mechanics and failure mechanics of large buildings. The ULTIMATE analysis ain't physics. It's engineering. It's messy. Things in the real world don't fall in a vacuum, they don't have zero friction, they don't behave like rigid bodies or perfect gasses.

You have been dealing in physics-type absolutes. You slide casually & carelessly from "fell at almost G", to "fell, for all intents, at G", to "fell at G". You then opine that "for something to fall at G, there has to be zero resistance". The correct phraseology is "for it to have fallen at approximately G, there has to be approximately zero resistance."

And, as I have drummed into about 20 baby engineers that I've helped mold in my career, "unless you know the cold, hard numbers as well as the nerdy error bands, you don't know Jack." Without an error analysis, you do NOT know how "approximately close to G" you can claim. Without a solid background in structural dynamics, you do not know "how approximately close to zero" can be the resisting force generated by a structure in the process of buckling.

You thought that your results proved something that was impossible in a gravity driven collapse of a building. And, in the pristine physics terms that you've phrased it ("it fell at gravitational acceleration'), it might be impossible. But once you throw in the real world's messiness, then your "impossible event" turns into "not surprising at all".


“I would be willing to bet my and my wife's entire pensions up against yours that no short of 100,000 engineers WORLDWIDE have looked at this. If there was a problem, don't you think that the majority of them would be screaming for anyone and everyone to pay attention?? Engineers (IMHO) like to analize things. Right??”

“….9 years and counting and not a single paper in an accepted academic peer reviewed journal in a relevant field. Not one.”

To summarise:

There is surprisingly little difference between the two accounts of the collapse. However, Chandler attributes the cause to explosives despite the fact that far less remarkable causes are perfectly possible. Unlike the vast majority of all the experts, witnesses and participants, who together number hundreds if not thousands, Chandler is overtly political in motivation whereas they are not.

It is manifestly untrue for him, or you, to say that controlled demolition is the only possible explanation for WTC 7. And once there is doubt about the core of his argument, the rest of his extraordinary explanations about how the explosives got there fall to pieces.

Therefore by Occam’s Razor –the official collateral damage explanation is the one we should follow unless significant new evidence emerges.

[جوري]

I’m going to ignore all the personal stuff.

Yet you're free to dispense it? including adhoms against the scientists by finding another character to insult him? funny stuff!
before you edited your post you wrote that Br. Mc isn't a professional.. well in fact he's a scientist- you on the other hand aren't per your own admission, you prefer to imbue whatever is dished out to you. Well the rest can use their minds and you're most welcome to shut off yours.
The above is still not a refutation.. I notice the tighter the noose around your neck the more padding you add to your words. Why don't you follow the advise in your closing statement and follow Occam's razor. i.e cut the crap and offer the simplest and most logical explanation, not search the web for adhoms on the character rather than the fact?

you're aware that at some point Hitler hired a group of 'scientists' to debunk Einstein? Now they just hire net shills and they still come up so comically empty!

best,

[Independent]

including adhoms against the scientists by finding another character to insult him?

I'm just hazarding a guess here, but maybe people don't like being called mass murderers when they're just going about their daily job.

in fact he's a scientist

Scientist, yes. Professional structural engineer, no. There is a difference and it's kind of important.

The above is still not a refutation

That's it? That's the extent of your counter argument? You actually have nothing?

[جوري]

I'm just hazarding a guess here, but maybe people don't like being called mass murderers when they're just going about their daily job.

What does this mean?

Scientist, yes. Professional structural engineer, no. There is a difference and it's kind of important.

One puts the same neurons to work and make connections that's how one acquires a PhD or a doctorate in the first place, by being able to think in an abstract fashion and come up with theories and put them to practice rather than be fed them and accept them at face value.

That's it? That's the extent of your counter argument? You actually have nothing?

outside of adhoms and appeals to 'professionalism' you've not offered much for me to counter. I am of the original opinion and until you can come up with something practical and not empirical to refute it. You'll spin a web of sophistry and still be none the wiser and with the desire to dupe as many fools along with you..

best,

[جوري]

And just for funsies .. this takes things from where you left off!



best,

[Independent]

What does this mean?

Chandler is in effect calling the engineers mass murderers (ie complicit in a cover up). I think if they choose to give him a slightly hard time verbally in return, it's fair enough.

The new video you have posted does not change anything. That's because it was the publication of this same video, and the final version of the NIST report, that initiated the whole thread which I quote from. In other words, they are already incorporating all this information in their discussion. Although the engineers agree with the main thrust of the NIST report they do have some quibbles, as they tell us. One of them relates to the loose use of the word 'freefall'. Please read the whole thread, I have only given a few excerpts to cover some of the main points. (By the way, they also think the NIST spokesman didn't exactly cover himself in glory on the podium, although they don't see anything sinister in it.)

As the quotes I have already given tell you, both NIST and Chandler are too glib with the term 'freefall'. Far from bending over to cover their tracks, NIST seem amazingly unaware of the political sensitivity of this word. In any case, Chandler's own figures don't show absolute freefall, as he tells us at the start of the other video (although from this point onwards he treats it as if it does). 'Close' to freefall is not the same as absolute freefall.

More importantly, Chandler fails altogether to deal with the prior interior collapse of the building. The first we can see of this in the video is the collapse of the penthouse, but the process began earlier (as the seismic record shows).

This means that by the time walls began to come down, there was already very little left to slow them down in the upper storeys. Once it began to hit the more intact lower structures the collapse slowed. The engineers don't see this as surprising or strange, because they don't have a political theory to justify on top of it.

The idea that WTC 7 collapsed in 'freefall' is one of the central claims of the whole story. It's the prime justification for the notion that explosives were used, as Chandler says. If the worldwide profession of structural engineers do not support Chandler's interpretation, it is not accurate or reasonable to say 'there is no other explanation.'

[جوري]

Chandler is in effect calling the engineers mass murderers (ie complicit in a cover up). I think if they choose to give him a slightly hard time verbally in return, it's fair enough.

The point is you were proclaiming to take the 'high road' of ignoring the personal aspects of the posts directed against you, yet your entire post was riddled with nothing but!

I am yet to see the 'other explanation' for the free fall!

best,

[Independent]

I am yet to see the 'other explanation' for the free fall!

For the third time, there was:

a) no absolute freefall, so it doesn't require explaining
b) part of the interior structure had already collapsed, thus providing minimal resistance, so whether or not the external walls fell at near freefall speeds for 2.5 seconds still doesn't prove controlled demolition.

Mustafa (and Chandler) have said that there is 'no other possible explanation'. But there is, and it's the one most structural engineers share. What technical knowledge do you have to contradict them?

Once you realise that the freefall story isn't the irreducible fact it's supposed to be, then the rest of the theory also unravels. In particular there is the impossibility of all the explosives and miles of interconnecting wiring surviving the fires and the damage by the South Tower. WTC7 was penetrated to a depth of about 25% in places. It is beyond credulity that this somehow missed all the wiring and explosives.

Then you have the problem of how to get the explosives in place. This is an operation that normally takes months of preparation in an empty building where no one is around to object when you cut away to the girders.

All this is so difficult that Richard Gage, found of A&E for 9/11, has suggested on tv that the explosives were laid in place when WTC was built. That was in 1989! He is seriously suggesting that the guys who are supposed to have planned 9/11 sat on what was literally a death trap for 12 years! All for the sake of justifying an invasion of Afghanistan, which at the time was still under Soviet control!

You couldn't make this stuff up. Except that they do, of course.

[جوري]

What technical knowledge do you have to contradict them?

What technical knowledge have you to contradict a free fall? and even if by some complete lapse of judgement I am to accept this mysterious other theory which you're yet to share, why didn't it impact any other buildings in the vicinity in a similar style especially those who were closer to the other two towers than WTC7.

[Independent]

What technical knowledge have you to contradict a free fall? and even if by some complete lapse of judgement I am to accept this mysterious other theory which you're yet to share, why didn't it impact any other buildings in the vicinity in a similar style especially those who were closer to the other two towers than WTC7.

You really have no idea what you're talking about do you? It's just meaningless to talk about a 'freefall theory that doesn't impact other buildings in the area'. Utterly meaningless.

The idea that WTC 7 collapsed in freefall is meant to prove that that it collapsed as a result of explosives. No one is suggesting that the other buildings surrounding WTC 7 were wired with explosives.

What youprobably meant to ask, although it's hard to be sure what you're on about, is how come the other buildings around WTC 7 didn't collapse. This issue has nothing to do with the freefall issue. We can talk about that too if you want, but it's got nothing directly to do with anything in the videos posted.

[جوري]

You really have no idea what you're talking about do you?

That's more an adequate assessment of what you're doing here!

It's just meaningless to talk about a 'freefall theory that doesn't impact other buildings in the area'. Utterly meaningless.

Why meaningless- because you haven't a logical piece of information to justify the event?
Go ahead and explain to us what caused WTC 7 to collapse the way it did and go ahead as well and explain why buildings closer to the other towers weren't impacted in a similar fashion. We'll be waiting.. try to cut the crap though, the padding and the adhoms and get to the facts!

best,

[Independent]

Go ahead and explain to us what caused WTC 7 to collapse the way it did

Do you understand why the freefall issue is the single most important issue to the whole argument?

explain why buildings closer to the other towers weren't impacted in a similar fashion

Every building is unique. The 1000 page NIST report goes into enormous detail about the structure of WTC 7 and its weaknesses. In particular, these relate to the problems of constructing over a subway station (unique to WTC 7). This meant that a large area within the total perimeter of the building had to be supported from the sides - a kind of bridge or platform if you like. The NIST computer modelling showed that this resulted in disproportionate dependence being placed on certain structural pillars, and also a propensity to progressive collapse. The individual Structural Engineer responsible for the original WTC 7 design accepted the analysis. The damage from the impact of the South Tower was so great that the senior fireman on the scene immediately predicted it would ultimately collapse. In addition, the inability of the firefighters to obtain water pressure (because of the collapse of the Towers) meant that, in effect, the fire raged largely unchecked for more than 5 hours. No other high rise building in the world has ever experienced the same conditions. Other buildings around WTC 7 were also damaged and set on fire, but none had the other weaknesses. Also, in any major catastrophe of this scale (an earthquake, tsunami etc) there is a certain random factor about which buildings survive and which collapse.

[جوري]

Do you understand why the freefall issue is the single most important issue to the whole argument?

Do you understand that proving one thing inaccurate (which you're yet to do in actuality and without resorting to some logical fallacy) isn't in and of itself a substitute for you providing a logical and cohesive piece to what actually occurred?

Every building is unique. The 1000 page NIST report goes into enormous detail about the structure of WTC 7 and its weaknesses. In particular, these relate to the problems of constructing over a subway station (unique to WTC 7). This meant that a large area within the total perimeter of the building had to be supported from the sides - a kind of bridge or platform if you like. The NIST computer modelling showed that this resulted in disproportionate dependence being placed on certain structural pillars, and also a propensity to progressive collapse. The individual Structural Engineer responsible for the original WTC 7 design accepted the analysis. The damage from the impact of the South Tower was so great that the senior fireman on the scene immediately predicted it would ultimately collapse. In addition, the inability of the firefighters to obtain water pressure (because of the collapse of the Towers) meant that, in effect, the fire raged largely unchecked for more than 5 hours. No other high rise building in the world has ever experienced the same conditions. Other buildings around WTC 7 were also damaged and set on fire, but none had the other weaknesses. Also, in any major catastrophe of this scale (an earthquake, tsunami etc) there is a certain random factor about which buildings survive and which collapse.

This is a non-reply and I told you to cut the crap. Most of the buildings there are built of the same material, stand on the same grounds and follow the same guidelines. I don't have to be a 'technical expert' but I do have two uncles who are civil, and architectural engineers and one of them is responsible for the building of the cairo airport and I have seen his compendiums of what goes into designing a building. From the ground, to the material to aesthetics even to the landscapes of it and how in a articular area most of the buildings follow the exact same design, same ground mathematics -- so again hows about your cut the crap and not get into the 1000 page jargon if you yourself desire to be in keeping with Occam's razor and not just to drop heavy words around as if no one will have a clue what you're referring to?

best,

[Independent]

Do you understand that proving one thing inaccurate (which you're yet to do in actuality and without resorting to some logical fallacy) isn't in and of itself a substitute for you providing a logical and cohesive piece to what actually occurred?

This issue isn't significant for me or the NIST version, but for it is for Chandler. There are any number of reasons to reject his theory otherwise (such as the ridiculous planting of the explosives 12 years beforehand, which you have not answered). However, if he can demonstrate freefall, he believes he has one irreducible fact that cannot be explained except by explosives.

Most of the buildings there are built of the same material, stand on the same grounds and follow the same guidelines.

Breathtakingly ignorant. Please join the JREF forum so you can be ridiculed appropriately.

[جوري]

Breathtakingly ignorant.

I take it as usual you've nothing of substance to contribute to either questions raised save your adhoms? Ok, just so I too wouldn't bother wasting my time like br. Mc.

best,

[Independent]

I take it as usual you've nothing of substance to contribute to either questions raised save your adhoms? Ok, just so I too wouldn't bother wasting my time like br. Mc.

Throughout the whole course of this thread you have offered not one single explanation for any of the issues around the WTC 7 collapse. Instead, you have changed the subject repeatedly by asking new questions.

Not one single answer.

[جوري]

Throughout the whole course of this thread you have offered not one single explanation for any of the issues around the WTC 7 collapse. Instead, you have changed the subject repeatedly by asking new questions.

Not one single answer.

That was the job that you decided to take upon yourself? You're struggling and expect us to do your homework for you? We don't accept the official account. You've no reason to deny it yet failed to substantiate it, I rather think it is plain to the naked eye that the onus is on you, especially that you're getting paid to sit on forums such as these and do your bit. You're failure to do your bit falls completely on your shoulders not anyone else'

best,

[Independent]

We don't accept the official account.

That's it! That's the entire extent of your analysis!

Please explain to me how your grand theory holds up if the explosives were planted in 1989?

[جوري]

That's it! That's the entire extent of your analysis!

Please explain to me how your grand theory holds up if the explosives were planted in 1989?

Again, you set out to do a job and you failed. My job isn't to work with your changing variables as a result of your failure. Rather I joined to discuss br. Mustafa's point of views and have done so in the first couple of pages. If you don't like the evolution of the thread then concede your surrender and remove yourself from the discussion.

best,

[Independent]

You're much keener on asking questions than you are on answering them.
\
This directly affects Mustafa's post and your insane grand theory.

How does planting the explosives in 1989, when the Soviets were still in control of Afghanistan, how does that makes sense if Afghanistan was the target?

[جوري]

You're much keener on asking questions than you are on answering them.

That's how intelligent people learn, unfortunately you've elected yourself to complete a job and failed! That reflects only on you not my ability or inability to answer Q's.
Why don't you answer the two questions posed to you before introducing new ones?

best,

[Independent]

This is funny!

Now you can't even make up stuff for your own crazy theory!

You can say anything at all - no need for reality to intervene!

[جوري]

Now you can't even make up stuff for your own crazy theory!

I take it as we've already concluded pages ago that you've nothing of substance to contribute aside from your incessant need to take up web space trolling?

best,

[MustafaMc]

For the third time, there was:
a) no absolute freefall, so it doesn't require explaining

Earlier you wrote: "My best estimates of the numbers are:
1. the average acceleration between 1.75 seconds & 4.00 seconds is .94G.
2. the peak acceleration between those two times is .99 G." I assume that by 'G' you mean 'free fall acceleration'. A better term than free fall would be 'gravitational acceleration' which is 9.80665 m/s². Do you know what .94 G stands for? If the building fell with 0.94 G acceleration (not speed, but rather change in the rate of speed until terminal velocity is achieved) then it fell at 9.218 m/s². This is an average across time before and after the 2.5 seconds of 'peak acceleration' of 0.99 G. This is an illustration that you are incapable of critical thinking because 0.99 is awfully close to 1.00. Yes, there was an internal collapse prior to the exterior of the building falling as evidenced by the penthouse; however, the internal structure was connected to the external walls through the floor and the fall of the exterior wall at gravitational acceleration is evidence of no significant resistance as would be encountered in a 'pancake' collapse. Now if the internal structural columns had all been cut at the same time then there would be no resistance to the upper floors falling. Imagine a stack of 47 boxes and then giving the bottom 5 boxes a swift kick. The top box would fall at an acceleration rate of 9.8 m/s² until it encountered other boxes below.

[MustafaMc]

How does planting the explosives in 1989, when the Soviets were still in control of Afghanistan, how does that makes sense if Afghanistan was the target?

I haven't heard a theory for when or how any explosives were placed in WTC7 which is irrelevant to the present discussion. The question is whether the simulation model that NIST used to show the feasibility of progressive pancake collapse or a controlled implosive demolition is the simplest explanation that explains the available data. To my knowledge the computer model and its hypothetical assumptions have not been made public. How does this model explain the BBC broadcasting live that WTC7 had collapsed while it was still visible behind the reporter saying it had collapsed? How does it explain evidence of incendiary thermite including iron-rich microspherules and rapid oxidation and intergranular melting of steel columns?

[MustafaMc]

I take it as usual you've nothing of substance to contribute to either questions raised save your adhoms?

I take it as we've already concluded pages ago that you've nothing of substance to contribute aside from your incessant need to take up web space trolling?

I have read a lot of words, but I could discern nothing of any substance to change my opinion. Does the phrase, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with BS" by W.C. Fields ring a bell?

[جوري]

"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with BS" by W.C. Fields ring a bell?

Yup and it was an unfortunate read for the waste of my time.

:w:

[Independent]

This is an illustration that you are incapable of critical thinking because 0.99 is awfully close to 1.00.

No point in trying to put me down here, this is a quote from one of the Structural Engineers, not me. If you don’t agree with them, go and say it to them.

You have claimed that there is no other credible explanation other than controlled demolition for the ‘freefall’ episode. To contradict this statement, it’s necessary for me to show that there is another explanation accepted by a significant number of qualified people - and this I have done. The great majority of Structural Engineers do not agree with you or Chandler.

Despite the name ‘Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth’, most of their membership are neither. They have failed to recruit the industry to their cause. As far as I have seen, none of them were actually present at the collapse.

Why don’t you listen to the people who were actually there? The first senior fireman on the scene after the South Tower hit could see instantly that the damage was terminal and that the building would collapse. There never was any need to ‘explain’ the collapse, it was plain from the first. All these theories have been generated by people who were not at the scene.

This is why there were no casualties in WTC 7.

One of the many insidious acts of the Truthers has been to trawl through fireman and bystander testimonies to find phrases like ‘it sounded like an explosion’ etc. These have been taken out of their context and published together. In context, any apparent significance disappears. The Truthers may have isolated quotes, but they don’t have ‘testimony’. Not one emergency worker supports their account. There simply is no convincing account of the upwards of 100 sequenced explosions that would have been necessary to bring down this building. In addition, it doesn’t show up on the seismic record.

I haven't heard a theory for when or how any explosives were placed in WTC7 which is irrelevant to the present discussion.

This doesn't seem to make sense – did you mean to say ‘relevant’ instead of ‘irrelevant’?

It’s almost impossible to see how any explosives could have been laid in place. In a normal controlled demolition, the building is literally ripped apart to prepare it over a period of months, expose beams etc. Similar problems bedevil the Twin Towers conspiracy theories. There is no single period of opportunity that works for all three locations. Even the episodes that have been suggested (renovations etc) are not really suitable for the work required, or don’t cover enough of the building. In the case of WTC 7, the notion that it could have been done in 1989 is doubly crazy because the explosives are not stable over such a long period.

How does it explain evidence of incendiary thermite including iron-rich microspherules and rapid oxidation and intergranular melting of steel columns?

Again and again, it's as if you only have read the Truthers side of these arguments, not the debunking. Both of these issues have been answered extensively and it would take another 10 pages to do it here. Surely you must have read some of this. Some of the Truthers material is deliberately falsified, changing the date on photos etc.

In the case of thermite, or ‘nano thermite’ (it’ll be kryptonite next), there is almost no experience of using this for controlled demolition (just one building in the 1930s I think). In addition, it can only be used on horizontal beams (so why do they show photos of supposedly ‘cut’ vertical beams?). It’s hard to believe anyone would risk using such an unusual, untested material in a circumstance where 100% success was crucial. It’s just one more improbability heaped upon a mountain of others.

Whichever form of explosive was used, it would have required literally miles of wiring running upstairs and downstairs plus other items like detonator caps etc, parts of which always survive the explosion. No such items were found by the many 100s of workers who cleared the site. For this reason, Truthers have to include hundreds of construction workers into the conspiracy too, along with all the firemen etc.

How does this model explain the BBC broadcasting live that WTC7 had collapsed while it was still visible behind the reporter saying it had collapsed?

It’s strange how you don’t want to talk about the practicalities of laying explosives - without which the event could not have taken place - but you do lay stress on the opinions and behaviours of tv journalists – which affects nothing.

During an event like this there is terrific confusion. In this day of instant, live news, many false reports are given and later corrected. Everyone knows the Twin Towers by name, but WTC 7 was not exactly an iconic building. The BBC analysed how this mistake was made. The original report was picked up by Reuters from a local news agency. By the time they had corrected it, the BBC had already made their broadcast. In addition, it was known many hours beforehand that WTC 7 was going to collapse, and this information was not a secret. This is mildly embarrassing for the BBC, but not otherwise significant. Amazing that you should find this worth spending more than a minute on.

*Lastly

The WTC 7 collapse is a highly complicated argument involving all kinds of specialisms, as well as a vast mountain of testimony. Yet, you react very emotionally to any suggestion that I should not simply ‘look at Chandler’s video’ and be instantly converted. So emotionally, that you resort to the old McCarthyite strategem, 'if you don't agree with me, you must one of them'. You are in practice accusing me of being a mass murderer. You are obliged to lump thousands of eyewitnesses and ordinary workers into the same category for this theory to hold together. I have the benefit of knowing for certain that you're talking crap about me, and I also put my trust in all those ordinary guys going about their jobs, rather than a bunch of self appointed experts like Chandler and Gage, who have made a career out of 9/11. Follow the money - it doesn't lead to Silverstein - it goes straight to Gage and the Truthers.

[MustafaMc]

Independent, you are free to believe whichever conspiracy theory you want as I am to question it. Given the results of 9/11 including 2 wars that have cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars and legislation that effectively has set in place legal structure for the USA to become a police state with the USA Patriot Act and National Defense Authorization Act, the official story of KSM, OBL, 19 'Muslims', boxcutters and 4 planes doesn't make sense to me. These results seem entirely disproportional to the threat to national security of terrorists in an Afghani cave. However, these results are consistent with a neo-conservative plan to massively rebuild and expand the American military to establish global hegemony that needed a ‘Pearl Harbor’ event to set in motion. There is no question that today USA is more hated and its interests overseas more threatened today than it was onSeptember 10, 2001, not as a result of Al-Qaeda, but the actions of the USA. Before our invasion of Iraq there was no Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq whereas today it is a hotbed for terroristic attacks and activities spreading over into Syria.

The official theory and the resulting NISTand Commission reports seem exceptionally far fetched; whereas, the video by Chandler and the evidence presented on ae911truth.org make much more sense to me. There yet remain many unanswered questions related to how the explosives were placed and who would have been responsible, but I see your accusing me of lumping "thousands of eyewitnesses and ordinary workers" into this group of "mass murderers"is an attempt to discredit me rather than critically looking at the evidence.There were relatively few people who would have orchestrated this event, but many have been complicit with the cover up for whatever reason including cognitive dissonance and fear of becoming ostracized as a 'crazy conspiracy theorist'. I do not know how explosive and incendiary devices could have been secretly placed, but wireless detonators would preclude the necessity for miles of wires.

I do see that how explosives were placed is irrelevant to the question of whether the buildings collapsed as a result of controlled demolition, or from pancake collapse. The improbability of the one does not affect the probability of the other to me. There is no question that 9/11 was the most significant event in recent history and that it iscontinually being used as justification for unjust wars, massive expansion ofUS military and suppression of judicial rights and freedoms Americans hadbefore that date. Given the significance of this event, I am interested at looking at the scientific evidence and seeing if it supports the official story or a controlled demolition. You yourself quoted evidence of ".99G" as being inconsistent with'freefall' or gravitational acceleration, but you did not understand the significance of your statement which actually supports gravitational acceleration and the lack of structural support below. As a result you effectively discredited yourself as mindlessly parroting what others have written without any understanding. If the supporting columns had been intact, then the fall would have been asymmetrical and the rate of fall been much longer. If the collapse was the result of pancaking, then why did the 47 floors not end up in a pile like a stack of pancakes?

[Muhammad]

:salamext:

I am sorry but I will have to close this thread in line with our rule, 'No discussions on conspiracy theories will be allowed. Such conjecture benefits no one' (from: http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...s-section.html).