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
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?
I take it as usual you've nothing of substance to contribute to either questions raised save your adhoms?
format_quote Originally Posted by شَادِنُ
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?
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.
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
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.
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
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.
format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc
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.
Last edited by Independent; 12-18-2012 at 11:26 AM.
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?
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: Posting in the World Affairs Section).
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks