[quote]Sloth wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
In your words, on the very day of 9-11, this was what you thought about a terroristic attack purposefully targeted at civilians.
As an aside, Sloth, all terrorist attacks, by definition, purposely target civilians.
I realized the redundancy, and still chose to run with it. It’s for emphasis…[/quote]
What about Fort Dix?
[quote]pookie wrote:
lixy wrote:
The difference being that the terrorists have openly stated that they want as many people dead as possible.
Including their own?[/quote]
Well, they do strap them with bombs and send them on suicide missions. So the answer would be yes.
Replace the “maybe” with a “certainly” and I might agree with that statement.
[quote]Well, that’s just because the US is trying to wage those bullshit “humane” wars. As long as it holds back, you’ll always be able to defeat it with insurgencies and guerilla tactics.
If they ever go back to wars of extermination and colonization, the only place you’ll find arabs will be in history books.
[/quote]
Now you’re playing the devil’s advocate. But let’s play…
The reason the US CANNOT go back to “wars of extermination and colonization” is the ever-growing domestic opposition to the use of unwarranted violence.
As for exterminating Arabs/Muslims, that would be very hard for the US given their presence in Europe. The EU won’t sit quietly and watch the US slaughter 10% of the French population?
[quote]pookie wrote:
You’d be surprised. It’s great fun to watch the same news on CNN and then on one of the local channels. Sometimes, it’s hard to reconcile that both reports are for the same events. Too bad I don’t get Fox News, it would probably be even more fun. [/quote]
If you have France5, I highly recommend Schneidermann’s weekly “arret sur images”. It’s a decryption of the way info are presented on different channels. More often than not, the differences are mind-boggling.
Now, it’s even more exacerbated between Western media and Arab ones. Al-Jazeera for example has cameras all around Gaza and the West bank, and every time a T’sahal incursion takes place, it’s transmitted live to millions of viewers. You can see soldiers shooting with real bullets at stone throwing kids, Israeli soldiers kidnapping teenagers from their homes, tanks bombaring buildings, bulldozers crushing cars and houses, and all kinds of horrors. These regular incursions never make headline in the US press. That is, unless an Israeli is hurt in the process.
On an unrelated topic, did anyone hear about the two Brits jailed for leaking the memo where Bush tells Blair he wants to bomb Al-Jazeerra’s HQ in Doha? What do you guys make of that?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051212/scahill
My favorite bit is an interview of Rumsfeld where he accuses Al-Jazeera of propaganda;
REPORTER: Can you definitively say that hundreds of women and children and innocent civilians have not been killed?
RUMSFELD: I can definitively say that what Al Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable.
REPORTER: Do you have a civilian casualty count?
RUMSFELD: Of course not, we’re not in the city. But you know what our forces do; they don’t go around killing hundreds of civilians. That’s just outrageous nonsense. It’s disgraceful what that station is doing.
Add that to the US bombing of the Palestine hotel in Bagdad.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Just like the British got rid of the Hindu practice of wife burning, we will dispose of the satanic rituals of clitoral slashing, whipping of women for showing an ankle, beheading those who disagree with you, and so on. [/quote]
Clitorectomy is clearly condemned by Islam. But you wouldn’t know since you listen to Coulter and not to Muslims. I can give you Fatwas and opinions of scholars on the matter if you wish.
I am unaware of cases where people whip women for flashing their ankles. Please elaborate.
I never heard of beheading people simply because of a difference of opinion being condone by a government. If what you mean is that people are executed because they transgressed laws, I think many states in America do the same. It’s kinda ironic that you’d want to exterminate people simply because you disagree with their laws.
On a side note, who do you think is the most extreme government in the Arab world as far as “satanic” practices are concerned? I’d vote for Saudi Arabia. What’s your pick?
If you want to see what the residents of the ME and the peace loving Islamic people have to say about the West, I highly recommend MEMRI TV.
It drives the Jihadi nuts knowing this message gets out to the Infidel and they constantly try and attack MEMRI especially on the internet. A weak tactic at best since it completely ignores the content of the Arab media. The Arab media is usally ignored by the West. A lot of it sounds like a SNL parody but it’s not. They really think and act this way.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Hey pookie, JeffR just called… he wants his ideology back. :P[/quote]
I didn’t say I wanted wars of extermination; I simply note that humane wars do not work.
The logical conclusion is that if you’re not ready to wage total war, or damn close to it, don’t go to war.
I’m also of the opinion that one total war with NBC weaponry would pretty much convince everyone that negotiations (serious ones) are definitely the way of the future (at least if you want to have one.)
The way the US wages war now, it’s teaching every rogue nation in the world how to resist it and eventually “defeat” it. Just hunker down; hide in the populace, use guerilla tactics and patience. It worked for Hezbollah vs. Israel and it’s working for the insurgents in Iraq.
You can’t fight guerilla type wars by being nice. The guerilla hides in the population and gets support from it. You want to remove the guerilla, you have to remove the population.
If you’re not ready to do that, find some other way of getting what you want.
Public opinion? No one wants to be the ones who are perpetrating atrocities on others; no nation who’s not in dire straits or under direct attack will support genocide. Western Nations have big sticks, but are unable to use them because their people, for the most part, won’t let them.
Most atrocities and genocides have occured under one dictator or another and there’s a good reason for that.
It was probably a lot easier in the time of the British and French (and Spanish and Portuguese) empires… you didn’t have world media instantly reporting atrocities and exterminations. You could enslave populations, deport them somewhere else to do your fighting for you and very few people had to know.
I wouldn’t go that far. I think it’s that the vast majority of people would rather not have to kill other people, even strangers and, yes, enemies. I think somewhere deep down we realize that no matter how different we are culturally and socially, we’re still all human and still have a lot in common.
You can brainwash troops and dehumanize an enemy, but it’s hard to do it for an entire population, especially a free one where there’s more than one source of news.
[quote]lixy wrote:
The reason the US CANNOT go back to “wars of extermination and colonization” is the ever-growing domestic opposition to the use of unwarranted violence.[/quote]
You have to be careful. On the days following 9/11, I think the US pretty much had carte blanche to do anything it wanted as a response. If those types of attacks increased in frequency and deadliness, the people would support striking back (at anyone) more and more.
Striking Afghanistan was widely supported. The U.N., NATO, etc. Everyone was on board. Canada still has troops there for at least until 2009.
People won’t support extreme violence if they think it’s unwarranted; they don’t like to be the “bad guy,” the aggressor. But if they feel they’re defending themselves against aggression, watch out.
Depending on how the various local populations react, the French might do the job themselves. France is part of “The West” and current tense relations notwithstanding has historically been an ally of the US.
If the local populace joined the war by hitting domestically, the French authorities would react accordingly. Looking at the support Le Pen managed to get in the 2004 (I think) election, France is not just filled with open-minded multicultural-loving people.
Or look at how Japanese nationals were treated in the US and Canada during WWII. Don’t think that history could never repeat.
Not sure it’s related, but this does touch on the whole notion that terrorism and Islamist violence is simply fueled by US actions, and not by widely practiced Islamic teachings. This goes along with some of the Polls I posted in another thread.
Londonistan Calling
"The London neighborhood of the author’s youth, Finsbury Park, is now one of the breeding grounds for a new phenomenon: the British jihadist. How did a nation move from cricket and fish-and-chips to burkas and shoe-bombers in a single generation?
They say that the past is another country, but let me tell you that it’s much more unsettling to find that the present has become another country, too. In my lost youth I lived in Finsbury Park, a shabby area of North London, roughly between the old Arsenal football ground and the Seven Sisters Road.
It was a working-class neighborhood, with a good number of Irish and Cypriot immigrants. Your food choices were the inevitable fish-and-chips, plus the curry joint, plus a strong pitch from the Greek and Turkish kebab sellers. There was never much “bother,” as the British say, in Finsbury Park. Greeks and Turks might be fighting in Cyprus, but they never lifted a hand to one another in London.
Many of the Irish had republican allegiances, but they didn’t take that out on the local Protestants. And, even though both Cyprus and Ireland had all the grievances of partitioned former British colonies, it would have seemed inconceivable?unimaginable?that any of their sons would put a bomb on the bus their neighbors used.
Returning to the old place after a long absence, I found that it was the scent of Algeria that now predominated along the main thoroughfare of Blackstock Road. This had had a good effect on the quality of the coffee and the spiciness of the grocery stores. But it felt odd, under the gray skies of London, to see women wearing the veil, and even swathed in the chador or the all-enveloping burka.
Many of these Algerians, Bangladeshis, and others are also refugees from conflict in their own country. Indeed, they have often been the losers in battles against Middle Eastern and Asian regimes which they regard as insufficiently Islamic.
Quite unlike the Irish and the Cypriots, they bring these far-off quarrels along with them. And they also bring a religion which is not ashamed to speak of conquest and violence.
Until he was jailed last year on charges of soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred, a man known to the police of several countries as Abu Hamza al-Masri was the imam of the Finsbury Park Mosque. He was a conspicuous figure because, having lost the use of an eye and both hands in an exchange of views in Afghanistan, he sported an opaque eye plus a hook to theatrical effect.
Not as nice as he looked, Abu Hamza was nonetheless unfailingly generous with his hospitality. Overnight guests at his mosque’s sleeping quarters have included Richard Reid, the man in whose honor we now all have to take off our shoes at the airport, and Zacarias Moussaoui, the missing team member of September 11, 2001.
Other visitors included Ahmed Ressam, arrested for trying to blow up LAX for the millennium, and Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian who planned to don an explosive vest and penetrate the American Embassy in Paris. On July 7, 2005 (“7/7,” as the British call it), a clutch of bombs exploded in London’s transport system.
It emerged that one of the suicide murderers had been influenced by the preachings of Abu Hamza, as had two of those attempting to replicate the mission two weeks later.
In fact, the British jihadist is becoming quite a feature on the international scene. In 1998, six British citizens of Pakistani and North African descent along with two other British residents were arrested by the government of Yemen and convicted of planning to kidnap a group of tourists and attack British targets in the port of Aden (scene of the near-sinking of the U.S.S. Cole two years later).
One of the youths was the son of the tireless Abu Hamza, and another was his stepson. In December 2001, Richard Reid made his bid on the Paris?Miami flight. By then, two or three Britons had been killed in Afghanistan?fighting on the side of the Taliban.
The following year came the video butchering of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, whose abduction and murder were organized by another Briton?a former student at the London School of Economics?named Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. And the year after that, two British-passport holders, Asif Mohammed Hanif and Omar Khan Sharif, took part in a suicide attack on Mike’s Place, a Tel Aviv bar.
The British have always been proud of their tradition of hospitality and asylum, which has benefited Huguenots escaping persecution, European Jewry, and many political dissidents from Marx to Mazzini.
But the appellation “Londonistan,” which apparently originated with a sarcastic remark by a French intelligence officer, has come to describe a city which became home to people wanted for terrorist crimes as far afield as Cairo and Karachi.
The capital of the United Kingdom is, in the words of Steven Simon, a former White House counterterrorism official, “the Star Wars bar scene,” catering promiscuously to all manner of Islamist recruiters and fund-raisers for, and actual practitioners of, holy war.
In the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings, which killed 52 civilians (including a young Afghan, Atique Sharifi, who had fled to London to escape the Taliban) and injured hundreds more, I found that American television interviewers were all asking me the same question: How can this be?
Britain is the country of warm beer and cricket and rain-lashed seaside resorts, not a place of arms for exotic and morbid cults. British press coverage struck the same plaintive note. One of the murderers, Shehzad Tanweer, was a cricket enthusiast from Leeds, in Yorkshire, whose family ran a fish-and-chips shop. You can’t get much more assimilated than that.
Yet Britain’s former head of domestic intelligence, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller (and you can’t get much more British than that, either), said last year that there are more than “1,600 identified individuals” within the borders of the kingdom who are ready to follow Tanweer’s example (including those in whose honor we now all have to part with our liquids and gels at the airport).
And, according to Manningham-Buller, “over 100,000 of our citizens consider the July 2005 attacks in London justified.”
I told those who were interviewing me to go back and review the 1997 film of Hanif Kureishi’s brilliant short story “My Son the Fanatic,” and then to reread Monica Ali’s 2003 novel, Brick Lane. The film is set in a dilapidated Yorkshire mill town very like the ones that spawned the 7/7 bombers, and the book is named for an area of East London that is now mainly Bengali and Muslim but has been home to successive waves of Huguenot and Jewish immigration.
I remember leaving the cinema after seeing My Son the Fanatic, and feeling a heavy sense of depression, along with a strong premonition of trouble to come. In the figures of Parvez, the Pakistani cabdriver, and his morose son, Farid, Kureishi had captured the generational essence of the problem.
In the 1960s, many Asians moved to Britain in quest of employment and education. They worked hard, were law-abiding, and spent much of their time combating prejudice. Their mosques were more like social centers. But their children, now grown, are frequently contemptuous of what they see as their parents’ passivity. Often stirred by Internet accounts of jihadists in faraway countries like Chechnya or Kashmir, they perhaps also feel the urge to prove that they have not “sold out” by living in the comfortable, consumerist West.
A recent poll by the Policy Exchange think tank captures the problem in one finding: 59 percent of British Muslims would prefer to live under British law rather than Shari’a; 28 percent would choose Shari’a. But among those 55 and older, only 17 percent prefer Shari’a, whereas in the 16-to-24 age group the figure rises to 37 percent. Almost exactly the same proportions apply when the question is whether or not a Muslim who converts to another faith should be put to death ?
?They remind me of the 60s revolutionaries in some ways," said Hanif Kureishi as we sat in one of London’s finest Indian restaurants. “A lot of romantic talk, but a hard-core faction who will actually volunteer to go to training camps.” Making a rather sharp distinction between the new young fundamentalists and the 1960s rebels, he added that he had never met a jihadist who wasn’t militantly anti-Semitic.
Monica Ali, whose lovely novel also emphasizes the generational divide and captures the Third World?type pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric, independently told me the same thing. She had seen British television cave in to extremists who did not want her book made into a film, and who threatened trouble if the cameras were brought to the East End, but this did not alarm her as much as “the way that hatred of the Jews has become absolutely standard, all across the community.”
It’s interesting that it should be authors from Muslim backgrounds?Salman Rushdie, Hanif Kureishi, Monica Ali, the broadcaster and co-author of the Policy Exchange report Munira Mirza?who are issuing the warnings. For the British mainstream, multiculturalism has been the official civic religion for so long that any criticism of any minority group has become the equivalent of profanity. And Islamic extremists have long understood that they need only suggest a racial bias?or a hint of the newly invented and meaningless term “Islamophobia”?in order to make the British cough and shuffle with embarrassment.
Prince Charles himself, the heir to the throne and thus the heir to the headship of the Church of England, has announced his sympathy for Islam and his wish to be the head of all faiths and not just one. This may sound good, if absurd (a chinless prince who becomes head of a church because his mother dies?), but only if you forget that it was Prince Charles who encouraged the late King Fahd, of Saudi Arabia, to contribute more than a million pounds to build ? the Finsbury Park Mosque!
If you want my opinion, our old district was a lot better off when the crowned heads of the world were busy neglecting it.
Anyway, you can’t be multicultural and preach murderous loathing of Jews, Britain’s oldest and most successful (and most consistently anti-racist) minority. And you can’t be multicultural and preach equally homicidal hatred of India, Britain’s most important ally and friend after the United States.
My colleague Henry Porter sat me down in his West London home and made me watch a documentary that he thought had received far too little attention when shown on Britain’s Channel 4. It is entitled Undercover Mosque, and it shows film shot in quite mainstream Islamic centers in Birmingham and London (you can now find it easily on the Internet).
And there it all is: foaming, bearded preachers calling for crucifixion of unbelievers, for homosexuals to be thrown off mountaintops, for disobedient and “deficient” women to be beaten into submission, and for Jewish and Indian property and life to be destroyed. “You have to bomb the Indian businesses, and as for the Jews, you kill them physically,” as one sermonizer, calling himself Sheikh al-Faisal, so prettily puts it.
This stuff is being inculcated in small children?who are also informed that the age of consent should be nine years old, in honor of the prophet Muhammad’s youngest spouse. Again, these were not tin-roof storefront mosques but well-appointed and well-attended places of worship, often the beneficiaries of Saudi Arabian largesse. It’s not just the mosques, either.
In West London there is a school named for Prince Charles’s friend King Fahd, with 650 pupils, funded and run by the government of Saudi Arabia. According to Colin Cook, a British convert to Islam (initially inspired by the former crooner Cat Stevens) who taught there for 19 years, teaching materials said that Jews “engage in witchcraft and sorcery and obey Satan,” and incited pupils to list the defects of worthless heresies such as Judaism and Christianity.
What this shows is the utter futility of the soft-centered explanations of the 7/7 bombings and other outrages. It was argued for a while that the 7/7 perpetrators were victims of unemployment and poverty, until their remains were identified and it became clear that most of them came from educated and reasonably well-off backgrounds.
The excuses then abruptly switched, and we were asked to believe that it was Tony Blair’s policy in Iraq and Afghanistan that motivated the killers. Suppose the latter to be true. It would still be the case that they belong to a movement that hates Jews and Indians and all kuffar, or “unbelievers”: a fanatical sect that believes itself entitled to use deadly violence at any time. The roots of violence, that is to say, are in the preaching of it, and the sanctification of it.
If anything, Tony Blair is far too indulgent to this phenomenon. It is his policy of encouraging “faith schools” that has written sectarianism into the very fabric of British life. A non-Muslim child who lives in a Muslim-majority area may now find herself attending a school that requires headscarves.
The idea of separate schools for separate faiths?the idea that worked so beautifully in Northern Ireland?has meant that children are encouraged to think of themselves as belonging to a distinct religious “community” rather than a nation. As Undercover Mosque also shows, Blair’s government has appeased leading Muslim apologists by inviting them to join “commissions” to investigate the 7/7 attacks, and thus awarding them credibility well beyond their deserts.
A preposterous and sinister individual named Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain and a man with a public record of support for Osama bin Laden, was made a convener of Blair’s task force on extremism despite his stated belief that the BBC and the rest of the media are “Zionist controlled.”
It’s impossible to exaggerate how far and how fast this situation has deteriorated. Even at the time of the Satanic Verses affair, as long ago as 1989, Muslim demonstrations may have demanded Rushdie’s death, but they did so, if you like, peacefully. And they confined their lurid rhetorical attacks to Muslims who had become apostate.
But at least since the time of the Danish-cartoon furor, threats have been made against non-Muslims as well as ex-Muslims (see photograph), the killing of Shiite Muslim heretics has been applauded and justified, and the general resort to indiscriminate violence has been rationalized in the name of god. Traditional Islamic law says that Muslims who live in non-Muslim societies must obey the law of the majority.
But this does not restrain those who now believe that they can proselytize Islam by force, and need not obey kuffar law in the meantime. I find myself haunted by a challenge that was offered on the BBC by a Muslim activist named Anjem Choudary: a man who has praised the 9/11 murders as “magnificent” and proclaimed that “Britain belongs to Allah.”
When asked if he might prefer to move to a country which practices Shari’a, he replied: “Who says you own Britain anyway?” A question that will have to be answered one way or another."
[quote]hedo wrote:
If you want to see what the residents of the ME and the peace loving Islamic people have to say about the West, I highly recommend MEMRI TV.
It drives the Jihadi nuts knowing this message gets out to the Infidel and they constantly try and attack MEMRI especially on the internet. A weak tactic at best since it completely ignores the content of the Arab media. The Arab media is usally ignored by the West. A lot of it sounds like a SNL parody but it’s not. They really think and act this way.
Yes, this a great source to watch. It dispels the notion that extremist Islam is some tiny fringe element far removed from the mainstream. Very useful for viewing what is disseminated in many mainstream media outlets throughout the middle-east.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
lixy wrote:
For the record, none of the hijackers’ relatives were harmed.
Also for the record, the family of the alleged ringleader of the plot was hustled out of the country on a private jet, with the approval of the FBI, at a time when all flights both foreign and domestic were supposedly grounded.
This has been widely reported but I do not believe it is true. I believe they were on one of the first flights AFTER the the ban was lifted.
Does anyone have real times and dates to verify?[/quote]
You are correct. This myth was dispelled awhile back. The Bin Laden family was flown out on Sept. 20, a week after air space had been reopened. And, the members of that flight had been cleared by the FBI.
Also, why this suspicion over the Bin Laden family? I’m under the impression that there’s not a single intelligence service which believes they have any connection to Bin’s terrorism.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I find myself haunted by a challenge that was offered on the BBC by a Muslim activist named Anjem Choudary: a man who has praised the 9/11 murders as “magnificent” and proclaimed that “Britain belongs to Allah.”
When asked if he might prefer to move to a country which practices Shari’a, he replied: “Who says you own Britain anyway?” A question that will have to be answered one way or another."
I honestly think that roundups of Muslims will occur in the West, esp if an economic crisis ensues. When people see their world beginning to unravel, their countries tossed about by unknown forces, it’ll happen. If the extremists launch a major terrorist attack and/or if our economies tank badly, watch out.
Great posts Sloth.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok, here. Direct links to civil engineering journals are provided. Run through them. This is just a sample, by the way.
debunking911.com - contact with domain owner | Epik.com [/quote]
The very FIRST one ignores the massive central core like every other so-called scientific paper does. If the floors would have collapsed like the official story, the central core should have been left standing–the floors would have been like records around the spindle on a record player. Its not like in the cartoons where they saw off an upper branch of a tree and the whole tree falls down.
Debunked “pancake theory”
MIT research heavily dependent on defense department funding
MIT is the number one non-profit Department of Defense contractor in the nation, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V109/N7/glenn.07o.html
Looking for Truth in Credentials: The Peculiar WTC “Experts”
You mean what Peer reviewed engineering journal told me that 90 undamaged floors of a steel framed building offers more resistance than AIR? That’s exactly the problem–people who still believe the official story are clinging to an IMPOSSIBILITY so FUNDAMENTAL it boggles the mind.
“Can an object fall through mass 5 times greater than itself nearly as fast as it would fall through air? (When the only force available is gravity)”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/110407fall.htm
See graphic.
[quote]No, it can be explained much simpler than that. Watch the video below.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5003545088789410947%20
Look at the link above. It demonstrates the trickery you conspiracy people rely on.[/quote]
That’s simple alright. Adding 10 seconds to the collapse of a steel building that shouldn’t have fallen in the first place is just downright goofy. A piece of the roof moves, he counts to 10 and then the WHOLE building SYMMETRICALLY collapses. That’s called “grasping at straws”.
Here is a better angle of WTC 7. There is no rational way of denying what’s happening there.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm
A 47 story steel framed building just falls straight down and its the “conspiracy people” relying on “trickery” who make it look suspicious!?
Building 7 is the equivalent of a “seventh shot” fired from a six-shooter (unfortunately for the planners Flight 93 never quite made it).
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77910
And then check this link out.
The above ‘study’ was done on a mere working model, never used for official purposes. Never…In other words, the truthers built their study around a non-conclusive/non exact model. Why didn’t the “truthers” disclose that information up front?
[/quote]
Semantics and more grasping at straws–the terms “not official” or “non-conclusive/non exact model” are just cop-out terms–as in 5+5 = 9, but thats not really my “official” answer.
I was a mechanical designer for 13 years and worked exclusively with 3D CAD modeling programs–you don’t get “non exact models” with EXACT data. The flight paths from the 9/11 Report vs the NTSB model are so different, they come in from exact opposite sides of the famous “Citgo station”
DOZENS of professional commercial and military pilots reviewed the NTSB simulation, modeled from the supposedly raw, black box flight data of flt77. Again, its a very straight forward, simple question/statement…
“The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon.”
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
Again you attack the “truthers” as if THEY are the one’s being underhanded. These aren’t conspiracy theorists–they’re commercial and military pilots with about a thousand years combined experience who want to know SIMPLY–why does the NTSB info they received from FOIA not match the 9/11 Commission Report info of Flight 77 supposedly derived from the exact same information?
Listen as the truthers weave their web of deception: Phone call to NTSB regarding AA77 Flight Data Recorder
Eyewitness statements from Pentagon police officers SGT William Lagasse and SGT Chadwick Brooks jive with NTSB flight data–Flight 77 flew in from a whole different direction than stated in the 9/11 Report and could NEVER have knocked down the light poles.
Tell me guys…
If we have done SUCH A SHITTY job planning and executing the war then how in hell could our “incompetent” leaders plan such a perfectly timed and coreographed attack on ourselves with civilian equipment???
Please, logic and facts only…
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Tell me guys…
If we have done SUCH A SHITTY job planning and executing the war then how in hell could our “incompetent” leaders plan such a perfectly timed and coreographed attack on ourselves with civilian equipment???
Please, logic and facts only…
[/quote]
Depends on what the goal of the war is.
If the goal of the war is to end terrorism and make Americans safer, and maket he world a better place… then yes, its a disaster.
If the goal of the war is to make a lot of money for certain people and secure oil… the war is going perfectly.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Debunked “pancake theory”
[/quote]
When you actually now how the buildings collapsed, we’ll talk. You’ve just debunked something the NIST doesn’t even claim! The official story isn’t the “Pancake theory!” Hah! You don’t even know the most basic of facts. You’re simply regurgitating what you see on “Prison Planet” and other sites, without even checking for your self if they even know what the hell they’re talking about. Read below.
"Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence?as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse?support this sequence for each tower.
“NIST?s findings do not support the ?pancake theory? of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system?that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns?consisted of a grid of steel ?trusses? integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.”
As for the demolition theory…
List every single:
Civil engineering journal that supports this.
Structural engineering journal that supports this.
Oh hell, name any kind of engineering journal that supports this.
Name any Demolition industry relates journal supporting this.
Just name one damn paper, published in a independent and peer-reviewed journal.
One!
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Tell me guys…
If we have done SUCH A SHITTY job planning and executing the war then how in hell could our “incompetent” leaders plan such a perfectly timed and coreographed attack on ourselves with civilian equipment???
Please, logic and facts only…
[/quote]
This is why I don’t think Bush did it. He’s to stupid to pull something like this off. I think all the 9/11 conspiracies… are a conspiracy made by the government to make it look more powerful! (South Park FTW)
Of course, it could have been the evil Islamic Illuminati Zionist race of Super-Jews.
Or, alternatively, it was a bunch of pissed off Muslims who hated us because we bombed so and so, killed so and so, or supported so and so.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Not so fast there. Refer to this discussion concerning this.
And then check this link out.
The above ‘study’ was done on a mere working model, never used for official purposes. Never…In other words, the truthers built their study around a non-conclusive/non exact model. Why didn’t the “truthers” disclose that information up front?
Justwrong:
Semantics and more grasping at straws–the terms “not official” or “non-conclusive/non exact model” are just cop-out terms–as in 5+5 = 9, but thats not really my “official” answer.
I was a mechanical designer for 13 years and worked exclusively with 3D CAD modeling programs–you don’t get “non exact models” with EXACT data. The flight paths from the 9/11 Report vs the NTSB model are so different, they come in from exact opposite sides of the famous “Citgo station”
DOZENS of professional commercial and military pilots reviewed the NTSB simulation, modeled from the supposedly raw, black box flight data of flt77. Again, its a very straight forward, simple question/statement…
“The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon.”
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
[/quote]
K, I will respond to this part. It isn’t just semantics…The model was never used as part of the official investigation. It is a simple working model, period. The ground in the animation wasn’t even rendered accurately. In fact, if I remember correctly, it’s turned 20 degrees in the wrong direction. It is not a finished product. It is not meant to be treated as a finished and exact model. It is not to be used to try to derive exact data from. That’s why, in the cover letter, it specifically told them it was a working model, not used for any official purposes. They were told this, up front. End of story.
Ok, I’m a glutton for punishment. I see Justthefacts is still sticking to the free-fall speed claim. If my previous video was too complicated for him too understand, here’s another one. I’m going to invite everyone interested to follow along on this.
First the video. Then, I’ll come back and layout the timing so everyone will be able to follow along.
Edit: Hmm, I guess the site doesn’t like the video I uploaded. Or, maybe it takes a while to convert and post on the forum. It’s getting late so I’ll check back tomorrow.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
Debunked “pancake theory”
Stopped reading here. When you actually now how the buildings collapsed, we’ll talk. You’ve just debunked something the NIST doesn’t even claim! The official story isn’t the “Pancake theory!” Hah! You don’t even know the most basic of facts. You’re simply regurgitating what you see on “Prison Planet” and other sites, without even checking for your self if they even know what the hell they’re talking about. Read below.
"Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence?as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse?support this sequence for each tower.
“NIST?s findings do not support the ?pancake theory? of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system?that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns?consisted of a grid of steel ?trusses? integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.”
[/quote]
You really don’t know much about the NIST study do you? Your right though, they don’t support the “pancake theory”. They also don’t prove their own theory. As a matter of fact their own theory is mostly contradicted in their own study.
“NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers… All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing…”
So what did they do? They fudged their COMPUTER MODELS to the MAXIMUM possible parameters until they achieved a SIMULATED failure.
Like I said, I worked for 13 years as a mechanical designer using 3D solid modeling software–a $20 million dollar report, this ain’t. They couldn’t even initiate a collapse through there finite element analysis model until they pushed all their parameters to the limits (and beyond). In other words they made a model and “tweaked it” until it INITIATED collapse… and of course thats where they stopped…
NIST WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation
New Civil Engineer
06 October 2005
WORLD TRADE Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.
Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the investigators…
NIST showed detailed computer generated visualisations of both the plane impacts and the development of fires within WTC1 and WTC2 at a recent conference at its Gaithersburg HQ. But the actual collapse mechanisms of the towers were not shown as visualisations…
A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fi e models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said.
"The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls.
http://www.nceplus.co.uk/fastsearch/ArchiveArticleAssetPT/?AID=22081
Hat truss theory adds to WTC collapse controversy
New Civil Engineer
Controversy still surrounds the exact collapse mechanism of the Twin Towers, despite three years of detailed investigation by the National Institute for Science &Technology (NIST) team.
Some engineers believe the collapse was influenced by factors other than the fires caused by buring aviation fuel which weakened vital structural steel elements.
And they have accused NIST of repeatedly changing its explanation of the collapse mechanism.
Consultant Arup has frequently criticised NIST’s analysis of the collapse mechanism…
http://www.nceplus.co.uk/b_bank/search_results_details/?report_ID=6937&report_num=0&channelid=6
A more critical look:
NIST and the WTC: ‘Science’ at the Service of an Empire
The first of the specific objectives of the NIST study was to “determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft and why and how WTC 7 collapsed.” These questions are not answered for simple reasons:
Incredibly, the progressive collapse of the Twin Towers has been left out of the computer models used: “The global models of the towers extended from several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure.” Thus the structurally intact floors 1 thru 91 of WTC 1 and floors 1 thru 77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called “global” models of the towers.
Correspondingly, the temporal dimension was cut short as well: NIST gave itself the task of finding out “the probable sequence of events from the moment of aircraft impact until the initiation of global building collapse.”
In summary: The reports by NIST say nothing about how – and if! – the collapse was able to progress through dozens and dozens of structurally intact floors without being stopped. If no external energy was available e.g. in the form of explosives, this would have been the opportunity to show that no such energy was needed…
http://www.911review.com/coverup/nist.html
The NIST WTC Investigation – How Real Was The Simulation?
Unfortunately, a fundamental problem with using computer simulation is the overwhelming temptation to manipulate the input data until one achieves the desired results. Thus, what appears to be a conclusion is actually a premise. We see NIST succumb to this temptation throughout its investigation. Hence, it is unsurprising that, NIST’s theories are supported by its simulations…
The sequence of failed truss seats leading to pull-in forces on the exterior columns is central to NIST’s theory but not explained or supported by simulation. But, most of all, it is NIST’s repeated willingness to manipulate input data in order to support its hypotheses that casts doubt on the validity of its conclusions.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf
NIST didn’t model the entire collapse because it was IMPOSSIBLE under the given parameters. “WORLD TRADE Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualisations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers”
That was their chance to shut everybody up and they BLEW IT.
[quote]As for the demolition theory…
List every single:
Civil engineering journal that supports this.
Structural engineering journal that supports this.
Oh hell, name any kind of engineering journal that supports this.
Name any Demolition industry relates journal supporting this.
Just name one damn paper, published in a independent and peer-reviewed journal.
One![/quote]
How about around 30
But we could argue technical crap forever – it saves having to discuss why Porter Goss was having breakfast on the morning of 9/11 with the Pakistani General who had $100,000 wired to the lead hijacker Mohamed Atta…